Thank you for that, Mr. Keon. I have more questions for you, however.
The first is, I could not find any country that has adopted the terminology you're suggesting to take out of the definition: “or that is inherently capable of distinguishing”. I tried to find it. I wasn't playing with my emails; I was actually trying to find more information on this. There doesn't seem to be any other country in the Commonwealth or otherwise that has that.
In fact, I looked at the United States, and I don't really put my head around the whole circle. It seems there's case law: Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, a 1976 case that uses the spectrum of distinctiveness.
The United States seems to have quite a bit of law relating to different types of trademarks: fanciful marks, arbitrary marks, suggestive marks, descriptive marks, and generic terms. When I was reading that, it became apparent that this was one of the issues. Courts could find that some trademarks would be considered generic.
Is that an issue? Can you comment on what I've just asked in relation to the United States and the case law they use? The United States has ten times the level of infringement that we have.