4 ms·
How does this compare to another field, say cars? I recently been car shopping for the first time, and the similarities between sedan models is amazing. Due to
by kedi_xed 15y ago
How does this compare to another field, say cars? I recently been car shopping for the first time, and the similarities between sedan models is amazing. Due to the nature of a car, and a sedan at that, it seems that all models have to follow a similar design for them to be functional and acceptable.
If a trade dress results in the monopoly of an industry, I assume then that the it would have to be avoided, or everyone pays Apple a small fee for use of the shape.
The issue as well is that many phones are all the same shape - rectangular, and many had rounded corners before Apple. Nokia have been using a XxX grid of icons for years before Apple. So essentially Apple is trying to trademark all of these elements put together as a trade dress issue.
But then Apple did take the time to invest and research the iPhone so they should take some of the benefits, but why sue so late?
- chalst 15y agoThere are two tests a trade dress lawsuit has to meet: first, the features have to be distinctive of the product in the eye of the consumer; second, the features must not be functional. This second requirement should mean that trade dress cannot be used to establish a monopoly. The actual application of the functionality requirement is hazy. See http://www.akingump.com/docs/publication/549.pdf http://www.akingump.com/docs/publication/549.pdf It's unclear to me that Apple's claims to trade dress pass the functionality requirement.