or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple sued for callings its mouse Mighty
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple sued for callings its mouse Mighty - Page 3

post #81 of 119
All this BS lawyer talk... Surely the important question no one has asked yet is whether the M & M Mighty Mouse is Mac compatible? Imagine, a mouse you can bleed on, one you can spit on, and it'll keep on mousing!

As to the numerous people complaining how come M & M are only "now" complaining and suing, years after the Apple MM went on sale - normally in such cases you don't sue first. First your lawyers write letters to the offending party and get letters back from their lawyers. This can easily take months or even years, it's only when it's clear that this is not going to resolve your problem that you reach for the lever marked "sue the bastards", court papers are filed, and it gets written about in the press. Presumably this is what happened in this case.
post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHawk View Post

Why did it take THIS LONG for this company to come out of the woodwork to sue Apple over this?... This is a frivolous lawsuit.

RTFT.
post #83 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Anyway, I vote that it be renamed Shighty Mouse.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 119
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, M&M has more of a case than most of these companies do owing to having their hardware out first, but on the other hand, there's no mention of them contacting CBS about the Mighty Mouse name, even in an act of good faith, prior to trying to trademark it and sorry, logic dictates you not just try and trademark an existing term for a new product without contacting the original owner.

Reminds me of a laundrette by the name of Acorn if anyone gets that reference.

Incidentally, I was extremely tickled when I heard Apple were calling it Mighty Mouse. In fact, naming it for the pint-sized suer-hero upped the appeal for me. Though in the end I actually bought a Trust mouse with similar features and more besides (Rechargeable, presenter mode, laser pointer). Might buy one for my Mac mini though.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #85 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

If you have a DUI, Canada is not going to let you in the country.

IF the DUI was within the past five years, and IF you happen to be randomly stopped, and IF they give you a background check
post #86 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by walkerdarin2003 View Post

Just throw in the iMouse

iMouse! Very logical thinking

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Did you read the complaint? It's because M&M is suffering now. They are quite likely to prevail if they can prove that they marketed the name first.

Very good point...
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
ALTER BRIDGE is the greatest rock band of today. Myspace || Street Team
Reply
post #87 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post

IF the DUI was within the past five years, and IF you happen to be randomly stopped, and IF they give you a background check

If you apply for an Approval of Rehabilitation at Canadian visa office. If you fly into Vancouver you are quite likely to be screened.
Cubist
Reply
Cubist
Reply
post #88 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

What does that have to do with the claim you were defending (that Apple sues anyone who uses the word 'pod' in their product?

There's no doubt that 'iPod' is unique to Apple and they have a right to defend it. 'Pod' is not (at least not generically. There is some risk of confusion if you use it to describe a music playing device).

How would an arcade coin counter or a furry laptop computer case be confused with an Apple iPod?

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/14/n...on-brand-name/

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/04/a...d-her-product/
post #89 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

But the MM does look a lot like a bar of Dove soap. I certainly don't think of the bird.



I'm not sure if that really applies as much. Trademarks of the same word can apply over several dozen different categories. Animation and the related merchandising wouldn't apply to computer peripherals.

I don't know about that - try naming a mouse "The Mickey Mouse" and see how long you last.

"But... the designer's name was Mickey!"
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #90 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post

I don't know about that - try naming a mouse "The Mickey Mouse" and see how long you last.

"But... the designer's name was Mickey!"

As I said before, being in the right doesn't mean you won't be sued. Generally Disney (in your example) often win just because it's not worth a lawsuit, not because it wasn't legal.
post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Most cases have had people like him losing their rights to the name. I don't remember the cases, but I do remember one that involved a resturant, where the owners lost the rights. There have been many more.

Taylor wine is another one. The Taylor family sold the rights to "Taylor wine" to Coca Cola. Then one of the family members tried to introduce his own wine with the Taylor name on the label. He was shot down pretty quickly. Now he does the same thing as the Nissan guy - he runs around complaining how Coca Cola stole his name - forgetting to mention that he SOLD his name for millions of dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

...not so sure about that. "Mouse" (computer) is a homonym with "Mouse" (mammal). They describe two completely different things.

Take, for example, the word "Bow." Say I'm a gift-wrap company and just developed a very unique bow design and I patent it and trademark the name "super bow." Then my cousin, a hunting equipment manufacturer develops a powerful long-range hunting bow, patents the design and trademarks the name "super bow."

Is that an infringement? No, because my bow trademark pertains to gift wrap. My cousin's bow trademark pertains to hunting. Likewise, CBS's trademark pertains to an animated performance-enhancing drug-using mouse while M&M's pertains to a computer accessory.

Now if Apple had called it "Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger," you're right, that's a different story.

-Clive

"super bow" is relatively generic and not identifiable with any particular trademark. "Mighty Mouse" is much more like your example of "Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger" where the name is evocative of one specific very well known cartoon character.

CBS's trademark for "Mighty Mouse" is well enough recognized that they're going to have wide latitude in defending it from infringement. I'll bet you a box of donuts that that is exactly what happened in the two earlier attempts to trademark "Mighty Mouse" for computer peripherals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

How would an arcade coin counter or a furry laptop computer case be confused with an Apple iPod?


http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/14/n...on-brand-name/

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/04/a...d-her-product/

The arcade counter interfaces with a laptop computer and is an entertainment device. The iPod is an entertainment device which interfaces with a computer.

Did Apple go too far here? Maybe, but not blatantly so. They HAVE to defend their trademark, including going after items at the fringes or they'll lose the mark.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #92 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

...not so sure about that. "Mouse" (computer) is a homonym with "Mouse" (mammal). They describe two completely different things.

Take, for example, the word "Bow." Say I'm a gift-wrap company and just developed a very unique bow design and I patent it and trademark the name "super bow." Then my cousin, a hunting equipment manufacturer develops a powerful long-range hunting bow, patents the design and trademarks the name "super bow."

Is that an infringement? No, because my bow trademark pertains to gift wrap. My cousin's bow trademark pertains to hunting. Likewise, CBS's trademark pertains to an animated performance-enhancing drug-using mouse while M&M's pertains to a computer accessory.

Now if Apple had called it "Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger," you're right, that's a different story.

-Clive

It also depends on how well the trademark is known. If it dominates the term. Dove Soap wouldn't do that, but others would. Mighty Mouse is not a natural combination of words. Right now, the only way most people would have heard of it is through the Comics, and Apple's product.

When you said "bow", at first I thought you were talking about the first half of a dogs bark.
post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacHawk View Post

Why did it take THIS LONG for this company to come out of the woodwork to sue Apple over this?... This is a frivolous lawsuit.

I have a hunch that M&M waited this long to file a suit because they needed to wait and see if CBS would file a suit against them for using their "Mighty Mouse" trademark. By waiting two (or so) years and not getting a notice from CBS to stop using the name, they may have a case that CBS abandoned the trademark by failing to enforcing it.

Which is why Apple goes after any possible infringers of their trademarks. No matter how trivial it may appear. Because one day, they may need to prove in a court of law that they are actively enforcing their trademarks. Plus the PR (bad or good) doesn't hurt.

It makes no difference how many different meaning a word has. It only matters whether one trademark can be confused with another. If "Super Bow" the archery company and "Super Bow" yhe ribbon company are relatively small and unknown, then both trademarks can exist. If however "Super Bow" the ribbon company is a branch of 3M and is known world wide, then the archery compamy will most likly not get the trademark Unless they were first.

Just because it's your name, it doesn't mean that you have the right to use it in your business trademark. John Doe McDonald can not name his diner "McDonald's". Joe, Jessica and Ashley can not call a TV show about themselves "The Simpsons". No matter how difficult it would be to confuse it with the other "The Simpsons". After all one is about a dysfunctional family with the worst excuse for a dad and two spoiled braty kids. The other is a cartoon.
post #94 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Mighty Mouse sucks anyway, I dumped it after 2 years or squeezing the damn thing. Why Apple thought squeezing a mouse is easier than pressing a button is beyond me.

Definitely not a Steve Jobs project.

The NeXT Mouse was a very nice 2 button mouse. Update it, make it more contoured to the hand and add a center scrollwheel and we can call it a day.
post #95 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

So it should be perfectly fine if someone manufactures a bra for a Honda Civic, and yet he cannot advertise on Google, Yahoo, or MSN that his product is compatible with a Honda Civic? I don't see how that might make a negative opinion out of Honda Civic.

The law is there should it become necessary to use it. That doesn't mean that every use is going to be a problem, and it doesn't mean that a company will sue every time. It depends on the intent too.

This is why every time some nursery school paints large pictures of Disney characters on the walls of their school, Disney gets an injunction to get them to remove it {though usually, all they do is to get the school to sign a licensing agreement for a dollar or so). They must defend it, or at some point they will lose it.

