3 ms·

Fujitsu first trademarked the name in 2002 and for one very specific use case (retail sales - not mobile). If they wanted to do anything else with that product

by robg 17y ago

Fujitsu first trademarked the name in 2002 and for one very specific use case (retail sales - not mobile). If they wanted to do anything else with that product line they've had plenty of time. Keep in mind that TMs aren't some broad right. You have to specify each and every use.

jacquesm 17y ago
Try using the name iMac for something close to but not quite an iMac and see how well that defense plays with apple on the receiving side. They even sued woolworths for this logo: http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworth...
- robg 17y ago
  There's an Apple that's sells pickaxes without a problem. TM just isn't much protection unless someone is trying to address the same use with the same name (and/or similar image). From that article: Apple is spooked by the fact Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product. It's about uses not simple names or images. In my opinion, Fujitsu has no legal standing. Heck, if Cisco didn't get any compensation for the iPhone TM then this story to me is much ado about nothing. Fujitsu sells a device for mobile retail sales. That's not a use Apple is claiming at this time. If it's a use they're after, they'll have to work something out with Fujitsu.
- apgwoz 17y ago
  > They even sued woolworths for this logo: Well come on now. It's a W shaped like an apple! It doesnt' have a bite out of it, but overlap them and they're practically identical.
  - robg 17y ago
    It's not about the image. It's about the use. If Woolworth's were using the image to sell a line of canned corn there would be no case on Apple's part. These stories are all about page views. There's absolutely no effort to clarify. Instead the effort is to obfuscate for the purposes of controversy/traffic.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  They did not sue Woolworths for that logo. They filed an objection with the Australian IP authority during the provisional period in which such objections are specifically called for by interested parties (i.e. "speak now or forever hold your peace").

by robg 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Try using the name iMac for something close to but not quite an iMac and see how well that defense plays with apple on the receiving side. They even sued woolworths for this logo: http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworth...

robg 17y ago
There's an Apple that's sells pickaxes without a problem. TM just isn't much protection unless someone is trying to address the same use with the same name (and/or similar image). From that article: Apple is spooked by the fact Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product. It's about uses not simple names or images. In my opinion, Fujitsu has no legal standing. Heck, if Cisco didn't get any compensation for the iPhone TM then this story to me is much ado about nothing. Fujitsu sells a device for mobile retail sales. That's not a use Apple is claiming at this time. If it's a use they're after, they'll have to work something out with Fujitsu.
apgwoz 17y ago
> They even sued woolworths for this logo: Well come on now. It's a W shaped like an apple! It doesnt' have a bite out of it, but overlap them and they're practically identical.
- robg 17y ago
  It's not about the image. It's about the use. If Woolworth's were using the image to sell a line of canned corn there would be no case on Apple's part. These stories are all about page views. There's absolutely no effort to clarify. Instead the effort is to obfuscate for the purposes of controversy/traffic.
GHFigs 17y ago
They did not sue Woolworths for that logo. They filed an objection with the Australian IP authority during the provisional period in which such objections are specifically called for by interested parties (i.e. "speak now or forever hold your peace").