As the world's attention turns from netbooks to smartbooks, Psion and Intel have ceased battle over use of the former term. Remember, this ridiculous case escalated to the point of Psion claiming $1.2 billion (billion!) in damages suffered as a result of infringement on its netbook trademark for a product few have heard of outside of the highly specialized supply chain logistics area. The "amicable" agreement reached with Intel has Psion voluntarily withdrawing its trademark. What wasn't said in the press release is how much money was extorted from the industry or the net effect on Psion sales from all the free publicity. Regardless, we're sure it's been a profitable exercise for Psion Teklogix. Now, could the obscure owner of the "smartbook" trademark please step forward to collect your prize?

[Via Slashgear]

Hold on to your positronic caps, readers. It seems our little green robo-friend may be in for a little bit of legal trouble. Erich Specht has sued Google and seemingly every company that has ever thought about using its mobile OS (like T-Mobile, Vodafone, Intel, Motorola, Samsung, and lots more) for infringing use of the name "Android." He's the owner of the trademark for Android Data Corporation, granted way back in October of 2002. Google came around and filed a trademark application for Android five years later and, wait for it, had that trademark application denied due to confusion with Mr. Specht's. In other words, it looks like Google and its Open Handset Alliance cronies are on the defensive and, seemingly, not on particularly firm ground. Specht wants damages and a name-change for Google's OS, and as of now we wouldn't be surprised if he got at least one of his wishes.

Well, this was sadly predictable. Following filings by Dell and Intel with the USPTO requesting that Psion's "netbook" trademark be canceled, Psion has filed a $1.2b countersuit against Intel, claiming that the chipmaker knew Psion owned the netbook mark but used it anyway. That's interesting because Intel's efforts to push "netbook" on the industry went basically nowhere from March until June of 2008 -- when Atom-powered laptops ran amok at Computex -- but we're guessing Psion doesn't care. As it has in the past, Psion claims that it's been selling Netbook-branded machines continuously since 1999, along with some interesting sales figures to back it up -- as Ars Technica notes, the numbers seem to add up oddly at all the wrong times, with $2m of Netbook accessories sold in 2006, three years after the product went off the market, and just 4100 total Netbooks sold over 10 years. We'll see how the court decides to pull all this apart -- it's certainly starting to look like a showdown's brewing, but we're still convinced that Intel and Dell have money, time and momentum on their side here.

Intel has finally broken its silence regarding Psion's attempt to bludgeon the industry into submission with its trademark on the term "Netbook." Important stuff seeing as how Intel is credited with (re)introducing the term in its modern meaning back in March 08. Granted, it took awhile for the name to catch on (we asked you to name the emerging laptop category in May) but ultimately stuck with the deluge of Atom-based ultra-portables launched at the Computex show in June of 2008. Unsurprisingly, Intel's position essentially mirrors that of Dell although it was Intel that actually filed its lawsuit first: 1) the public already uses the term in a generic manner, and (2) Psion's Netbook has been out of production since 2003 with no intent of being reintroduced into the market. Stupid is as stupid does, right Psion?

[Via Electronista]

Read -- Intel sues Psion
Read -- Intel's "Thoughts on Netbooks" (March 03, 2008)

Well, you knew this was going to happen: Dell's filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting that Psion's "netbook" trademark be canceled. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened, of course -- the word "netbook" is in such widespread usage that Psion's nastygrams are unlikely to have any meaningful impact, and the company's weasely claims that it was only going after those "making a direct financial profit" basically guaranteed it was chasing after one of the big players. Word to the wise, Psion: it's almost certain that you'll lose this legal battle, but the PR war is easily won -- and coupled with an interesting product, like, say, an all-new Ion-powered Psion Netbook, you could actually come out way ahead. Think about it, won't you?

[Via thegadgetsite]

Behold the power of bad press: Monster Cable last week decided to drop its ridiculous trademark lawsuit against Monster Mini Golf. According to founder Noel Lee, Monster Cable will drop any opposition to the "Monster Mini Golf" trademark, won't require any licensing fees, and it'll also step up and pay Monster Mini Golf's attorney's fees in an effort to make things right. Of course, it wouldn't be Noel Lee if he didn't caveat his actions with some weird martyr nonsense -- are you ready? "I will say that this is a landmark kind of situation, as public opinion wins over what is the right thing to do for trademark protection of a famous mark. We have made the decision that public opinion, and that of our valued customers is more important than the letter of the law that requires us to prevent the dilution of our mark and risk losing it." Yeah, somehow we just don't believe Noel Lee really thinks that Monster is in danger of losing its mark over putt-putt -- a better paranoia would be the fear that consumers will one day realize that Monster's cables and power strips are just overpriced snake oil.