Also the others are using a trademark without permission. It's a funky part of the law.
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

So it should be perfectly fine if someone manufactures a bra for a Honda Civic, and yet he cannot advertise on Google, Yahoo, or MSN that his product is compatible with a Honda Civic? I don't see how that might make a negative opinion out of Honda Civic.

It depends on whether cars can get breast cancer.
post #97 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't think it would "bring" them any more sales, the opposite is more likely to be true. This is especially if all the results of a search return Apple's version because theirs is the more popular brand, even if you're looking for the other company's product, unless you knew what that company's name was.

I want the mighty mouse...but all I get is that danged Apple one. What's so special about the one I want? Oh yeah...I can wash it!

Google: mighty mouse washable

First Hit: www.ruggedtech.com - a reseller of the M&M mouse.
post #98 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I want the mighty mouse...but all I get is that danged Apple one. What's so special about the one I want? Oh yeah...I can wash it!

Google: mighty mouse washable

First Hit: www.ruggedtech.com - a reseller of the M&M mouse.

Or waterproof or medical or bullshit lawsuit.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #99 of 119
This lawsuit will never hold up. If you go to the M&M website, they are using the name explicitly playing off the equity of CBS' brand. They are in clear violation of CBS' trademark, for which Apple received a legitimate license to use.

M&M says on their website - "Introducing the Mighty Mouse Waterproof Optical Mouse for Medical, Industrial and Marine applications. The Mighty Mouse One is a fully sealed IP 68 optical mouse that is a 2 button mouse. The Mighty Mouse is both USB and PS/2. This waterproof and chemical resistant mouse can be disinfected with a variety of liquids including alcohol, 10% Bleach solutions, and CIDEX. The Mighty Mouse feels like a standard optical mouse. You can feel the mouse button click, but there are no openings so the mouse can be cleaned."

They are clearly playing off the trade name of the character...

One can easily argue that they are getting tons of free publicity by filing this suit!
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan View Post

500 lawsuits in the last 2 years.. the government should do something about this stupid kind of lawsuits.. maybe the winner can sue back and take over the company???

cmon man.. its ridiculous.. everyday there is always a lawsuit.... its not helpful to society... we as the customer dont need this at all.

Simple solution to this stuff,,,, make the attorney's who bring frivolous suits (as determined by a judge) liable for the defendant's legal fees. Attorney's are officers of the court and they seem to share little personal consequence from bringing suits. Yes, the plantiff can be counter sued and be ordered to pay for legal fees of the defendant, but the attorney is supposed to be the expert and advise people from doing stupid stuff.. Put some consequences back on the attorney and watch these suits disappear and dry up.

Regarding this suit

Fact #1 CBS owns the trademark "mighty mouse" - a unique name that applies to copyrighted works CBS owns. (there is no mighty mouse in nature)

Fact #2 Apple licensed use of the name from the owner of the trademark as is proper and legal.

Fact #3 M&M applied for a trademark which STILL HAS NOT been granted specific to computer pointing devices.

Fact #4 CBS has applied to extend their long established trademark "Mighty Mouse" to other devices.

Fact #5 M&M has a product on the market using the name "Mighty Mouse" which is a trademark of CBS, (M&M has only applied for a trademark,, it has not been granted).


IMO,,, Apple naming a product with name "mighty mouse" has more to do with creating association to the fictional super hero.
post #101 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX65 View Post

Simple solution to this stuff,,,, make the attorney's who bring frivolous suits (as determined by a judge) liable for the defendant's legal fees.

If I'm not mistaken, that is how the UK operates.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #102 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by TX65 View Post

Fact #3 M&M applied for a trademark which STILL HAS NOT been granted specific to computer pointing devices.

Fact #4 CBS has applied to extend their long established trademark "Mighty Mouse" to other devices.

Fact #5 M&M has a product on the market using the name "Mighty Mouse" which is a trademark of CBS, (M&M has only applied for a trademark,, it has not been granted).

You didn't make clear whether or not CBS's request to extend the trademark has been granted, denied or the procedure isn't finished. That too is an important piece of information. To leave that out but to clearly state that M&M hasn't been granted the trademark but neglecting to state the status of CBS's application seems to suggest a bias. Another key piece is whether M&M's application has been denied or not. "not been granted" can mean it's been denied or the process isn't done yet.

I think attorneys in the US can be sanctioned for frivolous or antagonizing lawsuits (see Jack Thompson), but enforcement is slow at best. It looks like there has to be a strong pattern of abuse before anyone will act.
post #103 of 119
For those wondering why CBS or M&M may not have sued earlier...

