Not only do you not know what makes a potential trade mark generic, but you don’t know what a straw man is either …
You’re sort of right about the names, but know of standing in this case has the given name “Demon Hunter”, it’s a band name.
Trade mark is a registered IP right, it doesn’t matter if you intended to infringe it, you can’t trade using someone else’s registered name (in the same field of commerce, and same geographic area).
Nintendo has a line of Demon Hunter games. D&D has a class Demon Hunter.
Fwiw, games and video games fall into difference Nice classes (commercial areas of application of trade marks). Without those things being international household names in and of themselves then it’s not relevant; unless you were saying that Nintendo or a D&D company had registered the trade marks for music already.
Basing your laws on the sex and colour of skin of the people you apply them too … I think there are names for that.
You keep saying it’s generic, but you clearly don’t understand the term as used with trade marks. Generic means it describes a product. So “Step up” couldn’t be used for a stair company as competitors couldn’t then describe “adding a step up to your front door”, or whatever, without risking infringement.
Genericisation then is when a trade mark becomes used descriptively - dumpster, is a classic example, another is jeep.
“Demon Hunters” would be generic if the business operation was hunting supernatural beasts and a judge determined that to be a real occupation … a singer/songwriter who called themselves “Solo Artist” would be generic.
There’s acquired distinctiveness too, which is why “pianoman” could be a trade mark (I’m not sure if it is, probably still not distinctive enough).
Osmand app on Android is great for me (UK).
Just so you know, they didn’t provide a straw man argument (which is necessarily a weakened position[hence straw]), they provided a statement of fact. Source: degree study in logic and philosophy.
You could respond that you found the fact irrelevant, but it seemed apposite and insightful to me.
You mean people who know trade mark law would challenge your incorrect use of generic. There’s no such thing as a “generic trademark”, fwiw, though I realise you’re unwilling to learn.
Yh, you’ve still got it wrong. You 100% can do this, because a trade mark applies in a trading category (except for ‘famous’ marks). So Apple Music can have a trade mark of “Apple” for selling goods in the music category (famously infringed by Apple Computers), etc., but cannot have a trade mark for selling things with the mark Apple that covers fruit sales, say; because “Apple” is not distinctive in that field of industry. Actually applications are in something called a Nice class (though AIUI there is a specific classification USPTO use that is narrower than the international Nice class).
There’s a close example to your “turkey leg” - for 6 years “ham hock” (ie pig leg) was a registered trade mark, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/77579235. Why was it allowed? Well because it was for a board game, class 028, and so didn’t stop people from selling actual ham hocks.
I’m not 100% on trade marks in USA, but “confusion” in trade mark law usually has a specific test before the law that is not the same as merely requiring that consumers be confused. Like genericisation, confusion does not have its common meaning when discussing trade marks.