Optician group Specsavers has had its plan to trademark the use of "should've" and "shouldve" approved by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
The company uses the phrase "should've gone to Specsavers" in its adverts.
The trademark application means that other companies will not be able to use that form of words in their marketing.
Rivals have until 12 October to make objections to the claim, the IPO said.
It said that applications for trademarks on common words could be made where they were linked to a company through "use or association".
However, one trademark lawyer was surprised that Specsavers had managed to secure the trademark on a single word.
"It's astonishing," said trademark lawyer Tania Clark from Withers and Rogers. "They have a very powerful monopoly in this word... which is a verb in common usage."
At least this will raise awareness for all our grammatically-challenged gurls; that it's always "should have" and not the execrable "should of". It's way too common to be granted intellectual property rights tho
Makes sense, "Should've" is really linked to their brand, I can't really think of a way to use it in marketing without it sounding like a Specsavers knock off.
Maybe "Should've gone to" would be a better trademark, but it's not like it effects anyone's life so who cares.
.
