Says the U.S. Patent and Trademark's web site, that's who. They will NOT grant the applicant the registration if they don't actually use it.
You either have to be using the trademark name in commerce already or have a ligitimate intent to use it. Here's a quote from their site: "NOTE: If you file based on intent to use, you must begin actual use of the mark in commerce before the USPTO will register the mark..."
Go to this link and scroll down to "Basis for Filing" to see for yourself:
Says the U.S. Patent and Trademark's web site, that's who. They will NOT grant the applicant the registration if they don't actually use it.
You either have to be using the trademark name in commerce already or have a ligitimate intent to use it. Here's a quote from their site: "NOTE: If you file based on intent to use, you must begin actual use of the mark in commerce before the USPTO will register the mark..."
Go to this link and scroll down to "Basis for Filing" to see for yourself:
... And if you had actually read the entire paragraph you would have noticed that underneath it it says right away:
"Is there any other possible filing basis?
Yes. Although not as common, you may base your application on international agreements. <...>"
Well, I actually did read the paragraph below, and like it states, it's referring to foriegn applications. Apple is in the U.S...I'm not a trademark lawyer, but it doesn't sound like it's a filing basis that applies to Apple. And where in that 3rd reason does it state, "Yes, you can file just for the sole reason of blocking it from someone else to use"? What does that have to do with "international agreements"? Please enlighten me, since you're the brainiac here.
But, somehow I don't think Apple is going to tie their product names to the name of another company. They never have before, There wasn't MotoMac, or MacIBM or IBMac.
SNIP!
I just blindly assume that Apple will use names that capture the essence of the computers, like PowerMac did/does; is marketable and is catchy.
Sorry for the snips I just wanted to point out that there may be a difference with Intel in that Intel likes to promote computer manufactures that help promote them. For example if you were to adopt Centrino technology in your computers and would advertise that Intel would match what you spent with 3 to 4 dollars of advertisement for the technology and maybe for your computers. Apple is not stupid for example ths new breed of processors that Intel has and Apple will be using, if Apple advertises this technology Intel will promote it as well to the tune of 3 to 4 dollars of advertising for every dollar Apple spends. So Apple adops Intel processors xxx and advertises tham as XMacs featuring Intel xxx processors, Intel will match that ad campaign with 3or 4 dollars for every dollar that Apple spends for an ad campaign that touts the Intel processors xxx, and may mention that they are to be found in XMacs. So now let's say Apple wants to spend 1mil on advertising they may also get mentioned in the ads that Intel will be matching Apple with, but Intel will be spending 3 to 4 million on their ads. So Apple may get 2mil or 3mil worth of advertising out of their 1mil in ads. Compare that with IBM who says hey if you want low power chips pay us and we will develope them, and you can advertise them. It appears to me that Apple will have more money for advertising since they don't have to pay IBM, and Intel may mention Apple computers in their advertising. So Apple pays less for the chips, less for the technology, does not have to pay Intel to develope technologies for them, and Apples advertising dollars will go much further.
Sorry for the snips I just wanted to point out that there may be a difference with Intel in that Intel likes to promote computer manufactures that help promote them. For example if you were to adopt Centrino technology in your computers and would advertise that Intel would match what you spent with 3 to 4 dollars of advertisement for the technology and maybe for your computers. Apple is not stupid for example ths new breed of processors that Intel has and Apple will be using, if Apple advertises this technology Intel will promote it as well to the tune of 3 to 4 dollars of advertising for every dollar Apple spends. So Apple adops Intel processors xxx and advertises tham as XMacs featuring Intel xxx processors, Intel will match that ad campaign with 3or 4 dollars for every dollar that Apple spends for an ad campaign that touts the Intel processors xxx, and may mention that they are to be found in XMacs. So now let's say Apple wants to spend 1mil on advertising they may also get mentioned in the ads that Intel will be matching Apple with, but Intel will be spending 3 to 4 million on their ads. So Apple may get 2mil or 3mil worth of advertising out of their 1mil in ads. Compare that with IBM who says hey if you want low power chips pay us and we will develope them, and you can advertise them. It appears to me that Apple will have more money for advertising since they don't have to pay IBM, and Intel may mention Apple computers in their advertising. So Apple pays less for the chips, less for the technology, does not have to pay Intel to develope technologies for them, and Apples advertising dollars will go much further.
