Apple sued over 'Snow Leopard' moniker in China for $80K

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 99
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    russgriz wrote: »
    In other news, one of the world's oldest partnerships is suing Apple Inc. for use of their trademark.  Said a representative, "I think our usage of the Apple is firmly established.  You will find evidence in any motel room nightstand.  For use of our trademark, we demand that Apple take it's fair share of Original Sin."

    Signed,
    Adam and Eve Inc.
    Now this is a joke gone rotten LOL
    ...you know, ummm, that their is real "adam and eve inc", they are in the adult film and the NSFW adult toy business... and adam and eve inc most like uses apple computers to edit the adult films they produce...
  • Reply 62 of 99
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    bsenka wrote: »
    As much as this suit may seem somewhat frivolous, one still has to wonder who is doing Apple's trademark searching for them before they decide on a product's name. A little due diligence would side-step most of these kinds of claims.

    In most of the world, this situation would not be a problem. A trademark is issued for a class of products. That is, you file for a trademark in only a specific field. Apple obtained a trademark for Snow Leopard in the field of computer operating system software. But that doesn't prevent getting a trademark in an unrelated field. In the US, there are also "snow leopard" trademarks in remote controlled toys, vodka, basketball teams, motorcycle accessories, and films. This is not uncommon for the same trademark to be granted to different companies in different markets.

    If there is a dispute, a court would have to decide if one trademark infringed on the other. When this happens, it generally comes down to the standard of whether the newer trademark causes confusion with consumers. In the above example, it is unlikely that a consumer would be confused between a motorcycle saddle bag and computer operating system software, so the trademarks can coexist. OTOH, in the case of 'Apple' itself, there was enough concern as to whether Apple (the computer company) was infringing on the trademark of Apple (the music company) that it had to go to court and eventually an agreement was reached.

    Now, I'm not saying that this is what happened in China because I don't know Chinese law. But your assumption that Apple failed on trademark searching is not necessarily valid. If Chinese law is similar, it is entirely possible that Apple did a search and concluded that there would be no confusion between a laundry detergent and operating system software. The Chinese company apparently disagrees and the courts will have to hear it. It is entirely possible that Apple did sufficient due diligence and figured it wasn't a problem.
  • Reply 63 of 99
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    clemynx wrote: »
    If you really think that the Chinese are communist, you don't understand a thing in our world.

    I guess I must have missed the news that China changed to a democracy. When did that happen?

    China is self-defined as a Communist state. Whether they meet some arbitrary definition of 'communist' is not really the point (and clearly they are including some major elements of capitalism, at least in how their businesses are run). The government calls itself communist, so I think it's reasonable to do so.
  • Reply 64 of 99
    markbyrnmarkbyrn Posts: 661member
    So after Apple caved into Proview, the small fry patent trolls figure Apple is an easy mark.
  • Reply 65 of 99
    sipsip Posts: 210member


    So, how many people are going to be confused by household chemicals like detergents and toothpaste and a computer OS?


     


    Toothpaste/detergent powered Macs coming to a Chinese store near you...

  • Reply 66 of 99
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hmm View Post


    Some of you guys are complete morons. Google suggests that the population of China is over 1.3 billion. Remarks about China and copying most likely apply to a very small percentage of these individuals. Companies that manufacture there accept the good and bad aspects of doing so. The US provides them with a stable banking system. China provides extremely large quantities of cheap labor. This is factored against the cost of doing business there which would include any issues with government stability, costs involving PR concerns such as child labor, lawsuits, etc. It's just an issue of benefits and risks. This would be the case with any country chosen as a primary base for manufacturing.


     


    I'm not including the Proview issue in this statement. That relates to worldwide trademark negotiation and "seller's remorse". The owner was not Chinese. Anyway I'm tired of the Chinese bashing. If the concerns outweighed the benefits, companies would have moved on.



    China is well known for copying. It's not a small percentage. I can list countless examples of Chinese companies copying other companies products, but I don't feel the need to do so. The Chinese government copies as well. For a few quick examples, the Chinese J-11B fighter is basically a knockoff of Russia's Su-27. JAC Motors in China unveiled their new truck earlier in the year. It's an exact carbon copy of the Ford F-150. The Chinese don't innovate, they copy is the bottom line. 

  • Reply 67 of 99
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    boltsfan17 wrote: »
    China is well known for copying. It's not a small percentage. I can list countless examples of Chinese companies copying other companies products, but I don't feel the need to do so. The Chinese government copies as well. For a few quick examples, the Chinese J-11B fighter is basically a knockoff of Russia's Su-27. JAC Motors in China unveiled their new truck earlier in the year. It's an exact carbon copy of the Ford F-150. The Chinese don't innovate, they copy is the bottom line. 

