On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 08:40:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 10:45:10PM -0400, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
> >> Companies like Apple and General Electric would be disappointed to hear
> >> that. I think you meant that dictionary words can't be trademarked where
> >> those words are clearly descriptive of the goods and services in association
> >> with which they are associated.
> >
> > "General Electric" is two words; MS has lost that game before now too
> > ("IBM Works" does not infringe "Microsoft Works"). Apple's probably
> > lawyer-bait.
>
> Apple Corps in Britain disagrees. They worked out an agreement with
> Apple Computer that held until Apple Computer came out with iTunes[1].
> The latest news I see is that a British court ruled that the case
> should be heard in London rather than the US[2]. [2] also mentions
> suits filed by the record label in 1981 and 1991, both of which
> settled out-of-court.
To be fair, this appears to be a contract suit, not a trademark
one. It's never been settled in court before, and now they're simply
claiming that Apple Computer are in breach of the old agreement.
International trademarks are even more lawyer-bait; I expect Apple
Computer really don't want to let this one go to court over
trademarks, because even if they win, they probably still lose (their
claimed trademark is sunk).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature