|
|
|
|
|
|
by LeifCarrotson
746 days ago
|
|
|
What's the difference between selling exclusively to a third party (against whom they don't enforce their trademark) who buys exclusively from them, and actually answering the headline with "yes"? I understand there's a legal distinction, but there's so little practical difference that you'd be hard pressed to explain the distinction to a layperson. Unless maybe you got hurt by a defective item and tried to sue Target for damages. I assume this scheme is intended to insulate Target from that possibility, their lawyers would argue that you'd have to sue Bullseye Deals, LLC which has negligible assets, not their multi-billion-dollar corporation.. |
|
|
The article doesn't make any claims about exclusivity for target selling or this company buying. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I don't think the trademark claim is very strong either. Target's logo is a red circle surrounded by a white/transparent circle, surrounded by another red circle (bullseye). Their trademark application says "The mark consists of concentric circles representing a target or bullseye design." This seller's logo is a silhouette of white bull in a red circle.
There's some similar elements, but I don't think there's confusion. Target is affiliated with bullseyes, and uses bullseye in some of its trademarks, but the word bullseye by itself is not a trademark of Target.