    While there's some truth to what you say, it's exaggerated.

    1. Not all Chinese companies act that way - and respect for intellectual property is increasing.

    2. I believe that China licensed the SU-27 from the former Soviet Union. They didn't just start copying.

    There are certainly cases where they have done so, but it's not as universal as you imply.
  • Reply 68 of 99
    wetlanderwetlander Posts: 38member
    From the Article dudes:

    "Jiangsu Xuebao used the trademark to market a touchscreen ad display and a mobile EPR software suite."

    Touchscreen...
    Software suite...

    Read.
  • Reply 69 of 99
    wetlanderwetlander Posts: 38member
    Daily chemical may be a subsidiary of a larger corporation...


    http://xuebao.en.ec21.com/
  • Reply 70 of 99
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    wetlander wrote: »
    We are the largest manufacturer in China specialized in producing fine mist spray pumps, cream pumps, lotion pumps and the relative plastic containers for cosmetic & pharmaceutical packaging.

    Sounds real computery.
  • Reply 71 of 99
    wetlanderwetlander Posts: 38member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    Quote:

    We are the largest manufacturer in China specialized in producing fine mist spray pumps, cream pumps, lotion pumps and the relative plastic containers for cosmetic & pharmaceutical packaging.


    Sounds real computery.


    Mmm... not too computery, but maybe also a subsidiary.  My conspiracy theorist thinks they are wholly-owned by Google and Apple is in real trouble.

  • Reply 72 of 99
    imgmkrimgmkr Posts: 16member
    [QUOTE]Snow Reopard[/QUOTE]
    that is freaking hilarious! kk
  • Reply 73 of 99
    dcsimagesdcsimages Posts: 59member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Radar View Post


    God, what a bunch of opportunistic slime bags. So can the west start "suing' these Chinese companies for benefitting from western chemistry, electricity, mass production equipment, you-name-it, which allowed them to even know how chemicals work in the first place, let alone be able to manufacture them?


     


    Apple, take these idiots to court and run them into total bankruptcy, please. This has to stop now.





    The problem is, the Chinese will sue over the patent for gunpowder, get an injunction and take over the world without anyone else firing a shot. ;-)

  • Reply 74 of 99
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Zozman View Post


    First of all, explaining a joke ruins it, second of off, ive been to hong kong & Japan, i know the difference, but a joke is for laughs, I thought you might get funny, you know because of your user name? :p



    This wasn't even funny when "I Love Lucy" did it - overused, repetitive stereotyping is just not funny.

  • Reply 75 of 99
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    Just saying, but,

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Five Seconds… 

    The People's Republic of China is a single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China.




    Yeah, but it's a bit like the "Citizens for a Clean Environment" actually being a front for coal producers - the name does not really mean anything. The Chinese government is not a Communist state - no country actually is, or ever was. Oh, and it's also not a Republic either.

  • Reply 76 of 99
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    elroth wrote: »
    The Chinese government is not a Communist state - no country actually is, or ever was.

    Looks like you have some editing to do over there, then.

    162
  • Reply 77 of 99
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    elroth wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's a bit like the "Citizens for a Clean Environment" actually being a front for coal producers - the name does not really mean anything. The Chinese government is not a Communist state - no country actually is, or ever was. Oh, and it's also not a Republic either.

    Let's see. The Chinese government calls themselves 'Communist'. Virtually the rest of the world calls them 'Communist'.

    One anonymous person on AI says they're not.

    Hmmmmm. Who to believe?
  • Reply 78 of 99
    zozmanzozman Posts: 393member
    elroth wrote: »
    This wasn't even funny when "I Love Lucy" did it - overused, repetitive stereotyping is just not funny.


    *Facepalm*
  • Reply 79 of 99
    Time to quickly register a few trademarks sounding like names of cats.
  • Reply 80 of 99
    bsenkabsenka Posts: 799member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post





    Looks like you have some editing to do over there, then.

    162


     


    I've been to Cuba several times, they definitely are not communist. There's plenty of free enterprise going on there. 


     


    I have a Canadian friend who owns several businesses in China too, that's hardly a hallmark of Communism either.


     


    Cuba and China are both State Capitalist, but neither has been communist for quite some time. It's debatable whether Cuba ever was.

Sign In or Register to comment.