Replies to post #20566 on SiNtx Technologies Inc (SINT)

[boston745]

Trademarks dont apply to general use like discussions here or my blog.

A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services.

[SmokerX]

Ok I found one. an example of amedica using material matters:

https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/amedica/files/pages/amedica/db/249/description/Amedica+Corporation+Executive+Summary+-+April+2016.pdf

I don't know if your argument holds weight in trademark court. Can Burger King troll MCD's and release promotional material and say as a matter of conversation whatever it is theyre doing at burger king, well I`m loving it? obviously you're safe Boston.

Sigma Aldrich holds the trademark but is the context of the word matters important? Sigma releases a publication called material matters. The use of the word matters has a different context such as "matters of fact" vs. "this why we think it matters". I don't see Sigma Aldrich caring here. My concern is Biolox trolling Amedica with a trademark cease and desist. No evidence they own it so it's probably not a legitimate concern.

But beyond legally I'd like to know prior art on this to figure out who is mimicking who on this. Who is possibly paying attention to who? Is prior art even relevant? Or is it an attempt to weaken a claim of "materials mattering"

Perhaps this seems irrelevant and I should check myself to avoid a thought train to schizophrenia, but this is the reality of corporate trademark trolling in the court room. It's hard to deem something a state of mental illness when it's collective like this.