Right if a company wanted their trademark of “Deepki” to coexist with this trademark of “Deepkit” then that is perfectly reasonable, and OP just experienced FAFO for trying to extort them.

▲

thaumasiotes 6 days ago | parent [-]

> Right if a company wanted their trademark of “Deepki” to coexist with this trademark of “Deepkit” then that is perfectly reasonable

What kind of world do you live in?

It's no more reasonable for a product to trade under "Deepki" in the presence of the established mark "Deepkit" than it would be to name a school "Stamford University".

▲

ummonk 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

You mean like UConn Stamford?

Deepki was created in 2015. Deepkit was created in 2018.

Deepki is an ESG company that has nothing to do with Typescript server frameworks (i.e. Deepkit).

There's no confusion when searching the names, and there's no confusion when pronouncing them either - "Deepki" ends in a long ee sound while "Deepkit" uses the short i sound followed by a t.

▲

bluesign 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> presence of the established mark "Deepkit"

I think this is the key point, according to EU it is not

	▲	thaumasiotes 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, according to the EU there is no documentation that any of "hundreds of thousands" of users are located in the EU. In neither case is it relevant to the idea that it is "reasonable" for Deepki to desire to use their mark in coexistence with the mark "Deepkit". Your argument is that they didn't want coexistence because the other mark didn't exist.