7 ms·
Your link is not relevant. The Canonical dispute was about another website using their name and logo as descriptive materials associated with reportage/complain
by sjwright 8y ago
Your link is not relevant. The Canonical dispute was about another website using their name and logo as descriptive materials associated with reportage/complaint. It was not about the selling of goods bearing that trademark.
Selling non-genuine products bearing another company's trademark is not legal. Failure of the trademark owner to police such activity can dilute the strength and future defensibility of the trademark.
- killaken2000 8y agoWhat if the products are genuine but the company doesn't like that they're being sold outside of their control.
- sjwright 8y agoIf a product was actually genuine, then sure. In this case—as Louis himself admitted—they were not manufactured by or on behalf of Apple. They weren't even manufactured by the current OEM and sold on the side. They might prove to be of equal quality, they might have been manufactured to Apple's particular recipe, but that doesn't make them genuine. Just because a company used to be an OEM for Apple in the past doesn't mean their present output is "genuine" or is allowed to bear the Apple logo. If Nike ended a contract with a shoe factory, should that factory be allowed to continue manufacturing Nike branded shoes and import them directly to shoe stores in the USA?
- syshum 8y agoMy comment is relevant because the person i replied to claimed a company must aggressively enforce their mark or lose it. That is the relevance of the comment, not to the Apple Situation but as a rebuttal to the claim the parent made