The issue the article points to is both companies provide insurance products: Lemonade for renters and T-Mobile for its own handsets. I’m not convinced the average consumer would be confused by the two, however.

They both sell insurance, so one could argue they are in the same industry. Unless we're going to sub-divide insurance between Home/Car and Phone.

T-Mobile sells insurance on devices they also sell. I have never seen a dedicated insurance company selling insurance specifically on mobile devices. The likelihood of consumer confusion is tiny.

That's like saying that blizzard and oracle are competitors because they are both in the software industry. If you can't substitute the product from one company with another, then they are not competitors.

In this case, if you can't buy phone insurance (the product you would buy from T-Mobile) from Lemonade, they are not competitors.

>They both sell insurance..

Does anyone know whether T-Mobile sell THEIR insurance or they act as brokers selling someone else's insurance (e.g. Allianz, AXA, etc.)?

I also wonder the % of revenue of T-Mobile from insurance Vs their other business lines.

(I don't really wonder)

Most consumer insurance companies are selling upstream insurance. They buy insurance wholesale, and then resell it making a cut and taking care of the customer facing part.

T-Mobile does the same. So in that way they're no different than any other type of consumer insurance company.

IMHO selling insurance as a form of extended warranty on a physical product is not the same thing. I see what you're saying but I just don't see the average consumer confusing the two brands just because T-Mobile happens to sell insurance for their phones. They also sell cell phones but I don't think of them as a cell phone company, they're simply a carrier.

T-Mobile don't just sell "extended warranties" they also sell theft, accidental damage, and similar even on phones (on their network) you didn't buy from them (e.g. €10/month). There's no distinction between what they do and other insurance companies insuring the same product class do.

So as I said, unless you sub-divide the insurance industry on arbitrary lines, they are both selling insurance to the consumer. Claiming that because it is only "extended warranties" (which it isn't anyway) isn't really a legal argument for trademark law. We're talking about markets here, they're both in the insurance market regardless of how you frame it.

According to the article, there might be a problem there as T-Mobile does offer several forms of insurance: Things like mobile device insurance and cybersecurity insurance.

And therein lies the obvious conclusion of allowing conglomerations. If one company has their foot in every possible industry, they can yield control far beyond what would normally be considered unreasonable.

I mean we are actually discussing “T-Mobile isn’t a mobile carrier, they’re an insurance company”.

Rather "T-Mobile I'd a mobile carrier AND an insurance company".

Knowing T-Mobile and the full-of-shiteness that I possesses them, they can argue this about every market. I am.sure they own a canteen somewhere so there goes the food industry, and they probably sponsor some major team so there goes sports equipment and so on and so forth. Greed doesn't stop.

Even trade marks are like that thus Toyota Lexus and Lexis Nexus can coexist, though a court case had to settle that dispute.