Woodland Scenics would have a strong case, they trademarked the name and were earlier with it. On the other hand, that raises a couple of questions:
1)Would woodland scenics lose money because of flex seal using 'flex paste'? They might show flex paste on a train layout, but would hobbyists seriously stop using the woodland scenics product in favor of flex paste? I don't know what it is like and if flex paste (the new stuff) could do the same thing......likely woodland scenics would only act if they felt it would cause them harm. I remember a case where a famous restaurant in NYC sued some diner in like Montana some such place for using the same name. It got thrown out of court, the court ruled that there was no way in heck that anyone could assume a diner in a rural area was the big name restaurant in NY or associated with it, that there was no harm to the NYC restaurant and that the name didn't significantly benefit the diner by name association. Woodland scenics might have a case if they can show that because the commercial had a train layout on it, it would hurt their brand. Had the commercial not suggested that a court might rule that they are two different markets with two different bases and no commonality, but who knows? (not a lawyer, just from what I recall of business law, some of the esquires on here prob can give a more definitive answer).
2)Possibly the flex seal people did a TM search, saw the Woodland Scenics product name, and came to an agreement with them financially
