Well yes but actually no. The phrase “dual screen” is descriptive yes. But that is not what Nintendo called their product. The official name for the Nintendo DS is, well, Nintendo DS. So they very well could have trademarked the “DS” naming to keep for themselves for all eternity. Especially since they could argue that the shortened “DS” is distinctive since it is an abbreviation and not just a plain description.
All I’m saying is I’m surprised the asshole suits at Nintendo didn’t do it, don’t know if they tried but failed though.
I don’t think you can trademark an abbreviation just by itself, right? DS could stand for a multitude of things, so they would be hard pressed to try and prove how it couldn’t mean anything else but a (Nintendo) DS.
Well yes but actually no. The phrase “dual screen” is descriptive yes. But that is not what Nintendo called their product. The official name for the Nintendo DS is, well, Nintendo DS. So they very well could have trademarked the “DS” naming to keep for themselves for all eternity. Especially since they could argue that the shortened “DS” is distinctive since it is an abbreviation and not just a plain description.
All I’m saying is I’m surprised the asshole suits at Nintendo didn’t do it, don’t know if they tried but failed though.
I don’t think you can trademark an abbreviation just by itself, right? DS could stand for a multitude of things, so they would be hard pressed to try and prove how it couldn’t mean anything else but a (Nintendo) DS.
I think the general likeness of the product and intended use plays a large part when it comes to lawsuits regarding trademarks etc…
Consider this product:
Compare that to a fictional product, an European rustbucket of a car: the Centaur Avante DS 340.
I think this product would be more at risk of being sued by Nintendo rather than the fictional car manufacturer…