Plaintiff, Blockchain Luxembourg, owns a federal trademark registration for BLOCKCHAIN and design, disclaiming the word BLOCKCHAIN. It provides blockchain-related goods and services, and operates websites at blockchain.com and blockchain.info. It defines the marks in which it claims rights in this suit in para 24 of the complaint: So yes, plaintiff disclaimed the word BLOCKCHAIN in its registration, and it is claiming rights in the word BLOCKCHAIN per se in this complaint. That’s not a show-stopper. The disclaimer will have some evidentiary weight as to the state of play on the date that the disclaimer was made, but a party can argue that it has acquired secondary meaning in the mark subsequent to that. Defendant is operating as Blockchain.io. It allegedly offers identical or related crypto coin goods and services. I guess you have to read the complaint.
Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –