Thanks for your very fast, and very helpful reply! Of course, the information you gave now leads to a follow-up question:
Currently both parties have, at best, a common law trademark - with Party A possibly not having even that. (To know for sure, I'd need to research the TM laws in Party A's state in regards to creative works.) Given that Party A used the title first in their single work, it seems unlikely that Party B could force them to stop using it. And, given that Party B first used the mark in a series, it also seems unlikely that Party A could force them to stop using it either.That being said, is it reasonable to assume that neither party would have a good argument in court, if they were to pursue legal action on the grounds of infringement?And what about a possible claim of cybersquatting?
I highly doubt Party B would have an argument, since Party A registered their domain (same as the title of their creative work) first. However, do you think Party A would have a decent argument against Party B, since Party B registered a similar domain name after Party A had their domain in place? Or, would a claim of of cybersquatting be moot given that Party A likely doesn't have a trademark to begin with?
Thanks again for your fast, and helpful response. While not a law school question, I agree that it certainly could be one given the many nuances in the timeline and facts.