Yup, fully aware of Intel and their co-marketing dollars. Bu to qualify, all you have to do is mention them in your marketing, i.e. 'Intel Inside', or the Intel jingle and the end of your commercial. You do not have to name your computer line after them. Hence, we do not see the DellIntel or InDell or whatever.
Yup, fully aware of Intel and their co-marketing dollars. Bu to qualify, all you have to do is mention them in your marketing, i.e. 'Intel Inside', or the Intel jingle and the end of your commercial. You do not have to name your computer line after them. Hence, we do not see the DellIntel or InDell or whatever.
Like ProMac, or PowerMac, or Pro XMacs, etc. Yes. Apple would add the words "featuring the Intel xxx processors. MacTel could be the name of a series of information pages letting the general public in on the Mac Intel connection. How it affects the end user.
Comments
Originally posted by cubist
Trademarks, unlike other forms of IP, have to be used or they become invalid.
"MacTel" could be another "iPhone" name, however, rather than a name for the computer.
says who?
here's the trademark office (USA) on "sextium"
Word Mark\tSEXTIUM
Goods and Services\t(ABANDONED) IC 009. US 026. G & S: microprocessors
Mark Drawing Code\t(1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number\t74511485
Filing Date\tApril 12, 1994
Current Filing Basis\t1B
Original Filing Basis\t1B
Published for Opposition\t January 31, 1995
Owner\t(APPLICANT) Rosenfeld, Eric INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 1 Osborn Road Harrison NEW YORK 10528
Attorney of Record\tGEORGE W. MACDONALD, JR.
Type of Mark\tTRADEMARK
Register\tPRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator\tDEAD
Abandonment Date\tJune 16, 2000
oooh... i'm so tempted.... to book the domain name....
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
says who?
Says the U.S. Patent and Trademark's web site, that's who. They will NOT grant the applicant the registration if they don't actually use it.
You either have to be using the trademark name in commerce already or have a ligitimate intent to use it. Here's a quote from their site: "NOTE: If you file based on intent to use, you must begin actual use of the mark in commerce before the USPTO will register the mark..."
Go to this link and scroll down to "Basis for Filing" to see for yourself:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac...tent.htm#basis
Originally posted by MacUser1
Says the U.S. Patent and Trademark's web site, that's who. They will NOT grant the applicant the registration if they don't actually use it.
You either have to be using the trademark name in commerce already or have a ligitimate intent to use it. Here's a quote from their site: "NOTE: If you file based on intent to use, you must begin actual use of the mark in commerce before the USPTO will register the mark..."
Go to this link and scroll down to "Basis for Filing" to see for yourself:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac...tent.htm#basis
... And if you had actually read the entire paragraph you would have noticed that underneath it it says right away:
"Is there any other possible filing basis?
Yes. Although not as common, you may base your application on international agreements. <...>"
Originally posted by toes
... And if you had actually read the entire paragraph you would have noticed that underneath it it says right away:
"Is there any other possible filing basis?
Yes. Although not as common, you may base your application on international agreements. <...>"
Well, I actually did read the paragraph below, and like it states, it's referring to foriegn applications. Apple is in the U.S...I'm not a trademark lawyer, but it doesn't sound like it's a filing basis that applies to Apple. And where in that 3rd reason does it state, "Yes, you can file just for the sole reason of blocking it from someone else to use"? What does that have to do with "international agreements"? Please enlighten me, since you're the brainiac here.
Originally posted by Tulkas
SNIP!
But, somehow I don't think Apple is going to tie their product names to the name of another company. They never have before, There wasn't MotoMac, or MacIBM or IBMac.
SNIP!
I just blindly assume that Apple will use names that capture the essence of the computers, like PowerMac did/does; is marketable and is catchy.
