decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The Consummate Demonstration of Famous!!! | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Consummate Demonstration of Famous!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 02:33 PM EDT
If I understand you correctly? The iPhone Trademark or Trade
Dress is new to telecommunication market? Yes/No? If so, how
do you determined that according to the Lanham Act 43(c)(1)...

Or am I missing something there?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Consummate Demonstration of Famous!!!
Authored by: jjs on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of
the mark;

Apple is NOT trademarked. Apple as a name in relation to
computers is. There was, I believe a lawsuit over it because
of the Beetle's old record company (Apple Records) when
iTunes came out.

http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

Tablets are rectangular because LCD panels are rectangular.
The clear glass over the LCD is clear because otherwise you
could not see the LCD. The corners are rounded because
sharp corners injure people. And Samsung name on the front
of the device should be a dead giveaway that it's not an
Apple iPad or iPhone.




---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Consummate Demonstration of Famous!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
You do understand that in order to be considered a valid
"FAMOUS" mark, it must fulfill every clause in the Lanham Act?
They must all be considered as a whole in each case for each
version of Apple's marks used in their history!

History:
Do you know where Steve Jobs took the Name Apple from? There's
Apple everything in this world, you know. Most without any
connection to real Apples even. From Fiona Apple, Big Apple,
Apple Records and Apple Inc (formerly Apple Computers) and the
changes and lawsuits over Apple's history, certainly don't
guarantee that each mark they've chosen to use, should be
considered "Famous". Otherwise which Apple Logo are you saying
qualifies as making it "FAMOUS"?

Wiki has only a tidbit of the controversy of that so called
Apple logo, you claim to be so "FAMOUS" as to not being able to
be beaten in court!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.#Logos

Apples and their logos in Washington State's Yakima Valley are
so Ubiquitous as to make it impossible to not use an Apple logo
in some way on Apple Crate Labels. That are said to number in
the 1000's and there are far more Apple crate label logos in
just Yakima Washington than Tea Brands in China. Each with
their own far more distinctive apple logo than Apple's!

So who really designed Apple's marks? And are any of them
original enough to be considered "FAMOUS" under the law? or
"Infamous" because of Steve Jobs and Apple's propensity to
STEAL everything from others throughout their history? Steve's
own history has created a far more accurate of view of Apple as
a Thieve (or "Pirate"... lol.. like his quote).

So it's simply not a unique enough logo to qualify as "FAMOUS"!
....and it fits right in with his whole philosophy of "Bad
Artists Copy, Good Artists Steal" borrowed/pirated from Pablo
Picasso's in his 1907 "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon"! ...or did
the Xerox "Copier's Copyist" merely copy him or was inspired by
him?

http://johnpaulblanchette.blogspot.com/2009/11/bad-artists-
copy-good-artists-steal.html

Note: Literally all Apple's marks and logos were either created
and bought from other companies or stolen from other companies.
iPhone, iPad, iPod, MacIntosh, Apple etc! ...why do you think
they are on of the most litigious companies on the Planet?
Which means they must like stealing so much from others that it
lands them in court more often on the Defensive side of the
argument than as the Plaintiff!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )