I thing that Apple should not get so mad over VSBT since they have Macs and soon they will have iPhones. I think that Apple should just try to encourage them to buy more of there products and see what idea's VSBT has more Apple.
If you don't act on infringement you can lose your right to your trademark. So, maybe Apple is being a bully, or maybe they are doing what they have to do to maintain their trademark.
Quoted from wikipedia:
Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". 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.
So the question is, is this minor and inconsequential.
Christopher Boag, vice president of VSBT, said he was in "total shock" when he received Apple's threat, arguing that the apple is a "traditional representation of education." He maintains the school came up with the "100 percent original" design through "a flow and a process," and never once has anyone confused it the Apple logo since its inception back in 2005.
Looks to me as though the "through a flow and a process" consisted of taking the Apple logo and slowly making changes to it until they think it no longer looks like the Appple logo they started with. First they took the "byte" out. Then they added another hump at the top. Slightly change the angle and shape of the leaf. And finally added the moutain and another color in the middle. If they had done this before Apple computer switched from the old multi-color apple logo to the new single color one, they would have a case. But it's a stretch to call the VSBT logo "100 percent original" when Apple been using their new logo for over 5 years before VSBT supposely "designed" their's.
Highly ironic, and somewhat hypocritical on Apple's part, considering it was once on the receiving end of a similar claim from Apple Records/Apple Corps Ltd.
Hm.
And Apple Computers actually met with Apple Corps. and settled out of court. They came up with a mutually agreed contract as to when, where and how each of the Apples (Computers and Corp) can use their name and logo.
There is a significant difference in the way the Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Corps logos looked. And Apple wasn't in any music-related business at the time, while this company is education and technology.
Of course you don't comprehend the phrase "similar situation" that he mentions. Nowhere did he mention a logo. And this company is a school!!!
And Apple Computers actually met with Apple Corps. and settled out of court. They came up with a mutually agreed contract as to when, where and how each of the Apples (Computers and Corp) can use their name and logo.
They settled big time cause they didn't want to piss off Yoko Ono- let's get real here.
Of course you don't comprehend the phrase "similar situation" that he mentions. Nowhere did he mention a logo. And this company is a school!!!
It's amazing how your mind works. If your comments on this forum are anything like how you interact with the rest of society it would be a spectacle to watch. Perhaps you should get your own show: The Teckstud Sad-But-True Comedy Hour.
It's amazing how your mind works. If your comments on this forum are anything like how you interact with the rest of society it would be a spectacle to watch. Perhaps you should get your own show: The Teckstud Sad-But-True Comedy Hour.
It's quite appalling the comments you make.
It's all about the Solipism-Sloppy-Self Serving Show.
They settled big time cause they didn't want to piss off Yoko Ono- let's get real here.
They settled for $80,000. Though it was rumored to be in the tens of millions.
They settled again in 1991 when Apple Corp. accused Apple Computers of entering the "music business" with MIDI on Macs. Which they saw as a violation of the original agreement they drew it in 1981. Apple Computer paid Apple Corp. around $26 million for a new contract that re-defined "music business".
Apple Corp sued again in 2003 over the iTunes Store. But this time Apple Computers (Inc.) prevailed as the iTunes store was allowable under the redrawn 1991 contract.
They settled for $80,000. Though it was rumored to be in the tens of millions.
They settled again in 1991 when Apple Corp. accused Apple Computers of entering the "music business" with MIDI on Macs. Which they saw as a violation of the original agreement they drew it in 1981. Apple Computer paid Apple Corp. around $26 million for a new contract that re-defined "music business".
Apple Corp sued again in 2003 over the iTunes Store. But this time Apple Computers (Inc.) prevailed as the iTunes store was allowable under the redrawn 1991 contract.
Thanks but this article states another $50 -$100 million on top of that original $26mil.
That was in 2007 when Apple Inc. bought all rights to the "Apple" name and logo from Apple Corp. It was not a settlement as there was no lawsuit involve. What it settled was any more disputes these two "Apples" would have going forward. Apple Corp. must now seek permission from Apple Inc. if they want to use the Apple name and logo for any other purpose besides what's already agreed upon. At the time Apple Inc. had over $15 Billion in cash. $100 Million for all rights to the "Apple" name and logo was a good investment.
I see it as a from of "payola" for the exclusive rights to the Beatles catalog when it becomes available online.
IBut you gotta ask yourself one question....does Apple have an agreement with Prosoft engineering for Apple to create the iTunes "genius logo, as it looks rather similar to Prosoft's Mac disk repair Utililty, "Drive Genius."
Some questions that come to mind...
How does the excessive prior art of the atom symbol play into this?
Is the Genius symbol on the iPod or in iTunes easily mistaken for the Prosoft product. Can the Prosoft product be mistaken for Apple's Genius?
Has Prosoft trademarked their product's logo? Has Prosoft ever defended it's logo from being used by others?
I thing that Apple should not get so mad over VSBT since they have Macs and soon they will have iPhones. I think that Apple should just try to encourage them to buy more of there products and see what idea's VSBT has more Apple.
#7 conduct research & provide the answer to question #4, in terms us regular folk can understand.
I would have posted the images in the forum but didn't want to get baited into a copyright/trademark violation & have Apple after me too.
The basic symbol for an atom is non-tradmarkable. You need to make it significantly different from a standard atom symbol. Prosoft added a hard drive (?) where the nucleus would be in a basic atom symbol. Thus they can most likely tradmark it. But the basic atom symbol can still be used by anyone. Apple most likely can not tradmark their atom symbol unless it includes the word "Genius" with it. As their atom symbol is not unique enough and is nearly identical to all atom symbols being used out there.
In case you're not familar with a basic atom symbol
The same for an "apple". Apple Inc. does not have exclusive rights for an image of an "apple" as a logo. An apple by itself is non-trademarkable. It is only when you change the image of the apple in a unique way that makes it trademakable. Apple Inc. apple has a certain shape, leaf, no stem, color and of course they took a "byte" out it to make it unique. Thus they have a trademark on their logo. Not a trademark on an apple.
And Apple's trademark is for the image of the apple by itself. It doesn't have to include any words with it. And that's the sign of a great logo. When all it takes is the logo for everyone to know that it represents Apple Inc. It's conveys "Apple Inc." in all languages. Other great logos are, the Chevolet sign, RCA Nipper the dog, Mercedes "cross", Olympics "rings", Columbia Pictures "torch lady", and the blue and white "badge" of BMW.
That was in 2007 when Apple Inc. bought all rights to the "Apple" name and logo from Apple Corp. It was not a settlement as there was no lawsuit involve. What it settled was any more disputes these two "Apples" would have going forward. Apple Corp. must now seek permission from Apple Inc. if they want to use the Apple name and logo for any other purpose besides what's already agreed upon. At the time Apple Inc. had over $15 Billion in cash. $100 Million for all rights to the "Apple" name and logo was a good investment.
I see it as a from of "payola" for the exclusive rights to the Beatles catalog when it becomes available online.
Very interesting- thanks for the clarification. The pecking order reversed.
Comments
Quoted from wikipedia:
Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time, normally 5 years in most jurisdictions. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark in the lawful course of trade, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to become liable for an application for the removal from the register after a certain period of time on the grounds of "non-use". 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.
So the question is, is this minor and inconsequential.
Christopher Boag, vice president of VSBT, said he was in "total shock" when he received Apple's threat, arguing that the apple is a "traditional representation of education." He maintains the school came up with the "100 percent original" design through "a flow and a process," and never once has anyone confused it the Apple logo since its inception back in 2005.
Looks to me as though the "through a flow and a process" consisted of taking the Apple logo and slowly making changes to it until they think it no longer looks like the Appple logo they started with. First they took the "byte" out. Then they added another hump at the top. Slightly change the angle and shape of the leaf. And finally added the moutain and another color in the middle. If they had done this before Apple computer switched from the old multi-color apple logo to the new single color one, they would have a case. But it's a stretch to call the VSBT logo "100 percent original" when Apple been using their new logo for over 5 years before VSBT supposely "designed" their's.
Highly ironic, and somewhat hypocritical on Apple's part, considering it was once on the receiving end of a similar claim from Apple Records/Apple Corps Ltd.
Hm.
And Apple Computers actually met with Apple Corps. and settled out of court. They came up with a mutually agreed contract as to when, where and how each of the Apples (Computers and Corp) can use their name and logo.
There is a significant difference in the way the Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Corps logos looked. And Apple wasn't in any music-related business at the time, while this company is education and technology.
Of course you don't comprehend the phrase "similar situation" that he mentions. Nowhere did he mention a logo. And this company is a school!!!
Apple might be reaching a bit, but the blue and the single football shaped leaf look very similar.
A little too much like Stewie Griffin's head.
And Apple Computers actually met with Apple Corps. and settled out of court. They came up with a mutually agreed contract as to when, where and how each of the Apples (Computers and Corp) can use their name and logo.
They settled big time cause they didn't want to piss off Yoko Ono- let's get real here.
Of course you don't comprehend the phrase "similar situation" that he mentions. Nowhere did he mention a logo. And this company is a school!!!
It's amazing how your mind works. If your comments on this forum are anything like how you interact with the rest of society it would be a spectacle to watch. Perhaps you should get your own show: The Teckstud Sad-But-True Comedy Hour.
It's amazing how your mind works. If your comments on this forum are anything like how you interact with the rest of society it would be a spectacle to watch. Perhaps you should get your own show: The Teckstud Sad-But-True Comedy Hour.
It's quite appalling the comments you make.
It's all about the Solipism-Sloppy-Self Serving Show.
They settled big time cause they didn't want to piss off Yoko Ono- let's get real here.
They settled for $80,000. Though it was rumored to be in the tens of millions.
They settled again in 1991 when Apple Corp. accused Apple Computers of entering the "music business" with MIDI on Macs. Which they saw as a violation of the original agreement they drew it in 1981. Apple Computer paid Apple Corp. around $26 million for a new contract that re-defined "music business".
Apple Corp sued again in 2003 over the iTunes Store. But this time Apple Computers (Inc.) prevailed as the iTunes store was allowable under the redrawn 1991 contract.
They settled for $80,000. Though it was rumored to be in the tens of millions.
They settled again in 1991 when Apple Corp. accused Apple Computers of entering the "music business" with MIDI on Macs. Which they saw as a violation of the original agreement they drew it in 1981. Apple Computer paid Apple Corp. around $26 million for a new contract that re-defined "music business".
Apple Corp sued again in 2003 over the iTunes Store. But this time Apple Computers (Inc.) prevailed as the iTunes store was allowable under the redrawn 1991 contract.
Thanks but this article states another $50 -$100 million on top of that original $26mil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020501387.html
Thanks but this article states another $50 -$100 million on top of that original $26mil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020501387.html
That was in 2007 when Apple Inc. bought all rights to the "Apple" name and logo from Apple Corp. It was not a settlement as there was no lawsuit involve. What it settled was any more disputes these two "Apples" would have going forward. Apple Corp. must now seek permission from Apple Inc. if they want to use the Apple name and logo for any other purpose besides what's already agreed upon. At the time Apple Inc. had over $15 Billion in cash. $100 Million for all rights to the "Apple" name and logo was a good investment.
I see it as a from of "payola" for the exclusive rights to the Beatles catalog when it becomes available online.
deleted
IBut you gotta ask yourself one question....does Apple have an agreement with Prosoft engineering for Apple to create the iTunes "genius logo, as it looks rather similar to Prosoft's Mac disk repair Utililty, "Drive Genius."
Some questions that come to mind...
I thing that Apple should not get so mad over VSBT since they have Macs and soon they will have iPhones. I think that Apple should just try to encourage them to buy more of there products and see what idea's VSBT has more Apple.
It doesn't work that way.
deleted
Most Mac users are familiar with both & have looked them up, but I'll help you out...
#1 view site- http://www.prosoftengineering.com/pr...ive_genius.php
#2 get iTunes (Mac or PC)
#3 launch itunes
#4 compare the images
#5 answer questions #1 & 2
#6 view site in #1 & answer question #3
#7 conduct research & provide the answer to question #4, in terms us regular folk can understand.
I would have posted the images in the forum but didn't want to get baited into a copyright/trademark violation & have Apple after me too.
You can show them for educational purposes, as long as no money is being made from the use of it. Otherwise, you must ask.
For news, it's different. You can make money from the article, or broadcast, without asking permission. It's done all the time.
Most Mac users are familiar with both & have looked them up, but I'll help you out...
#1 view site- http://www.prosoftengineering.com/pr...ive_genius.php
#2 get iTunes (Mac or PC)
#3 launch itunes
#4 compare the images
#5 answer questions #1 & 2
#6 view site in #1 & answer question #3
#7 conduct research & provide the answer to question #4, in terms us regular folk can understand.
I would have posted the images in the forum but didn't want to get baited into a copyright/trademark violation & have Apple after me too.
The basic symbol for an atom is non-tradmarkable. You need to make it significantly different from a standard atom symbol. Prosoft added a hard drive (?) where the nucleus would be in a basic atom symbol. Thus they can most likely tradmark it. But the basic atom symbol can still be used by anyone. Apple most likely can not tradmark their atom symbol unless it includes the word "Genius" with it. As their atom symbol is not unique enough and is nearly identical to all atom symbols being used out there.
In case you're not familar with a basic atom symbol
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...num=1&ct=title
The same for an "apple". Apple Inc. does not have exclusive rights for an image of an "apple" as a logo. An apple by itself is non-trademarkable. It is only when you change the image of the apple in a unique way that makes it trademakable. Apple Inc. apple has a certain shape, leaf, no stem, color and of course they took a "byte" out it to make it unique. Thus they have a trademark on their logo. Not a trademark on an apple.
And Apple's trademark is for the image of the apple by itself. It doesn't have to include any words with it. And that's the sign of a great logo. When all it takes is the logo for everyone to know that it represents Apple Inc. It's conveys "Apple Inc." in all languages. Other great logos are, the Chevolet sign, RCA Nipper the dog, Mercedes "cross", Olympics "rings", Columbia Pictures "torch lady", and the blue and white "badge" of BMW.
That was in 2007 when Apple Inc. bought all rights to the "Apple" name and logo from Apple Corp. It was not a settlement as there was no lawsuit involve. What it settled was any more disputes these two "Apples" would have going forward. Apple Corp. must now seek permission from Apple Inc. if they want to use the Apple name and logo for any other purpose besides what's already agreed upon. At the time Apple Inc. had over $15 Billion in cash. $100 Million for all rights to the "Apple" name and logo was a good investment.
I see it as a from of "payola" for the exclusive rights to the Beatles catalog when it becomes available online.
Very interesting- thanks for the clarification. The pecking order reversed.
Very interesting- thanks for the clarification. The pecking order reversed.
Of course, we don't know if Apple will get exclusive rights to the catalog, we can just hope.