Sorry for the snips I just wanted to point out that there may be a difference with Intel in that Intel likes to promote computer manufactures that help promote them. For example if you were to adopt Centrino technology in your computers and would advertise that Intel would match what you spent with 3 to 4 dollars of advertisement for the technology and maybe for your computers. Apple is not stupid for example ths new breed of processors that Intel has and Apple will be using, if Apple advertises this technology Intel will promote it as well to the tune of 3 to 4 dollars of advertising for every dollar Apple spends. So Apple adops Intel processors xxx and advertises tham as XMacs featuring Intel xxx processors, Intel will match that ad campaign with 3or 4 dollars for every dollar that Apple spends for an ad campaign that touts the Intel processors xxx, and may mention that they are to be found in XMacs. So now let's say Apple wants to spend 1mil on advertising they may also get mentioned in the ads that Intel will be matching Apple with, but Intel will be spending 3 to 4 million on their ads. So Apple may get 2mil or 3mil worth of advertising out of their 1mil in ads. Compare that with IBM who says hey if you want low power chips pay us and we will develope them, and you can advertise them. It appears to me that Apple will have more money for advertising since they don't have to pay IBM, and Intel may mention Apple computers in their advertising. So Apple pays less for the chips, less for the technology, does not have to pay Intel to develope technologies for them, and Apples advertising dollars will go much further.
Originally posted by Brendon
Sorry for the snips I just wanted to point out that there may be a difference with Intel in that Intel likes to promote computer manufactures that help promote them. For example if you were to adopt Centrino technology in your computers and would advertise that Intel would match what you spent with 3 to 4 dollars of advertisement for the technology and maybe for your computers. Apple is not stupid for example ths new breed of processors that Intel has and Apple will be using, if Apple advertises this technology Intel will promote it as well to the tune of 3 to 4 dollars of advertising for every dollar Apple spends. So Apple adops Intel processors xxx and advertises tham as XMacs featuring Intel xxx processors, Intel will match that ad campaign with 3or 4 dollars for every dollar that Apple spends for an ad campaign that touts the Intel processors xxx, and may mention that they are to be found in XMacs. So now let's say Apple wants to spend 1mil on advertising they may also get mentioned in the ads that Intel will be matching Apple with, but Intel will be spending 3 to 4 million on their ads. So Apple may get 2mil or 3mil worth of advertising out of their 1mil in ads. Compare that with IBM who says hey if you want low power chips pay us and we will develope them, and you can advertise them. It appears to me that Apple will have more money for advertising since they don't have to pay IBM, and Intel may mention Apple computers in their advertising. So Apple pays less for the chips, less for the technology, does not have to pay Intel to develope technologies for them, and Apples advertising dollars will go much further.
Yup, fully aware of Intel and their co-marketing dollars. Bu to qualify, all you have to do is mention them in your marketing, i.e. 'Intel Inside', or the Intel jingle and the end of your commercial. You do not have to name your computer line after them. Hence, we do not see the DellIntel or InDell or whatever.
MACINTOSH today, MACINTOSH tomorrow and MACINTOSH forever!
Originally posted by Tulkas
Yup, fully aware of Intel and their co-marketing dollars. Bu to qualify, all you have to do is mention them in your marketing, i.e. 'Intel Inside', or the Intel jingle and the end of your commercial. You do not have to name your computer line after them. Hence, we do not see the DellIntel or InDell or whatever.
Like ProMac, or PowerMac, or Pro XMacs, etc. Yes. Apple would add the words "featuring the Intel xxx processors. MacTel could be the name of a series of information pages letting the general public in on the Mac Intel connection. How it affects the end user.
Originally posted by satchmo
I'd hate to have that annoying Intel jingle at the end of Apple TV ads...then again, it might get PC users to take note and make the switch.
Ding, Ding, Ding...
Originally posted by Benton
Stand united.
MACINTOSH today, MACINTOSH tomorrow and MACINTOSH forever!
Yeah, could you imagine.
Introducing the....
Apple Cortland
Apple Granny Smith
Apple Fuji
Apple Golden Delicious
Apple Red Delicious
Apple what-other-kinda-friggin-apple-exists
No, it is Macintosh. It will always be a Macintosh. Just as Mac OS X will not change to Cortland OS XI.