2 ms·
As I understand trademark law, the fact that something is an obvious derivation isn't relevant (that would be a copyright issue). Note: IANAL The purpose of tr
by CWuestefeld 17y ago
As I understand trademark law, the fact that something is an obvious derivation isn't relevant (that would be a copyright issue). Note: IANAL
The purpose of trademark law is not to protect the seller, but to protect the buyer by preventing confusion. If there's potential that a reasonable buyer might see a "WePad" and think they're buying an Apple iPad product, then this would constitute a trademark violation. But if we don't think that a reasonable person would be misled, then there is no trademark violation.
EDIT: spelling
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoThat was the original intention but (and IANAL) I read something recently that said it had been extended so that if something damaged your brand, then you got to say whether it was acceptable or not.
- CWuestefeld 17y agoI've never heard this, so I'd be interested to see a citation. Even if true, I don't see how this could constitute damage to Apple's brand. The fact that Apple's name is used to help understand what a competing product is doesn't do any damage to the brand. It seems equivalent to putting on the box "compare our product to an iPad".