trademark infringement
Latest
Clearwire ditches plans to produce phones, satisfied Sony Ericsson drops logo lawsuit
We thought Clearwire might have had a chance at legal victory against Sony Ericsson, but the wireless carrier has apparently dropped out of the ring. Clearwire told a federal court it no longer plans to produce a smartphone -- which basically nullified Sony Ericsson's worry that upcoming Clearwire handsets would oh-so-similar swirling orb logo. As a result, Sony Ericsson's reporting today that it's dropped the trademark infringement lawsuit, which sounds good for all involved, except it leaves Clearwire not producing much of anything now.
Samsung will respond strongly to Apple's lawsuit
News broke yesterday that Apple filed a patent and trademark violation lawsuit against Samsung. The suit claims Samsung stole the physical look, hardware design, software packaging and user interface from Apple and used these Apple-inspired elements in its popular line of Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung has responded strongly to this suit, threatening to fight this lawsuit and retaliate with its own countersuit accusing Apple of violating wireless patents held by the Korean company. This move pits Samsung against its second biggest client in a war over lucrative wireless and smartphone technology. Apple obtains display panels and semiconductors from Samsung and accounted for 4% of the Korean's company total revenue in 2010.
ChaCha sues HTC for Facebook phone trademark infringement
Facebook phone rumors were swirling for quite awhile, then HTC answered a question that seemingly nobody asked by delivering unto the world a phone with a dedicated Facebook button... the ChaCha. In what can only be considered a stroke of luck for all of humanity, the Taiwanese handset maker has been granted the opportunity to rectify its naming gaffe courtesy of a trademark infringement suit brought by ChaCha Inc. That company trademarked its name and logo in 2007 for its text and voice internet search engine services and is (rightfully) displeased with the HTC's choice of names for its Facebook-focused handset. ChaCha doesn't want mobile users thinking that it's endorsed the phone, and given that the company's bread and butter is providing mobile search, such confusion seems likely. ChaCha is asking for money damages and a permanent injunction to prevent the phone from going to market with its name. That's just fine with us -- if only the courts could grant an injunction to remove that Facebook button.
Motorola dragged into court for Xoom trademark infringement
To Xoom or not to Xoom, that is the question -- and Xoom Corporation says Motorola needs to ditch the name of its new Honeycomb-laden slate. That's right, Xoom has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit asking for monetary damages, a temporary restraining order, and / or a preliminary injunction to spoil Moto's release party for its new tablet. In case you're curious, Xoom (the company) does seem to predate the slate by a good bit: it's been operating its online payments business under that name and has owned the www.xoom.com domain since 2003. Xoom got a registered service mark for its money transfer and e-payment services in 2004. But what about that Xoom trademark Motorola filed last year for mobile computers and related accessories? Traditionally, courts give priority to the first user to register a mark, so Xoom Corp. certainly has a case here, but we're not so sure they'll be able to prove that consumers are likely to be confused. To find out, the court will look at multiple factors to determine the likelihood of confusion: the strength of Xoom's mark, the similarities between the two marks, the proximity of Xoom's services and software to Moto's tablet in the consumer marketplace, evidence of actual customer confusion, and the similarity of the marketing channels used by Moto and Xoom. Honestly, we can't see Moto marketing the Xoom tablet to anyone looking for online payment services (aside from the occasional Android Market purchase) so Xoom Corp. has a tough road to hoe, but stranger things have happened -- we'll see how it goes.
Sony Ericsson sues Clearwire for trademark infringement
Quick, can you tell these two swirling orbs apart? That's Sony Ericsson's logo on the left, and Clearwire's on the right -- and SE thinks they're confusingly similar enough to have filed a federal trademark lawsuit in Virginia. The situation is pretty basic: Sony Ericsson holds trademark registrations on the various iterations of its sphere logos, and the company thinks Clearwire is confusing the mobile market with its version -- and it definitely doesn't want Clearwire to stamp the logo on phones, which Clearwire is eventually planning to do, money problems or no. SE's asked the court to forbid Clearwire from using the logo and for a host of monetary damages, which seems like a big risk for a company that's having cashflow problems to begin with -- we'll see what happens. [Thanks, Alex]
Sears selling a series of 'iWork' toolkits and tool sets
Sears is selling several tool sets and toolkits with the "IWORK" branding. While the product listings may try to deviate slightly from the Apple naming convention by using an initial capital "I," the branding on the individual tools is clearly written as "iWork," an exact copy of Apple's office suite. Ironically, Sears also lists the authentic Apple iWork '09 on its website and sells it through a third-party reseller. A search for the term "iWork" places Apple's product half way down the page in the #12 spot. The top 11 are occupied by Sears' latest line of tools. These tools are recent additions to the Sears catalog, so they do not pre-date the Apple office suite, which made its debut in 2005. Apple has also held the trademark for IWORK since 2008, but it was for software-only, not hardware like these tools. It seems like Sears is just cashing in on the naming convention and possibly luring some Apple fans as a result. [It's worth mentioning that Apple has been on the other side of this "who cares if there's another product with the same name?" divide before, with a rather high-profile product introduction: the company branded the iPhone even though Cisco already had some claim to that name. Except with iPhone both were phones. –Ed.] Update: As Sears and Kmart merged in 2005, these are also available at Kmart. [Via Obamapacman and Sears]
Company that owns iPad trademark in EU wants Apple's business
While Apple appears to be the rightful owner the iPad trademark for the U.S., there's a bit of a problem in the E.U. A French-Italian company, STMicroelectronics, currently owns the rights to "iPad" in two different classifications -- "electronics and components" and "using the name in print." ST has held the trademark since September 14, 2001, but it is set to expire on September 1, 2010. So what does ST intend to do? Possibly try to get Apple as a customer in return for trademark rights. The president and CEO of STMicroelectronics, Carlo Bozotti, is currently meeting with customers in Taipei, and when asked if the company would make some sort of deal with Apple, he replied "Our ambition is to have a great customer named Apple." It's a possibility. The existing ST iPad (Integrated Passive and Active Devices) trademark covers chipsets for cell phone manufacturers, so Apple could theoretically use the company's products in future devices. Apple's other choices could include paying ST a license fee for rights to use the trademark, or legal action to gain rights to the name. This isn't Apple's first run-in with trademark difficulties. The day after the iPhone was announced in 2007, Cisco sued Apple for infringing on the iPhone trademark name. The two companies eventually came to an agreement and both use the term iPhone for their products.
Engadget logo now a thrilla in Manila
Even though your company might be based in Croatia, Malaysia, or scattered throughout US airports we're all linked together by a single common thread: Google image search and a penchant for the Engadget logo. The latest infringer of our beloved IP is E-pins Corporation, a self-described telecommunications contractor employing some 500 people in the Philippines. With staff like that you'd think they could hire their own graphic designer. [Thanks, Jeffrey S.]
Taser International vs Linden Lab: Lawsuit dropped!
Quite surprisingly, according to Patent Arcade, Taser International Inc have filed to voluntarily drop their lawsuit against Linden Lab (and numerous others). It isn't often that we get to cover the end of a lawsuit -- they generally tend to drag on somewhat -- but it's possible that this might not be quite over. Linden Lab hadn't yet filed a response to the original complaint, the suit can be dropped 'without prejudice'. That means the suit can be filed again. Perhaps Taser International has found some far more interesting or lucrative basis for a case. It is also possible that the changes to Second Life products that now assert the primacy of the TASER trademark have satisfied the company. Or perhaps, at the end of the day, the whole effort met some unknown marketing targets. This could all be on again. Watch this space. Are you a part of the most widely-known collaborative virtual environment or keeping a close eye on it? Massively's Second Life coverage keeps you in the loop.
Google and dozens of Android purveyors slapped with trademark lawsuit
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.
Taser International vs Linden Lab: Crack Den crackdown
Taser International Inc have filed a lawsuit against Linden Lab (and others, including some present and some departed) staff. We got a hold of the April 17 complaint yesterday, and have been going through it since then. We've got a summary of the complaint and issues for you, but we won't be linking to the complaint due to the presence of what may be considered to be pornographic images in Exhibit 2. The "crack den" reference in the headline is a recurring phrase in the legal complaint. You'll see why. If you want the one-sentence summary, Taser seem to have failed to do their homework and basic research, but their case doesn't seem to be entirely without merit either.
DXG's latest camcorders sport the Burberry and Chanel look, KIRF-style
Unimpressed by DXG's lineup of value-priced but generally underwhelming video recording options? Maybe a few trendy pattern appliques will change your mind. The company's apparently gone down to Canal Street, grabbed a few "discount" handbags, and turned them into gaudy camcorders that promise 720p capture at 30fps. They're set to retail for a mere $129, and while the company's pledging they'll be available at stores like Radio Shack and Walmart later this summer, we're thinking there are probably a few trademark attorneys out there with a thing or two to say about that.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Trademark infringement
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: There's been a lot of talk about copyright piracy lately, largely from a few high profile convictions. What we've been short on lately is some high profile trademark infringement suits, but trademark piracy in the gaming world can and has been as rampant as copyright piracy. In fact, the concept of what all constitutes trademark infringement isn't even as well known as copyright infringement. Everyone knows about Napster and warez, but these are all copyright issues. So I'd like to take some time to talk about trademark infringement and piracy.We've been through the basics of trademark before, and that's a good place to start if you're a complete trademark neophyte. However, with a basic understanding of what is trademarked, it's easy to see the areas where trademarks can be infringed. Basic infringement is based on the idea that someone will take advantage of a trademark to confuse the consumer into purchasing their product based on the reputation of the trademark they're infringing. Put into simpler terms, if you believe Nintendo is a good brand, then you'd be likely to buy a Nintendo product. Therefore, if I make a product and put "Nintendo" on it, then you'd be likely to buy my product because of the illusion that it's a Nintendo product. I get the benefit of selling more product by infringing Nintendo's trademark, so if there wasn't a penalty, trademarks would be infringed on a regular basis.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Trademark infringement? Not like-wii
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: GamePolitics recently posted a piece on Forbis, the makers of the weemote, and an issue that is all too familiar in Trademark law: trademark infringement. To summarize the GamePolitics piece, Forbis Technologies trademarked "weemote" in the year 2000 for a children's television remote. According to a Time piece on the weemote, sales have fallen considerably since the Nintendo Wii was released. The blog-o-sphere coined the term "Wiimote" soon after the Wii hardware was announced, and the term has stuck ever since. Nintendo, however, does not have a trademark on the term "wiimote," only on "wii."Forbis is hoping to enter into a business arrangement by which it can re-brand its product and Nintendo can take control of "wiimote" and "weemote" (pronounced the same) because, as they put it, "the damage has been done here (whether intentional or not)." In fact, in cases of possible infringement between a significantly larger player and a smaller one such as this, a settlement of this nature would not be unusual. Even if Nintendo believes it would be successful in an infringement suit with Forbis, this may be the far cheaper option to resolve the issue. After all, the weemote brand had minimal value before the introduction of the Wiimote based on the company's self-described weak sales. Nintendo has thus far declined to purchase "weemote." But stopping at an out-of-court settlement wouldn't do much to illuminate the legal points that exist here, so let's take a look at this as if it were going to go to trial.
Law of the Game on Joystiq: Time for Trademarks
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: A few weeks ago, I received an e-mail request to cover the basics of trademark as it applies to the gaming world. Given that E3 is next week, we're all likely to see many new uses for old trademarks and new trademarks surfacing from many of the industry's power players. Surprisingly, this isn't just as simple as picking a name and going with it. In fact, there's a lot of the 'trademark' game, and hopefully this week's column will give you a better-than-Wikipedia level background in what the game makers go through to get their hands on names like Crash Bandicoot, apparently the most desired piece of E3 news according to Joystiq readers.Trademark is probably the most well known of the three unfair competition concepts, and its origins trace back to the guilds in England, although the idea of placing an identifying mark on something goes back as far as human history. In fact, the first trademark laws in England were passed in 1266. The basic concept is a fairly straightforward one: Someone who makes something should be able to have a mark that identifies that persons products for consumers, and that mark should be limited to use by that one producer. This idea benefits both the consumers, by allowing them to identify reputable products in the marketplace, and producers, by allowing them to build reputations for their products and preventing others from taking advantage of their reputations.
Apple pays woman to "de-Pod" her product
In a move that will be seen as gracious by some, extortionist by others, Apple has offered to pay a New Jersey woman an undisclosed sum to rebrand a laptop bag she sells so that it no longer includes the word "pod" -- but not before reminding her in a letter that she was in potential violation of the closely-guarded iPod trademark. Until recently, Medford Lakes resident Terry Wilson had been selling her protective case under the name "TightPod," which as we all learned from the ugly little Profit Pod incident, is dangerously diluting the brand significance of Apple's cash cow. Unlike the electronic Profit Pod, however -- which Apple referred to as "a small, flat, round corned rectangular device with a display screen" -- we can't see all that many people confusing a furry computer case with the world's most recognizable audio player. Still, you gotta do what you gotta do to proactively protect your brand, we suppose, so we're just waiting by the mailbox to receive a big fat check that will allow us to begin the long, painful process of rebirthing the Engadget Podcast as the Engadget Zencast.
