5 ms·
Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate the
by EpicEng 13y ago
Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here.
You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a really good product. These things are pieces of garbage in comparison.
- schoen 13y agoI think you mean trademark.
- EpicEng 13y agoThat I did.
- userbinator 13y ago> Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product I've seen a lot more than that spent on marketing stunts, except in this case the consumers actually benefit by getting better equipment.
- vacri 13y agoMarketing stunts don't usually give away the core product.
- freehunter 13y agoDo things that don't scale!
- jaeysin 13y agoBut they didn't violate their trademark, there is no use of the name Fluke or their trademark. "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services. " http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/ http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/ You could make an argument that the products themselves are look-alikes, or pursue them if they created a similar trademark to cause confusion, but it doesnt seem to me that they obviously acted to violate a trademark.
- rhizome 13y agowhich is called "trade dress" and is much more difficult for fluke to prevail on.
- gonzo 13y agothough they did.
- rasz_pl 13y agoNo they didnt. Nobody questioned their bogus trademark yet. Sparkfun isnt exactly in ideal position to fight Fluke, after all they very well might make a ton of money selling Fluke gear in the future. No point getting hostile over ~$20K. Fluke received a trademark for a item design that WAS ALREADY IN USE for at least 20 years. Trademark in the center of all this is ~"dark case, yellow face". They didnt even come up with the design first. Look at the second one from the top: http://www.stevenjohnson.com/apparatusdesignco/index.html http://www.stevenjohnson.com/apparatusdesignco/index.html Fluke multimeters started white/gray/beige, then went black, then yellow. Yellow on black is new to fluke. Basically they STOLE generic, already used design and trademarked it same way one click and round corners received US Patents.
- darklajid 13y agoNitpicking: I think you have the colors wrong - it's "yellow case, dark face" as far as I understand. Not that it makes a huge difference..
- rasz_pl 13y agoYep, realized it just now :D still trademark was granted in 2003, and if you do a google seatch with date limit set to 2002 you will find plenty of multimeters with that look, Fluke was granted retroactive trademark for a look that was generic at the time. Its like Ford receiving 4 door car trademark :/
- 13y ago
- jakethehuman 13y agoYou are comparing products aimed at two entirely different markets; may as well be saying that 'Lexus has every right to copyright a yellow car because KIA makes such an inferior car.' . Just because a product is distributed with different intent and audience does not mean it does not deserve to exist. Excuse me while I enjoy this hot pocket, I find them quite alright, thank you.
- teacup50 13y agoNot just yellow. A distinctive yellow outer case with a black face. The product looks like a Fluke -- until you look more closely and notice how awful the build quality is. That a cheap Chinese multimeter looks like a Fluke was not a fluke.
- gonzo 13y agoactually, if the sales channels are different, there is an argument that use of a similar mark (or trade dress) is not confusing.
- jakethehuman 13y agoYou are comparing products aimed at two entirely different markets; may as well be saying that 'Lexus has every right to copyright a yellow car because KIA makes such an inferior car.' . Just because a product is distributed with different intent and audience does not mean it does not deserve to exist. Excuse me while I enjoy this hot pocket, I find them quite alright, thank you.
- jakethehuman 13y agoYou are comparing products aimed at two entirely different markets; may as well be saying that 'Lexus has every right to copyright a yellow car because KIA makes such an inferior car.' . Just because a product is distributed with different intent and audience does not mean it does not deserve to exist. Excuse me while I enjoy this hot pocket, I find them quite alright, thank you.