It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is designed to prevent owners from continually being tied up in litigation for fear of cancellation. An owner can at any time commence action for infringement against a third party as long as it had not previously notified the third party of its discontent following third party use and then failed to take action within a reasonable period of time (called acquiescence)

PS: There is an interesting list of genericized tradmarks at Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...zed_trademarks
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

You didn't make clear whether or not CBS's request to extend the trademark has been granted, denied or the procedure isn't finished. That too is an important piece of information. To leave that out but to clearly state that M&M hasn't been granted the trademark but neglecting to state the status of CBS's application seems to suggest a bias. Another key piece is whether M&M's application has been denied or not. "not been granted" can mean it's been denied or the process isn't done yet.

I think attorneys in the US can be sanctioned for frivolous or antagonizing lawsuits (see Jack Thompson), but enforcement is slow at best. It looks like there has to be a strong pattern of abuse before anyone will act.

It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that until, and unless, M&M is granted the trademark, CBS is assumed to own that trademark, esp as they have also applied. At any rate, Apple licensed it from CBS, they didn't just take the use of it as did M&M.

It's interesting that, as others have pointed out, it wasn't until fairly recently that M&M began to even use the trademark at all for the name.

In a counter lawsuit, that will be pointed out as evidence that M&M knew it didn't have the rights. In my experience, that will be damaging to their own lawsuit.
post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

For those wondering why CBS or M&M may not have sued earlier...

It is not necessary for a trademark owner to take enforcement action against all infringement if it can be shown that the owner perceived the infringement to be minor and inconsequential. This is designed to prevent owners from continually being tied up in litigation for fear of cancellation. An owner can at any time commence action for infringement against a third party as long as it had not previously notified the third party of its discontent following third party use and then failed to take action within a reasonable period of time (called acquiescence)

PS: There is an interesting list of genericized tradmarks at Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...zed_trademarks

This is what I was saying earlier. That companies don't always bother to sue. but they do have to be careful.

CBS probably didn't bother to apply for an extension because they didn't think there would be a reason to. When Apple approached them (or the other way around), they then saw that there could be money in those hills, and so applied. Whether they even knew about M&M at the time is questionable. It is pretty obscure as a product. And that's also why they may have little chance.

Remember Tiger Direct? They had a somewhat similar lawsuit. They claimed that Apple's use of the name Tiger was obscuring their own chances in the search engines, and that they were in the same business.

This mouse is a closer product though, but the markets still seem apart, and has been pointed out, can still easily be found if someone is looking for it. At any rate, the way the law works, if a minor mark can obscure a major mark, the minor mark loses, not the other way around.

This is the best site I've found so far {I found it after typing this!) that dissects the case, as well as some other famous cases of this type.

The first case is a Victoria's Secret case. The next is the M&M case. There are more after.

It seems that M&M did not file until after CBS filed—earlier the same day!

As it's pointed out on the site (by Ryan Gile, a trademark and intellectual property attorney), someone must have told M&M about the application by CBS.

http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/
post #106 of 119
I just spoke to my wife on this (she's an attorney with CitiGroup, and does this work along with other).

She thinks that M&M's opposition filing and subsequent suit is simply defensive in that they may be afraid that in case of a successful filing by CBS they would be prevented from using the mark at all, and that they really aren't interested in getting CBS or Apple to stop using it.

The statements about obscurity on Google may therefore be again defensive, and may actually be used to prove that they aren't well known enough to interfere with the mark. That may also work against them though.

She thinks that it may have been better if they had not used that in the case as it may show the "triviality" of their mark {look to the Victoria's Secret" case in the above link posted to Solipsism.
post #107 of 119
Just a couple of extra thoughts.

The mere use of a term as a name is not a reason to receive a trademark. There must be an actual filing and grant.

But if the name is used for some time, and is recognized by many, it could prevent others from filing for trademark status later.

If the first company then does file, they will likely not get the grant.

The fact that M&M was using the name is not recognition of a trademark. A filing is the intent, and as CBS filed first, and it is M&M that is filing in opposition, that weakens their case.

But unless one side drops a suit, this could go to 2015 and beyond.
post #108 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

She thinks that M&M's opposition filing and subsequent suit is simply defensive in that they may be afraid that in case of a successful filing by CBS they would be prevented from using the mark at all, and that they really aren't interested in getting CBS or Apple to stop using it.

That is the most reasonable explanation we've heard. Though I was under the impression that trademark lawsuits are one of the few types of cases in which the courts scold heavily for if the plaintiff has no way of winning and is obviously trying to litigate for other winnings. (I have no source)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #109 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by warnergt View Post

They need to do more than prove they marketed the name first. They need to prove that they had the right to use the MIghty Mouse trademark when they used it.

If I sold a mouse today called "the Chevrolet" and Apple sold a mouse a year from now with the same name, that doesn't mean I have case. In fact, I could quickly change from complainant to defendant over this name.

AFAIK, trademarks are industry specific. It's *why* CBS has filed a seperate application for the trademark in association with computer mice. If M&M beat them to the punch there, with a product no less, they are very much in the right.

Doesnt matter either that apple licensed the mark from CBS if it wasnt CBS' to license
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r View Post

AFAIK, trademarks are industry specific. It's *why* CBS has filed a seperate application for the trademark in association with computer mice. If M&M beat them to the punch there, with a product no less, they are very much in the right.

Doesnt matter either that apple licensed the mark from CBS if it wasnt CBS' to license

As stated in ths thread, I think that it's on an individual basis. If a trademark is well known enough others can't use it. I certainly can't make a line of computers called Pepsi and get away with it. But, as with a post to a wiki page I have above, a trademark can become too common to be protected. I recall Xerox fitting very hard to prevent this from happening.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r View Post

AFAIK, trademarks are industry specific. It's *why* CBS has filed a seperate application for the trademark in association with computer mice. If M&M beat them to the punch there, with a product no less, they are very much in the right.

Doesnt matter either that apple licensed the mark from CBS if it wasnt CBS' to license

That's not quite correct.
post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r View Post

AFAIK, trademarks are industry specific. It's *why* CBS has filed a seperate application for the trademark in association with computer mice. If M&M beat them to the punch there, with a product no less, they are very much in the right.

Doesnt matter either that apple licensed the mark from CBS if it wasnt CBS' to license

This may be true if the trademark involves a "generic" name. Like Apple Computer and Apple Studios.

But it's completely false if the trademark is a character whose name is not a common name. Superman, Batman, Donald Duck, Spiderman, Bugs Bunny, Wonder Woman, Luke Skywalker, Underdog, Yogi Bear, Fred Flintsone, Mighty Mouse, etc.. These are exclusive trademarks of DC Comics, Warner Bros., Disney, Lucas Studios, Marvel, Hanna-Barbera, etc..

You can not have a "Superman Weight Lifting Gym", "Wonder Woman Clothes Shop", "Bugs Bunny Hair Salon", "Skywalker Shoe Store" or "Donald Duck Hunting Supplies". Unless you get a license from the owner of the trademarked character. .
post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

This may be true if the trademark involves a "generic" name. Like Apple Computer and Apple Studios.

But it's completely false if the trademark is a character whose name is not a common name. Superman, Batman, Donald Duck, Spiderman, Bugs Bunny, Wonder Woman, Luke Skywalker, Underdog, Yogi Bear, Fred Flintsone, Mighty Mouse, etc.. These are exclusive trademarks of DC Comics, Warner Bros., Disney, Lucas Studios, Marvel, Hanna-Barbera, etc..

You can not have a "Superman Weight Lifting Gym", "Wonder Woman Clothes Shop", "Bugs Bunny Hair Salon", "Skywalker Shoe Store" or "Donald Duck Hunting Supplies". Unless you get a license from the owner of the trademarked character. .

That's correct. It goes to the suit that Victoria's Secret brought against Victor's Little Secrets several years ago. They weren't even using the same name, but it was deemed to be close enough to be confusing, and so to dilute the major mark so as to bring disfavor upon it.
post #114 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by seek3r View Post

AFAIK, trademarks are industry specific. It's *why* CBS has filed a seperate application for the trademark in association with computer mice. If M&M beat them to the punch there, with a product no less, they are very much in the right.

Doesnt matter either that apple licensed the mark from CBS if it wasnt CBS' to license

There are two main reasons why companies goes through great lengths to protect their trademarks across all industries. One is brand recognition and the other is revenue recognition.

Apple wants you to think of "Apple Inc." whenever you hear or see their "iPod" trademark being used.. Apple don't want you to think of shoes, toothpaste, soap, cereal or any other products by any other comapany when you hear or see "iPod". And Apple don't want you to think of just any MP3 player but an Apple Inc. brand MP3 player. Apple don't want to have their "iPod" trademark go the way of "Walkman" (for any portable cassette player) ScotchTape (for any cellophane tape) and Clorox (for any household bleach).

A while back, Coca-Cola had a campaign in which they sent scouts to resturants that weren't serving Coca-Cola products and requesting a "Coke" with their meal. If they were not informed that they would be getting a "Pepsi" (or any other brand cola), the restirant soon heard from a Coca-Cola attorney. This even though most people ordering a "Coke" didn;t really care which brand of cola they got. So now, beacise of this campaign, when you request a "Coke" from a resturant that don't serve Coca-Cola products, the waitress/waiter (is suppose to) will ask "Will "Pepsi" do? And I've yet to hear anybody answer, No. But Coca-Cola got other people, working for them fpr free, in reminding cola drinkers that "Coke" is a trademarked name for a cola made by Coca-Cola.

For companies like Disney, trademarks are also revenue generating cash cows. Their trademark characters have appeard on everything from a toothbrush to cereal boxes to coloring books and vitamins. And every company that uses a trademarked Disney character to promote their products must pay Disney for a license to do so. So Disney is not about to let some Joe Shmoe company trademark and market a "Snow White Toothpaste". Not when they're charging some other toothpaste company ten of thousands of dollars for a license to use their trademarked "Snow White" character. Letting Joe Shmoe Company get away with it would not only diminish their brand recognition but also their ability to command top dollors for a license to use their trademarks.
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

So now, because of this campaign, when you request a "Coke" from a resturant that don't serve Coca-Cola products, the waitress/waiter (is suppose to) will ask "Will "Pepsi" do? And I've yet to hear anybody answer, No.

I'm one. Coke tastes great; Pepsi, not so much. if you worked in the restaurant business where that was required you would have heard it too. Most people don't care, but some do on both sides of that fence, thiygh Coke does seem to be the more preferred of the two.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm one. Coke tastes great; Pepsi, not so much. if you worked in the restaurant business where that was requires you would have heard it too. Most people don't care, but some do on both sides of that fence but Coke does seem to be the more preferred of the two.

I care, and when I'm in the mood for a Coke, a Pepsi doesn't quite make it for me.

But if Pepsi is the only choice, and I'm REALLY in the mood for a cola, I'll take it.
post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm one. Coke tastes great; Pepsi, not so much. if you worked in the restaurant business where that was required you would have heard it too. Most people don't care, but some do on both sides of that fence, thiygh Coke does seem to be the more preferred of the two.

I also much prefer a "Coke". But only if it's from a can or bottle. When it's from a fountain, I really can't tell much of a difference in colas. Since most fountains don't mix it right in the first place. But I always request a "Coke". Even if I know I'm going to get a Pepsi. Just to see if the waitress/waiter is going to ask me "Is Pepsi O.K.?" And surprisingly, 8 out of 10 times they do. And 10 out of 10 times, I answer, "Yes".
post #118 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

I also much prefer a "Coke". But only if it's from a can or bottle. When it's from a fountain, I really can't tell much of a difference in colas. Since most fountains don't mix it right in the first place.

I prefer a 12oz can over 20oz or 2 liter* bottle. But there are some fountains I prefer over all of those. McDonalds is the number one choice for me. They almost always a perfect mix, and clean lines, or something. It's just great. Chinese restaurants always have very flat soda; mom and pop places tend to be flat too. Some gas stations/corner stores have really good fountains but sometimes it's poorly mixed too, though usually you can tell as your filling it.


* I think the 2 liter bottle is one of the only common items that is measured in the metric system that Americans are sold and refer to comfortably. I know there are no 1L bottles, fancy water, some beauty products, and more things list the metric next to the American standard, but the 2L bottle is the only well known by the metric volume. I don't think most people could tell you how many ounces it is even though it is listed right next to it. Was anyone else told as child in school that they needed to learn the metric system because we'd be changing over to it soon?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #119 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Yet Chrysler has a valid trademark for 'Jeep' and has for many years (they purchased it from Willys who registered it in 1943), so they have every right to enforce it. It sounds like they agreed that there was no risk of confusion, so they dropped it.

Simply having a nickname does not absolve you from trademark laws. If I called my daughter 'Michelle Pfeiffer' and she grew up to be an actress, she could not use the name 'Michelle Pfeiffer' even if I had called her that for years. His parents calling him 'jeep' is a red herring (want to bet that they called him that after hearing about the WIllys vehicle, anyway?).

you know the cool thing, jeep molnar is my grandpa, my middle name is jeep.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple sued for callings its mouse Mighty