|
Authored by: Udo Schmitz on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT |
Could it be that trade dress and design patents come
into the
general catagory of trademarks?
Yup, that's about it. Trade dress
law is a subset of trademark law.
I suppose what she is saying is
that the trade dress for iPads and
iPhones
comprising the curved-corner, design
patent, the brightly-coloured,
rounded-corner icon arrangement and the
minimalist design together form a
trade
dress that has secondary meaning as an
Apple-associated trade dress for some
products, but is not sufficiently famous
such that it shouts 'Apple' as a
brand.
No, this is just a jury
instruction for this case, because Samsung (correctly)
objected that Dr.
Poret
wasn't giving expert testimoney regarding the question of fame nor did he
sample the general population. Quoted from the relevant PDF at docs.justia.com:
“[...]Dr.
Poret is not giving expert testimony as to the
relevance of his survey to trade
dress fame[...]” “[...]t the jury may consider the
Poret survey as evidence
that the Apple
designs have acquired secondary meaning, but the jury may not
consider the
Poret survey as evidence that the Apple designs are famous[...]”[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I guess - Authored by: tknarr on Monday, August 13 2012 @ 02:59 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Udo Schmitz on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
Just wanted to add ...
Could it be that trade dress and design
patents come
into the general catagory of trademarks?
Think of the
Coca Cola logo and the shape of their bottle, the logo is a
trademark and the
bottle a trade dress.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
"AKA an apple with a bite taken out of it"
Adam and Eve.
I think the Bible predates anything that the boy geniuses at
Apple have come up with. So it has become a fairly familiar
icon in some spaces.
Of course, tunnel vision helps dispense with that
difficulty. An apple with a bite out of it is about as
unique as a circle with a line through it.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
Even Apple's apple logo is not famous. To be said to be Famous
there must be something so unique about it that it distinguishes it beyond all
other apples and an Apple logo with
a bite out of it doesn't do that. If however they used an Apple
grown in a box to come out square and then had a bite taken out
of it. That Logo would be considered Famous.
Trademarked names work the same way. A company named Apple is
not famous. Because it pertains to something generic in nature.
Whereas Google is Famous, because they invented their name from
nothing and that makes it totally Unique.
A touch screen not matter the shape or (whether square, rectangular or even
round) is still a touchscreen and even
using fingers on a touch screen goes back to the 70's when
Banks used them in with night credit card withdrawals. Just
because Apple used a capacitive screen to improve accuracy of
finger touch control still didn't make it Famous. They had been
used before their implementation.
So being something FAMOUS must denote something so unique as
completely distinguish it from every other form of it's class!
And here's the prime example of what constitutes FAMOUS in
spiders that weave webs to catch their prey. Only one spider in
all the World uses a web like the Extraordinary Net Catching
Spiders of Central America. Now that's what you call uniquely
FAMOUS:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18990161
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|