Given the vestigial state of the ebook industry in 1996 it's highly improbable that Family Systems Limited Company ever produced a product. As the iPhone itself demonstrates, you have to actually use the mark to keep it.
According to the reports, they did use the mark. You don't have to do much to have a mark considered as being used.
Quote:
Except that Family Systems Limited or Apple Computers, whichever then owned the IBOOKS mark related to book production, didn't 'cease and desist' him. If he really was reported on by Publishers' weekly then that would screw them because it would imply that if they were actively using the mark in the publishing world they should have been aware of him and forced him to stop - in EXACTLY the same way that he really should have been aware when iBooks launched seeing as it was done in a huge blaze of worldwide publicity. I guarantee that if you misuse the term Rollerblade (TM) in a sporting goods trade publication you will receive a stern letter
All the smileys in the world doesn't make your argument correct. If they were operating in different areas of production, and this guy didn't register the mark, then it's very possible they weren't aware of his activities. He was a very small "publisher". I wrote about what happened in my own case. You don't always find these guys. And Family had the mark several years before he started using it. It was his responsibility to look it up.
You have to show that you're defending your mark in all the cases you know about. You aren't expected to spend all your time looking for violators.
Quote:
My point is that if he had issued a Cease & Desist back at the start of 2010 and sued promptly, he'd have stood a chance - in spite of the messy history of the mark. It would have hinged on exactly how actively Family Systems were in using their mark and how dim a view the court took of their failure to defend it, but it would have been a chance.
That's wrong again. Your understanding of the concept of defending a mark isn't correct. You are only supposed to have to defend it if it can be shown that you should have known about the violation. Can you show that they should have known? You can say that they should have, but you don't know the facts. There are thousands of small independent publishers in the country. Many are under the radar. If someone had come to Family and told them about him, then likely they would have responded.
Apple, as we know, is very proactive about defending their marks, but they didn't go after him either, which shows that they didn't know about him, and Apple has a much bigger staff. I find a number of small stores in malls that use the name iPod and the like, but Apple doesn't sue them because they don't know about them. That doesn't mean that Apple loses the mark.
Quote:
As it is he has no chance of any meaningful win, Apple may pay a few thousand dollars in settlement just to reduce their legal bills and get everything squared away. but that will be all
Well, at least we agree with that; he has no chance.
That's wrong again. Your understanding of the concept of defending a mark isn't correct. You are only supposed to have to defend it if it can be shown that you should have known about the violation. Can you show that they should have known? You can say that they should have, but you don't know the facts. There are thousands of small independent publishers in the country. Many are under the radar. If someone had come to Family and told them about him, then likely they would have responded.
In the paragraph which you're respoding to here I'm talking about the small publisher responding to Apple, not Family responding to him. My point in that paragraph was that it was clearly not credible for him to claim he hadn't heard that Apple had launched iBooks for over a year. So whatever the status was of the mark up until that point (on which we disagree), his failure to defend cost him any chance of gaining significant damages.
Quote:
how that they should have known? You can say that they should have, but you don't know the facts. There are thousands of small independent publishers in the country. Many are under the radar. If someone had come to Family and told them about him, then likely they would have responded.
They should have known after he won a significant accolade in an important trade periodical. The fact is that iBooks isn't THAT small as publishers go, look at how many books show up on Amazon under them. Then go away and see if you can find any product at all that Family ever sold.
In the paragraph which you're respoding to here I'm talking about the small publisher responding to Apple, not Family responding to him. My point in that paragraph was that it was clearly not credible for him to claim he hadn't heard that Apple had launched iBooks for over a year. So whatever the status was of the mark up until that point (on which we disagree), his failure to defend cost him any chance of gaining significant damages.
Ok, fair enough. I misunderstood what you had said there.
Quote:
They should have known after he won a significant accolade in an important trade periodical. The fact is that iBooks isn't THAT small as publishers go, look at how many books show up on Amazon under them. Then go away and see if you can find any product at all that Family ever sold.
it still doesn't mean that they had heard of him. I hadn't, and I buy over a hundred books a year, go to publishing shows, and indeed, was involved in the industry for almost three decades.
Comments
Given the vestigial state of the ebook industry in 1996 it's highly improbable that Family Systems Limited Company ever produced a product. As the iPhone itself demonstrates, you have to actually use the mark to keep it.
According to the reports, they did use the mark. You don't have to do much to have a mark considered as being used.
Except that Family Systems Limited or Apple Computers, whichever then owned the IBOOKS mark related to book production, didn't 'cease and desist' him. If he really was reported on by Publishers' weekly then that would screw them because it would imply that if they were actively using the mark in the publishing world they should have been aware of him and forced him to stop - in EXACTLY the same way that he really should have been aware when iBooks launched seeing as it was done in a huge blaze of worldwide publicity. I guarantee that if you misuse the term Rollerblade (TM) in a sporting goods trade publication you will receive a stern letter
All the smileys in the world doesn't make your argument correct. If they were operating in different areas of production, and this guy didn't register the mark, then it's very possible they weren't aware of his activities. He was a very small "publisher". I wrote about what happened in my own case. You don't always find these guys. And Family had the mark several years before he started using it. It was his responsibility to look it up.
You have to show that you're defending your mark in all the cases you know about. You aren't expected to spend all your time looking for violators.
My point is that if he had issued a Cease & Desist back at the start of 2010 and sued promptly, he'd have stood a chance - in spite of the messy history of the mark. It would have hinged on exactly how actively Family Systems were in using their mark and how dim a view the court took of their failure to defend it, but it would have been a chance.
That's wrong again. Your understanding of the concept of defending a mark isn't correct. You are only supposed to have to defend it if it can be shown that you should have known about the violation. Can you show that they should have known? You can say that they should have, but you don't know the facts. There are thousands of small independent publishers in the country. Many are under the radar. If someone had come to Family and told them about him, then likely they would have responded.
Apple, as we know, is very proactive about defending their marks, but they didn't go after him either, which shows that they didn't know about him, and Apple has a much bigger staff. I find a number of small stores in malls that use the name iPod and the like, but Apple doesn't sue them because they don't know about them. That doesn't mean that Apple loses the mark.
As it is he has no chance of any meaningful win, Apple may pay a few thousand dollars in settlement just to reduce their legal bills and get everything squared away. but that will be all
Well, at least we agree with that; he has no chance.
That's wrong again. Your understanding of the concept of defending a mark isn't correct. You are only supposed to have to defend it if it can be shown that you should have known about the violation. Can you show that they should have known? You can say that they should have, but you don't know the facts. There are thousands of small independent publishers in the country. Many are under the radar. If someone had come to Family and told them about him, then likely they would have responded.
In the paragraph which you're respoding to here I'm talking about the small publisher responding to Apple, not Family responding to him. My point in that paragraph was that it was clearly not credible for him to claim he hadn't heard that Apple had launched iBooks for over a year. So whatever the status was of the mark up until that point (on which we disagree), his failure to defend cost him any chance of gaining significant damages.
how that they should have known? You can say that they should have, but you don't know the facts. There are thousands of small independent publishers in the country. Many are under the radar. If someone had come to Family and told them about him, then likely they would have responded.
They should have known after he won a significant accolade in an important trade periodical. The fact is that iBooks isn't THAT small as publishers go, look at how many books show up on Amazon under them. Then go away and see if you can find any product at all that Family ever sold.
In the paragraph which you're respoding to here I'm talking about the small publisher responding to Apple, not Family responding to him. My point in that paragraph was that it was clearly not credible for him to claim he hadn't heard that Apple had launched iBooks for over a year. So whatever the status was of the mark up until that point (on which we disagree), his failure to defend cost him any chance of gaining significant damages.
Ok, fair enough. I misunderstood what you had said there.
They should have known after he won a significant accolade in an important trade periodical. The fact is that iBooks isn't THAT small as publishers go, look at how many books show up on Amazon under them. Then go away and see if you can find any product at all that Family ever sold.
it still doesn't mean that they had heard of him. I hadn't, and I buy over a hundred books a year, go to publishing shows, and indeed, was involved in the industry for almost three decades.