http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/ Engadget Comments for Apple / Cisco iPhone litigation primer, part 1 - what's in a trademark? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/Feb 9th 2007 12:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
http://www.skypejournal.com/blog/2007/02/a_tale_of_two_logos_one_monike.html

]]>Feb 8th 2007 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/Feb 8th 2007 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/Feb 8th 2007 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
@wung--exactly. Once you hit the dictionary, you're probably generic.]]>Feb 8th 2007 7:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
Since you are likely to return to this as a "key for Cisco", I think several caveats are in order. Failure to use the trademark "continuously" will not lead to abandonment. Indeed, the TMEP provides up to 3 years of non-use before the mark is considered presumptively abandoned. Moreover, the non-use can be excused for various reasons.
See, http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/tmep/1600.htm#_T160411

The picture you paint here is that immediate cessation of use leads to immediate abandonment.]]>Feb 8th 2007 8:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/Feb 9th 2007 1:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
First, "continuous use" is not as stringent as you seem to imply. Companies can go years without using a trademark and not have legally abandoned it.

Second, it is extremely inaccurate to say that you have to exercise "tight" control over the trademark name. Courts have held that you merely have to exercise reasonable control. For example, if an individual is infringing your copyright on a small scale and you do nothing about it, this will not likely lead to a problem. You only need to police those infringing actions that rise to a certain substantive level - not every infringement.

Third, the precautions you list to avoid genericide are worth nothing more than what they are attempting to prevent. Doing any of them in an of themselves does nothing for you. The key is whether or not the public thinks that it is a generic term. So, if you do every precaution imaginable but the public still considers it generic, your actions were in vain.

There are several other misstatements. I encourage you to consult with a trademark expert / professor rather than students on a law journal. I was in a prominent position on an international law journal at a highly-ranked law school, but that certainly didn't make me an expert.]]>Feb 9th 2007 2:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
Trevor Adler
Executive Editor
Columbia Science & Technology Law Review]]>Feb 9th 2007 1:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/Feb 9th 2007 8:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
I am wondering how this would play in the dispute.]]>Feb 9th 2007 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/08/apple-cisco-iphone-litigation-primer-part-1-whats-in-a-tra/
But in my view, doesnt cisco have far more right over the name. Whether abandoned or not on the basis that the company who had the trademark released a product before apple even got its product throught the FCC.

Thats whats most important in my opinion. Cisco has a product out and Apple does not. Surely that has to count for something???????]]>Feb 11th 2007 11:32PM