[Via TechDirt]

Psion, Psion. We hadn't really heard from the British portable maker since the halcyon days of the Series5, but it's back and making waves with a series of nastygrams asserting its trademark of the word "netbook." Psion's legal team followed up with jkOnTheRun, and according to them, it's only going after those sites and companies "making a direct, financial profit from use of the 'Netbook' trademark." (As opposed to profit in kind, we suppose -- did you know our advertisers pay us in toaster waffles and aviator sunglasses? True story.) Psion says it's mostly focused on retailers and manufacturers using the term netbook to sell machines, not "straight blogs" and other sites. Of course, that means next to nothing, since Psion says it'll still go after those sites that have sponsored ads or for-profit links containing the word "netbook" -- including automatically-placed ads and links like AdSense and Amazon affiliate ads that site owners typically have no control over. +10 weasel, dudes. Anyway, considering the widespread adoption of "netbook" in the past year with nary a peep from Psion, we'd say the term is pretty well generic and no longer a valid trademark at this point -- we'll see how it goes when it drags the first heavy-hitter using the term (like Intel) into court.

Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and secret Asian netbook ODM, but he's not your lawyer and this isn't legal advice or analysis.

You wouldn't think that anyone in the market for a $3,000 handheld camera capable of shooting 3K HD at 100MB/s would somehow get confused enough to end up with a mediocre LG plasma TV, but it seems like the folks at RED are worried -- the company's lawyers are preparing an opposition to LG's filing for the "Scarlet" trademark, and they've filed for their own mark. It looks like RED is getting pretty serious about protecting its marks -- president Jim Jannard is politely asking RED fans to include a trademark disclaimer when they post about the company's products, and he says that the proceedings against LG are "just the tip of the iceberg." Honestly, we think RED's going to have a tough time selling a judge on the likelihood of confusion between a consumer-oriented HDTV and a decidedly pro-grade camera, but we've been surprised in the past -- we'll see how this one plays out.

Read - Jim Jannard forum post
Read - Request for extension of time to file opposition

Well, would you look at that -- our good friend Deutsche Telekom seems to have lost a lawsuit it filed against rival European wireless carrier Telia over its use of the color magenta in its logo. The Danish Eastern Regional High Court today ruled that Telia and DT don't compete directly in the Danish market and that Telia isn't using the same magenta shade, leading the court to overturn an injunction DT sought against Telia's use of the color. On top of that, the court further ruled that Deutsche Telekom has to fork over 1.5M kroner ($316,188) in court costs and attorneys' fees to Telia, which probably stings a little more than having to share a color. Of course, now that magenta is the People's Color, maybe DT should look into playing a little nicer, don't you think?

[Thanks, Andreas]

Quick, what's the best way to dress up an otherwise dry piece on how companies can register non-traditional trademarks? If you answered "mention Apple and the iPod," you're the big winner -- and you've gotten yourself published in the Wall Street Journal. We'll be the first to admit that Apple's January registration of the three-dimensional design of the iPod strains credulity, but the simple fact is that non-traditional trademarks have been around for a while now -- we seem to remember a little kerfuffle regarding magenta recently, but we can't quite recall the exact details. Similarly, Nokia trademarked the 12 notes of its default ringtone back in September (even though they're part of a larger piece written in 1902 called "Gran Vals"), NBC has a mark on its ding-ding-ding station ID, and Coca-Cola has registrations for basically every bottle design it sells. Still, you can bet Apple legal threw quite a pizza party when this mark was approved -- and we can only imagine the kind of buttoned-down corporate lawyer jam that'll go down if the company succeeds in getting a mark on the design of the iPhone, which it's currently applied for. Hope you're ready for some more funktastic control layouts.

Read - WSJ article
Read - Apple iPod design trademark

So you might have heard that Apple and New York City are currently in a little scuffle over the city's apple-shaped GreeNYC logo -- NYC wants to trademark the logo, and Apple would prefer that didn't happen. The story's gotten pretty wild out there, and while it's not worth a full-blown Know Your Rights, we thought we'd try and clear up what's happening, since, you know, +10 lawyer.

Unlike all those previous Apple trademark disputes, this isn't a true lawsuit, and Apple hasn't sued anyone -- the city of New York has filed a trademark application for the GreeNYC apple-shaped logo with the Patent and Trademark Office, and Apple has filed its opposition to that application. That's an important part of the trademark registration process, actually: every single trademark application has to go through a 30-day opposition period during which interested third parties can raise their objections. We'd say it's pretty obvious that Apple's got an interest in other apple-shaped trademarks, so it's not particularly surprising that it's taking the first available opportunity to speak up about this one.

After the trademark applicant responds to the objection in writing (what some people have been wrongly calling NYC's "counterclaim"), the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board gathers evidence and makes a decision. We'd almost be willing to bet that never happens, though -- after all the lawyers are done strutting around and promising victory, it's likely that Apple and NYC simply come to an amicable licensing agreement. Bottom line? This is exactly how the system is supposed to work, and Apple is just protecting its billion-dollar brand as best it can -- thousands of these oppositions are filed by all sorts of companies each year. We know, not very fun at all -- anyone care to start a Jobs vs. Bloomberg slapboxing petition?

Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and a formidable slapboxer, but he's not your lawyer, and none of this is legal advice or analysis.

And you thought Microsoft had trouble with piracy in Asia. Just look at what Egypt is doing to the new Windows... potato chips. Now with real Ballmer batter!