Embed Notice

@wlf_warren I find it weird actually. "NJZ" is a different trademark already, they can't sue them for it unless they also had a trademark for "NJZ" and can prove they actually used it regularly, which they never did.

You can't just sue anyone because the name is an acronym of your trademark name, unless you're actively using it.

For example, Facebook can claim ownership of "FB" since they are using it themselves, and it is commonly used to refer to Facebook. So, even if they did not trademark "FB" they can fight for it if someone used "FB" under the same trademark category.

But, "NJZ"? Their name was originally "NewJeans" and they never once marketed themselves as "NJZ". So, what's the basis for their claim that they cannot use "NJZ"?

Unless they're just tying them to the fact that their contracts hasn't ended, in which case, it has nothing to do if they want to call themselves "NJZ". They can sue them for breach of contract, but not for using "NJZ".

So, what's happening here? Do they have a weird trademark law in South Korea or something? What am I missing?

@ptkorea