As long as they don't package it in apple's green-on-green packaging with Shuffle icons and Apple logos (the way a different product is being sold), there is no way somebody would buy it and think they have an Apple product.
Wow, really? Do you think that everyone knows what kind of package a shuffle comes in? That's a pretty foolish notion. (And as someone else already pointed out, the original packaging did in fact have an apple on it.) Quick describe the box a Canon camera comes in! How about describing the packaging for HP inkjet printers? And how many times have you bought something online and the web page shows the product out of the box. In most instances, you don't ever see the packaging anywhere on the web site. So your whole "but the packaging was different" angle is irrelevant.
It's quite a stretch to say that this protects all other names and phrases that include the word "shuffle".
I realize that companies have tried to protect whole segments of the English language, but it doesn't mean much. Intel actually managed to get a trademark for the letter "i", but I don't think they'll have any success trying to prosecute everybody else for using that letter in their product names.
I have no knowledge of this Intel trademark but I doubt that you are understand the facts. Intel can't--and wouldn't--try to keep others from using the letter 'i'; that makes absolutely no sense. I postulate that it was probably a trademarking of a logo with the letter 'i'. This doesn't mean that other logos can't contain the letter 'i', but it does mean that other companies can't copy their style. In other words, there can't be any confusion between the Intel 'i' and other logos in that category.
And I just found this article from when they originally released the what was then called the super shuffle. If this isn't the definition of infringement, I don't know what is:
- Their product looks EXACTLY like the shuffle except the text on the back
- The product/headphone show is very similar to one Apple has used
- Two-tone marketing material, with silhouette of a person wearing the product in white
I'm reminded of the McDowell restaurant in Coming to America.
Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.
Gee, it seems that everybody has decided to gang up on me here.
Yes, the original issue - the product called Super Shuffle - violated several trademarks. Mostly in the name and the packaging. Which is why, after the suit, they changed both the name and the packaging. That's over and done with - ancient history.
Any further claims of violation is really claiming that Apple has an eternal monopoly on anybody who makes a small white rectangular music player. Go and believe this if you want, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
Gee, it seems that everybody has decided to gang up on me here.
Yes, the original issue - the product called Super Shuffle - violated several trademarks. Mostly in the name and the packaging. Which is why, after the suit, they changed both the name and the packaging. That's over and done with - ancient history.
Any further claims of violation is really claiming that Apple has an eternal monopoly on anybody who makes a small white rectangular music player. Go and believe this if you want, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm not trying to "gang" up on you, but likewise, I'm saying that I simply don't understand your points and made a clear rebuttal. The problem is, I've already pointed out why it's not just another small white rectangular player. I noted that they shared several very specific design details, when present in that combination, simply do not lead me anywhere near your conclusion. If the only similarities were that it was a white rectangle, then I would agree with you, but Apple has not tried to sue Creative or Microsoft or any other company that made white or black players that are vaguely similar to the iPod, they don't have nearly as many similarities in the details that differentiate the two models as the iPod shuffle and Super Tangent do.
Yes, the original issue - the product called Super Shuffle - violated several trademarks. Mostly in the name and the packaging. Which is why, after the suit, they changed both the name and the packaging. That's over and done with - ancient history.
Any further claims of violation is really claiming that Apple has an eternal monopoly on anybody who makes a small white rectangular music player. Go and believe this if you want, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
Ok, now we are finally getting on the same page. Note that the current article is on Luxpro suing Apple, not Apple suing Luxpro. So, to your second paragraph, at this point and time, no further claims of violation have been made by Apple (ie, Apple is not trying to exert its "eternal monopoly". Luxpro's suit is based on the supposed lost sales as a result of Apple winning the original lawsuit. As you say, the original lawsuit it over and done with. But this new lawsuit is baseless. First, they are trying to hold Apple liable for the courts original ruling in the first lawsuit. Second, as you point out, the Super shuffle clearly "violated several trademarks" and so Apple's original lawsuit was legit (regardless of the outcome).
Taiwan runs a factory grading system of 1, 2 and 3, those not meeting certain criteria can be relegated from 1, the highest, to a lower banding. 'Me to' manufacturing is common practice as ceratin aesthetics mean a product can only be one particular shape ie a car has a wheel in each corner, but most look entirely different with their shells on! Copyright infringement is more important when its intellectual rights, 'what makes it work'.
Comments
As long as they don't package it in apple's green-on-green packaging with Shuffle icons and Apple logos (the way a different product is being sold), there is no way somebody would buy it and think they have an Apple product.
Wow, really? Do you think that everyone knows what kind of package a shuffle comes in? That's a pretty foolish notion. (And as someone else already pointed out, the original packaging did in fact have an apple on it.) Quick describe the box a Canon camera comes in! How about describing the packaging for HP inkjet printers? And how many times have you bought something online and the web page shows the product out of the box. In most instances, you don't ever see the packaging anywhere on the web site. So your whole "but the packaging was different" angle is irrelevant.
It's quite a stretch to say that this protects all other names and phrases that include the word "shuffle".
I realize that companies have tried to protect whole segments of the English language, but it doesn't mean much. Intel actually managed to get a trademark for the letter "i", but I don't think they'll have any success trying to prosecute everybody else for using that letter in their product names.
I have no knowledge of this Intel trademark but I doubt that you are understand the facts. Intel can't--and wouldn't--try to keep others from using the letter 'i'; that makes absolutely no sense. I postulate that it was probably a trademarking of a logo with the letter 'i'. This doesn't mean that other logos can't contain the letter 'i', but it does mean that other companies can't copy their style. In other words, there can't be any confusion between the Intel 'i' and other logos in that category.
- Their product looks EXACTLY like the shuffle except the text on the back
- The product/headphone show is very similar to one Apple has used
- Two-tone marketing material, with silhouette of a person wearing the product in white
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.ph...hufle_rip_off/
If anyone still thinks it wasn't a blatant attempt by Luxpro to take advantage of Apple's hard work and deliberately deceive customers...
EDIT: Just noticed this is the same link JeffDM already posted.
Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.
Yes, the original issue - the product called Super Shuffle - violated several trademarks. Mostly in the name and the packaging. Which is why, after the suit, they changed both the name and the packaging. That's over and done with - ancient history.
Any further claims of violation is really claiming that Apple has an eternal monopoly on anybody who makes a small white rectangular music player. Go and believe this if you want, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
Gee, it seems that everybody has decided to gang up on me here.
Yes, the original issue - the product called Super Shuffle - violated several trademarks. Mostly in the name and the packaging. Which is why, after the suit, they changed both the name and the packaging. That's over and done with - ancient history.
Any further claims of violation is really claiming that Apple has an eternal monopoly on anybody who makes a small white rectangular music player. Go and believe this if you want, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm not trying to "gang" up on you, but likewise, I'm saying that I simply don't understand your points and made a clear rebuttal. The problem is, I've already pointed out why it's not just another small white rectangular player. I noted that they shared several very specific design details, when present in that combination, simply do not lead me anywhere near your conclusion. If the only similarities were that it was a white rectangle, then I would agree with you, but Apple has not tried to sue Creative or Microsoft or any other company that made white or black players that are vaguely similar to the iPod, they don't have nearly as many similarities in the details that differentiate the two models as the iPod shuffle and Super Tangent do.
Yes, the original issue - the product called Super Shuffle - violated several trademarks. Mostly in the name and the packaging. Which is why, after the suit, they changed both the name and the packaging. That's over and done with - ancient history.
Any further claims of violation is really claiming that Apple has an eternal monopoly on anybody who makes a small white rectangular music player. Go and believe this if you want, but it makes no sense whatsoever.
Ok, now we are finally getting on the same page. Note that the current article is on Luxpro suing Apple, not Apple suing Luxpro. So, to your second paragraph, at this point and time, no further claims of violation have been made by Apple (ie, Apple is not trying to exert its "eternal monopoly". Luxpro's suit is based on the supposed lost sales as a result of Apple winning the original lawsuit. As you say, the original lawsuit it over and done with. But this new lawsuit is baseless. First, they are trying to hold Apple liable for the courts original ruling in the first lawsuit. Second, as you point out, the Super shuffle clearly "violated several trademarks" and so Apple's original lawsuit was legit (regardless of the outcome).
So Taiwan is able to just ignore copyrights? If I were Apple I'd pull everything out of that country.
A lot of Apple stuff is made in Taiwan.