3 ms·
I'd think so, this is very much in the same domain as Apple's new product. It was the change of domain that exposed apple (computer) to the apple (music) tradem
by cdibona 17y ago
I'd think so, this is very much in the same domain as Apple's new product. It was the change of domain that exposed apple (computer) to the apple (music) trademark.
But this is actually as if Apple named the Iphone out of the gate as an "Apple Razr". Sure, one might not have buttons, but there is a clear in domain example of infringement.
They'll end up paying Fujitsu a pile, I think.
- robg 17y agoPlease, go read the Trademark applications. Apple's is very broad while not including a use as retail sales platform while Fujitsu's is very, very specific to include only a use as a retail sales platform. There isn't an overlap in actual use no matter how much the devices may look/act alike. In the Beatles case, Apple wanted to change the name to have a much broader TM to include music use cases. At that point the trademarks came into obvious conflict. It's not about domains, it's about uses. You pay for each category of use. When you look at how those categories are broken down it becomes obvious why it's set up that way.