Specsavers has moved to put permanent dibs on the commonly-used verb “should’ve” after the opticians approached the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) for a trademark.
The company used the phrase “should’ve gone to Specsavers” in it marketing and branding and has become commonly associated with the word, which has given it grounds to apply for exclusive use.
If approved, it would mean that other companies will not be able to use “should’ve” and “shouldve” in their marketing.
Despite some commentators demonstrating their surprise at the move, not everyone is as shocked.
Sally Britton, intellectual property lawyer at Mishcon de Reya, told the BBC it was not surprising that Specsavers had moved to trademark the word.
“The term “should’ve” will clearly work well from a domain name and social media perspective and therefore why would they not seek to protect it to make it easier to deal with infringements?”
Since you are here
Since you are here, we wanted to ask for your help.
Journalism in Britain is under threat. The government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and our media is run by a handful of billionaires, most of whom reside overseas and all of them have strong political allegiances and financial motivations.
Our mission is to hold the powerful to account. It is vital that free media is allowed to exist to expose hypocrisy, corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power. But we can't do it without you.
If you can afford to contribute a small donation to the site it will help us to continue our work in the best interests of the public. We only ask you to donate what you can afford, with an option to cancel your subscription at any point.
To donate or subscribe to The London Economic, click here.
The TLE shop is also now open, with all profits going to supporting our work.
The shop can be found here.
You can also SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER .
