That is another Chinese company who have been using a similar name in the wristwatch market for a while they do market research in China for watches. They could argue that apple iwatch could create confusion in the market place. They also been using the name since 2006 long before the whole Apple iwatch thing came about.
Since AI is so negligent with their reporting on the latest Samsung-Apple trial (going on at this very minute!) I thought I'd post this here for everyone to read:
That is another Chinese company who have been using a similar name in the wristwatch market for a while they do market research in China for watches. They could argue that apple iwatch could create confusion in the market place. They also been using the name since 2006 long before the whole Apple iwatch thing came about.
Would that conflict when it appears that only their domain name appears to use iWatch but it doesn't appear to be the name of the company? Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?
Would that conflict when it appears that only their domain name appears to use iWatch but it doesn't appear to be the name of the company? Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?
Yeah, not at all the same as an actual product name.
Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?
A copyright claim of 2009-2010. Anyone can put whatever date they want on their website. Why, you can even claim your product to be the #1 vodka of 2033 2034 if you want. (sorry, 2033 is taken)
Comments
http://www.iwatch365.net/
That is another Chinese company who have been using a similar name in the wristwatch market for a while they do market research in China for watches. They could argue that apple iwatch could create confusion in the market place. They also been using the name since 2006 long before the whole Apple iwatch thing came about.
Since AI is so negligent with their reporting on the latest Samsung-Apple trial (going on at this very minute!) I thought I'd post this here for everyone to read:
http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-asks-for-less-money-for-apples-accused-infringement-as-it-drops-ipad-claims/
And here's where you can see real-time updates in the trial:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/appsung?f=realtime
Would that conflict when it appears that only their domain name appears to use iWatch but it doesn't appear to be the name of the company? Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?
Would that conflict when it appears that only their domain name appears to use iWatch but it doesn't appear to be the name of the company? Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?
Yeah, not at all the same as an actual product name.
I meant to say it's like that saying about apples and oranges.
Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?
A copyright claim of 2009-2010. Anyone can put whatever date they want on their website. Why, you can even claim your product to be the #1 vodka of 2033 2034 if you want. (sorry, 2033 is taken)
I don't get the reference.
"Additionally, the company has filed in a number of smaller countries including ...... China......"
So now China is considered a smaller country as compared to the U.S., the U.K., the E.U., Australia, and Denmark?
I thought the same thing. Many others aren't small, at least compared to the average european country. Bad choice of words.
I don't get the reference.
Malcolm X
... or were you just being coy, Roy.
Ah! That went waaaaaay over my head.
i read this a 40 minutes earlier on macrumours
It's comments like that that are forcing journalists to release shoddier work in order to beat some invisible clock.
It's comments like that that are forcing journalists to release shoddier work in order to beat some invisible clock.
no, it is comments like this that should tell appleinsider that they should give thanks where it is due instead of writing it like it is new.
If they did indeed use MR as a source I agree.
Where’s the plus infinity button…