We appear to be going round and round in circles here.
From where I sit
Epic, owners of the Unreal trademark as it pertains to games, see a new company called nreal try to come onto the market. nreal being primarily focused on some virtual reality tech and thus also under the same category of trademark or overlapping ones.
Epic, including via their unreal trademark, have a major interest in VR and ancillary/precursor technologies, and even if not it is eminently plausible that they could move into the space (many of their competitors doing very similar things already have* and while I remain dubious myself that this time is the time it happens (still think we are some 7 years out) there are those looking to play and thinking it the next big thing) even if the mere category overlap alone is not enough.
Even if epic/unreal don't typically sanction or stamp peripherals and other technologies with their badge of approval (though there is some on both the software front and hardware front, to say nothing of things like
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2018/11/theres_a_fortnite_branded_dualshock_4_controller_now ) it never the less remains a common practice in other aspects in industry (many companies owning peripheral makers, sanctioning such things and otherwise doing what needs doing) and a possibility that trademark law is there to afford as a future action. They could turn around and say all new unreal engine games will have this enabled by default and is supported by this device only (exclusivity is a silly thing for VR peripherals but never the less seems to be the way that aspect of things works these days) and would likely be considered a boon to the device maker.
Unreal is a customer focused brand (it being on the box of many things and advertised prominently within the games it features in) and at least theoretically something a customer might use to weigh up the quality of a product**, as they might for its parent company too. Presumably still within good standing and actively used in commerce/protection of it undertaken.
*microsoft, steam, google, sony and arguably facebook all having more than dipped a toe in these waters, and oculus and samsung have their own thing going on with samsung having fairly substantial dealings with epic.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ele...-vr-game-portfolio-with-new-launch-2020-12-14 ,
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/franchise/virtual-reality-games/ ... yeah.
**the nature and versions of engines being commonly discussed among the enthusiast set and used as a selling point or detractor at times. How much granny (though it has been in external use since 1999) or something knows unreal engine and thinks can't be all bad like they think Nintendo on the box means "family friendly" I don't know but for the purposes of a court I doubt we would be stretching credibility here, and such things are kind of one of the major reasons for trademarks too.
The contention then comes in as to whether those hearing nreal, which is often pronounced very similarly to unreal (this device is by nreal being a more than plausible phrase to hear, game supported by nreal being another if allowed to come to market), or maybe glancing quickly (harder to sell but has been done) might mistake it for being sanctioned or supporting unreal and thus causing Epic/Unreal some loss of good will by dint of appearing to sanction a potentially poor item or one not as widely supported as they might like. The stupidity of the would be general consumer in trademark cases like this is often quite considerable (
https://notalwaysright.com/ has nothing on what trademark cases often assume when it comes to dealing with the sophistication of the general public, and the granny confuser ploy is fairly well documented in both games and media at large).
Stranger things have happened than nreal being allowed to move forward with such things but at the same time this is well within the standard remit of a trademark dispute.