I think that the initials M&M have been sufficiently well used by various entities throughout history that they could not hope to prove that the name originated with them. Given that part of maintaining a trademark is defending it against encroaching use the existence of other corporate M&M companies, M&MDirect for example, would lead to their lawsuit failing.
Swim Shady, on the other hand makes no sense at all as a name if Slim Shady wasn’t already a well known thing.
Swim Shady is a leading manufacturer of high-quality beach shades, bags, towels, and swim shorts. Our products are designed to protect you from the sun’s harmful rays while providing comfort and style. Swim Shady products are perfect for sun-safe travellers seeking adventure.
That makes the name pretty clear and meaningful entirely outside of the existence of a Slim Shady.
Not a lawyer - trademark laws also cover an entity trying to play off an existing entities’ name, for example say a swimwear company wants people to think their brand is endorsed or owned by, for example, Eminem that would still be a violation. On top of that there is also something called Right of Publicity which allows people to control how their name is used, and this is close enough to likely fall under the doctrine.
I think that the initials M&M have been sufficiently well used by various entities throughout history that they could not hope to prove that the name originated with them. Given that part of maintaining a trademark is defending it against encroaching use the existence of other corporate M&M companies, M&MDirect for example, would lead to their lawsuit failing.
Swim Shady, on the other hand makes no sense at all as a name if Slim Shady wasn’t already a well known thing.
That makes the name pretty clear and meaningful entirely outside of the existence of a Slim Shady.
The thing here is that it’s unlikely for, let’s say an investment firm, to be confused with candy.
Same for swimwear and a rapper.
Details.
Not a lawyer - trademark laws also cover an entity trying to play off an existing entities’ name, for example say a swimwear company wants people to think their brand is endorsed or owned by, for example, Eminem that would still be a violation. On top of that there is also something called Right of Publicity which allows people to control how their name is used, and this is close enough to likely fall under the doctrine.