I will admit that I do only know one side of the story and judged based on that. Regardless of when Nissan registered the name in the US it is his name, he did register a computer company with that name before domain names could be had, he did buy the name before Nissan and the name can not be confused with the automotive company. I still say he is in the right to the domain.
I assume the 1993 date is for Japan, not the US, and the the 1965 date is for the US. Is that correct?
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.
The courts have ruled that merely having the name (as an individual) doesn't mean that you have the right to use it as a public vehicle over and above the rights owned for a well known brand.
The internet has confused this issue, because before, territory was considered to be of importance. So regional companies could have the same names. But now it's changed. When a company can appeal to a worldwide customer base through the simple process of putting up a cheap website. Where before, a company might not have bothered to sue, now they must.
II see no reason for them to give in on this. It's really a fight between M&M and CBS. CBS could protect Apple from needing to pay a settlement, the way IBM did with Linux customers in the SCO suit.
That's going too far. IF M&M can show that CBS does not have the right to apply the trademark to computer peripherals AND IF M&M can show that they were first (this one should be easy), then M&M could collect from Apple. The fact that Apple had a license from CBS would possibly save them from punitive damages since they acted in good faith, but they could still lose (not likely, but possible).
In that scenario, Apple might be able to sue CBS for licensing them a trademark which they did not have a legal right to license. I suspect they could get their license fees back, but probably not much else.
The wild card is those two abandoned "Mighty Mouse" trademark applications. If they were abandoned because CBS asserted a right to the mark and the two applicants agreed (to the point of dropping their application), then it's about as close to a slam dunk as there is in trademark cases and M&M would lose big time.
Their argument is, when you search for Mighty Mouse, you can't find the M&M one, even if you know what you are looking for. (Unless you remember the company name of "Man & Machine")
The first thing searched for was waterproof might mouse. It's the first listing. The next thing I did was remove mighty from the search term, assuming that not everyone has a brand in mind. It's the 5th listing.
But what if you are thinking of medical instead of waterproof. Medical mighty mouse is the 1st choice and medical mouse is the 3rd choice.
I don't see that being hard to find or confusing to the buyer.
I've looked through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and found no prior instance of TM after the name "Mighty Mouse" on the Man-Machine web site. Don't know what the legal implications are there, but it sure appears that they've just started to use TM designator.
But if you happen to remember that you're looking for a waterproof mouse, you can easily find them on Google. And, of course, Apple's mouse is nowhere to be found using that phrase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
Their argument is, when you search for Mighty Mouse, you can't find the M&M one, even if you know what you are looking for. (Unless you remember the company name of "Man & Machine")
That's going too far. IF M&M can show that CBS does not have the right to apply the trademark to computer peripherals AND IF M&M can show that they were first (this one should be easy), then M&M could collect from Apple. The fact that Apple had a license from CBS would possibly save them from punitive damages since they acted in good faith, but they could still lose (not likely, but possible).
In that scenario, Apple might be able to sue CBS for licensing them a trademark which they did not have a legal right to license. I suspect they could get their license fees back, but probably not much else.
The wild card is those two abandoned "Mighty Mouse" trademark applications. If they were abandoned because CBS asserted a right to the mark and the two applicants agreed (to the point of dropping their application), then it's about as close to a slam dunk as there is in trademark cases and M&M would lose big time.
That's not true. If Apple can show that it aquired the trademark in good faith from the company that claimed to own it for that purpose, and that did in actual fact own it for many years, then Apple might very well be absolved from payments.
The fact that M&M used this first for a mouse, when their application is still pending means, right now, that they have no more rights than does CBS, which would, usually, be the presumed owner in the case of an extension.
One question is when CBS applied, and when M&M applied, though that in itself, means little.
If Apple were to lose this case, in spite, they should call it the Mitey Mouse or Mightier Mouse. People are such babies these days with branding. Why is this coming up 2 years later? This is like a stupid news story, for example, this is what I heard on the news: "Study showing bras most likely cause for breast cancer." Ok, and you're finally bringing this up 50+ years later? Mannnnnn. lol
I don't think that statement is an accurate interpretation.
BTW: is anyone else getting HIV google ads on this forum? I don't get it, it's not relevant to me, to the discussion, the general content of the site or any site I've been to.
Don't know if its an improvement on the Mormon banner ads of the last few weeks or not.
Depends on the recognizability of the name and the type of product. If I released a 'Dove' mouse, there is little chance that P&G would be able to stop me (I think they're the owners of the Dove soap trademark). There is no risk of confusion and a person hearing the word 'Dove' is not likely to immediately think of the soap.
OTOH, if I created a mouse called "Mercedes Benz", I'd be stopped.
...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.
Apple owns the name iPod. Therefore, anything used in conjunction with that, as a business, needs to be licensed. It's not a matter of "strongarming". It's the law. A company isn't allowed to use other's copyrights and trademarks without permission. Even in writing a book, permission is needed. You'll find that to be true everywhere.
You may think it's unfair, but it's not. .you can say that your armband is compatible with some of the most popular players. That would work too. But if you want to use Apple's trademark, you should have to get permission. You're feeding off their success.
The problem has to do with inappropriate use of the trademark which results in a negative opinion of it, or a dilution of it, which leads to the loss of the trademark entirely.
A company is almost forced into defending it because of those reasons.
If they don't defend it, it could fall into the public domain, as have so many other trademarks over the years.
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.
...not so sure about that. "Mouse" (computer) is a homonym with "Mouse" (mammal). They describe two completely different things.
While it is a homonym, I always wonder if it can be more accurately described as a polyseme as the terms are related in that a computer mouse was named because of its similar size and shape to the rodent.
While it is a homonym, I always wonder if it can be more accurately described as a polyseme as the terms are related in that a computer mouse as named because of it's similar size and shape to the rodent.
And I thought I was being too technical...
In the end, it only depends on whether the court cares or not
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.
Comments
I will admit that I do only know one side of the story and judged based on that. Regardless of when Nissan registered the name in the US it is his name, he did register a computer company with that name before domain names could be had, he did buy the name before Nissan and the name can not be confused with the automotive company. I still say he is in the right to the domain.
I assume the 1993 date is for Japan, not the US, and the the 1965 date is for the US. Is that correct?
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.
The courts have ruled that merely having the name (as an individual) doesn't mean that you have the right to use it as a public vehicle over and above the rights owned for a well known brand.
The internet has confused this issue, because before, territory was considered to be of importance. So regional companies could have the same names. But now it's changed. When a company can appeal to a worldwide customer base through the simple process of putting up a cheap website. Where before, a company might not have bothered to sue, now they must.
II see no reason for them to give in on this. It's really a fight between M&M and CBS. CBS could protect Apple from needing to pay a settlement, the way IBM did with Linux customers in the SCO suit.
That's going too far. IF M&M can show that CBS does not have the right to apply the trademark to computer peripherals AND IF M&M can show that they were first (this one should be easy), then M&M could collect from Apple. The fact that Apple had a license from CBS would possibly save them from punitive damages since they acted in good faith, but they could still lose (not likely, but possible).
In that scenario, Apple might be able to sue CBS for licensing them a trademark which they did not have a legal right to license. I suspect they could get their license fees back, but probably not much else.
The wild card is those two abandoned "Mighty Mouse" trademark applications. If they were abandoned because CBS asserted a right to the mark and the two applicants agreed (to the point of dropping their application), then it's about as close to a slam dunk as there is in trademark cases and M&M would lose big time.
Their argument is, when you search for Mighty Mouse, you can't find the M&M one, even if you know what you are looking for. (Unless you remember the company name of "Man & Machine")
The first thing searched for was waterproof might mouse. It's the first listing. The next thing I did was remove mighty from the search term, assuming that not everyone has a brand in mind. It's the 5th listing.
But what if you are thinking of medical instead of waterproof. Medical mighty mouse is the 1st choice and medical mouse is the 3rd choice.
I don't see that being hard to find or confusing to the buyer.
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.man-machine.com
http://www.man-machine.com/mightymouse.htm
If you look here -> http://www.man-machine.com/products.htm
the Mighty Mouse is the only product with TM after the name.
Is it the only product name they have trademarked?
Looks like they hurried and added the TM (for the lawsuit) but if all products are TM, they should have added it to those also.
Their argument is, when you search for Mighty Mouse, you can't find the M&M one, even if you know what you are looking for. (Unless you remember the company name of "Man & Machine")
That's going too far. IF M&M can show that CBS does not have the right to apply the trademark to computer peripherals AND IF M&M can show that they were first (this one should be easy), then M&M could collect from Apple. The fact that Apple had a license from CBS would possibly save them from punitive damages since they acted in good faith, but they could still lose (not likely, but possible).
In that scenario, Apple might be able to sue CBS for licensing them a trademark which they did not have a legal right to license. I suspect they could get their license fees back, but probably not much else.
The wild card is those two abandoned "Mighty Mouse" trademark applications. If they were abandoned because CBS asserted a right to the mark and the two applicants agreed (to the point of dropping their application), then it's about as close to a slam dunk as there is in trademark cases and M&M would lose big time.
That's not true. If Apple can show that it aquired the trademark in good faith from the company that claimed to own it for that purpose, and that did in actual fact own it for many years, then Apple might very well be absolved from payments.
The fact that M&M used this first for a mouse, when their application is still pending means, right now, that they have no more rights than does CBS, which would, usually, be the presumed owner in the case of an extension.
One question is when CBS applied, and when M&M applied, though that in itself, means little.
If Apple were to lose this case, in spite, they should call it the Mitey Mouse or Mightier Mouse. People are such babies these days with branding. Why is this coming up 2 years later? This is like a stupid news story, for example, this is what I heard on the news: "Study showing bras most likely cause for breast cancer." Ok, and you're finally bringing this up 50+ years later? Mannnnnn. lol
But the first 50 years was just feel research.
I don't think that statement is an accurate interpretation.
BTW: is anyone else getting HIV google ads on this forum? I don't get it, it's not relevant to me, to the discussion, the general content of the site or any site I've been to.
Don't know if its an improvement on the Mormon banner ads of the last few weeks or not.
Don't know if its an improvement on the Mormon banner ads of the last few weeks or not.
I don't remember that, but now I get "Find a psychologist" along with two HIV related ads.
Depends on the recognizability of the name and the type of product. If I released a 'Dove' mouse, there is little chance that P&G would be able to stop me (I think they're the owners of the Dove soap trademark). There is no risk of confusion and a person hearing the word 'Dove' is not likely to immediately think of the soap.
OTOH, if I created a mouse called "Mercedes Benz", I'd be stopped.
...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
Apple owns the name iPod. Therefore, anything used in conjunction with that, as a business, needs to be licensed. It's not a matter of "strongarming". It's the law. A company isn't allowed to use other's copyrights and trademarks without permission. Even in writing a book, permission is needed. You'll find that to be true everywhere.
You may think it's unfair, but it's not. .you can say that your armband is compatible with some of the most popular players. That would work too. But if you want to use Apple's trademark, you should have to get permission. You're feeding off their success.
The problem has to do with inappropriate use of the trademark which results in a negative opinion of it, or a dilution of it, which leads to the loss of the trademark entirely.
A company is almost forced into defending it because of those reasons.
If they don't defend it, it could fall into the public domain, as have so many other trademarks over the years.
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.
Irrelevant.
Objection overruled!
This is off topic. But there is normally a bunch of Canadians around here.*
Heading up to Vancouver tomorrow. Just in time to check out the new Apple Store opening on the 24th.*
If the dollar is right and I could get away from paying sales taxes (non-resident), this may become a bonanza.?
*Apple Store, Pacific Centre
701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1G5
?Providing I can get away from the wife.
If you have a DUI, Canada is not going to let you in the country.
...not so sure about that. "Mouse" (computer) is a homonym with "Mouse" (mammal). They describe two completely different things.
While it is a homonym, I always wonder if it can be more accurately described as a polyseme as the terms are related in that a computer mouse was named because of its similar size and shape to the rodent.
While it is a homonym, I always wonder if it can be more accurately described as a polyseme as the terms are related in that a computer mouse as named because of it's similar size and shape to the rodent.
And I thought I was being too technical...
In the end, it only depends on whether the court cares or not
Objection overruled!
I call for a mistrial!
Anyway, I vote that it be renamed Shighty Mouse.
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.