i dont think vgod will do anything now. they’ll just wait this one out, pretend this never happened, and by a week or two, or a month or two, this will be forgotten, not by elr members, but all other vapers. they think they’re too big of a brand to listen, and i’m worried they might be right…
1 Like
It wasn’t just ELR members it was dozens of FB groups, Reddit users and many vape advocates all over the net. Vapers stick together against this kind of draconian threat even if they’re not from the same site or even the same niche of the vaping world.
7 Likes
i really hope you’re right. and i hope this will gain momentum in case something like this happen again.
1 Like
ive gotta say it would have been nice to see some of the bigger you tube personalities get involved , but thats just my opinion and disappointment
4 Likes
Opposed Oct 18 2016.
The company opposing sells stuff branded as VPARK. Which I have to say would be hard pressed to be confused with VGOD… and just putting a V (for, I assume, Vape) in front is unlikely to be able to be granted a specific trademark to prevent it being put in front of any word, as “V” is not uniquely identifiable (you can’t get a trademark for “V”[every possible word combination] as far as I know).
{edited to add} I’ve just seen the reason for rejection that was posted… yeah, that VGO graphic could be confused with VGOD.
(As an aside the “query started date” is the date the person viewing the page views it.)
2 Likes
I wonder if that company (the one claiming to work for them) is a drive by firm… claims to have authority when it doesn’t either to scam or to get work after the fact… “hey company X, look we got offers of Y cash… employ us for a % and we can get mo-more spends”.
Another possibility is that vgod is doing this to prove it actively protects its TM’s, but the Vshen company doesn’t, as a way of appealing the rejection. I vaguely recall that TM’s must be “actively” protected, otherwise they can become invalid. If another company can say “hey, we’ve been using this name for 30 years and no one ever pulled us up on it” then the TM can be invalidated (both prior art, and non-enforcement).
3 Likes
See the official VGOD response: