121–130 of 260 posts
Hewever, SBB stands to loose a symbolic icon: What is now the Swiss railway clock may well become "that iOS clock". Mondaine will probably also not be happy when their watches will be recognized as "that iPad clock".
It seems like a significant dilution of trade dress/a trademark to me.
It's not going to confuse anyone. Zero iPads will be returned because the customers thought this was the famous Swiss wall clock they'd heard so much about.
So it doesn't have much to do with Apple v. Samsung. Let's not try so hard to make everything about that; high-resolution thinking should allow for similar but separate conflicts to exist.
Speaking as an Apple hater: so what? Apple should be allowed to use said design, as should anybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when Apple infringes on someone else's trademarked products, the affected party should be grateful ? Because it might be "free" advertising? Are you out of your mind? What's with the sycophantic comments all over this story excusing Apple's terrible behavior?
There is a difference between "homage" and "rip-off" Look at all of the designs that Dieter Rams did, that Apple used in their own products: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secr... And look what Dieter things about this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-R... Can you not see the difference between what Apple is doing and what Samsung is doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making a product "popular" does not turn it into invention and does not give legal rights to the design.
Have you tried defending that notion in court? Actually I think the inventor is the party who has the highest marketing budget to spend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interchangeability is not concept in patent or trademark law that I'm aware of. Do you have a legal citation?
It was an argument in the recent Apple vs Samsung court battle. Samsung's prior art was dismissed, one of the jurors explained that it didn't count because the software of the prior art phone would not run on a modern phone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was an argument in the recent Apple vs Samsung court battle. Samsung's prior art was dismissed, one of the jurors explained that it didn't count because the software of the prior art phone would not run on a modern phone.
That sounds quite arbitrary, and if anything, it's the first time I've heard about this "principle".