decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Prior art for Apple logo | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I guess
Authored by: Udo Schmitz on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
Could it be that trade dress and design patents come into the general catagory of trademarks?
Yup, that's about it. Trade dress law is a subset of trademark law.
I suppose what she is saying is that the trade dress for iPads and iPhones comprising the curved-corner, design patent, the brightly-coloured, rounded-corner icon arrangement and the minimalist design together form a trade dress that has secondary meaning as an Apple-associated trade dress for some products, but is not sufficiently famous such that it shouts 'Apple' as a brand.
No, this is just a jury instruction for this case, because Samsung (correctly) objected that Dr. Poret wasn't giving expert testimoney regarding the question of fame nor did he sample the general population. Quoted from the relevant PDF at [...]Dr. Poret is not giving expert testimony as to the relevance of his survey to trade dress fame[...] [...]t the jury may consider the Poret survey as evidence that the Apple designs have acquired secondary meaning, but the jury may not consider the Poret survey as evidence that the Apple designs are famous[...]

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I guess
Authored by: Udo Schmitz on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT
Just wanted to add ...
Could it be that trade dress and design patents come into the general catagory of trademarks?
Think of the Coca Cola logo and the shape of their bottle, the logo is a trademark and the bottle a trade dress.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Prior art for Apple logo
Authored by: artp on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
"AKA an apple with a bite taken out of it"

Adam and Eve.

I think the Bible predates anything that the boy geniuses at
Apple have come up with. So it has become a fairly familiar
icon in some spaces.

Of course, tunnel vision helps dispense with that
difficulty. An apple with a bite out of it is about as
unique as a circle with a line through it.

Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The Consummate Demonstration of Famous!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT
Even Apple's apple logo is not famous. To be said to be Famous
there must be something so unique about it that it distinguishes it beyond all
other apples and an Apple logo with
a bite out of it doesn't do that. If however they used an Apple
grown in a box to come out square and then had a bite taken out
of it. That Logo would be considered Famous.

Trademarked names work the same way. A company named Apple is
not famous. Because it pertains to something generic in nature.
Whereas Google is Famous, because they invented their name from
nothing and that makes it totally Unique.

A touch screen not matter the shape or (whether square, rectangular or even
round) is still a touchscreen and even
using fingers on a touch screen goes back to the 70's when
Banks used them in with night credit card withdrawals. Just
because Apple used a capacitive screen to improve accuracy of
finger touch control still didn't make it Famous. They had been
used before their implementation.

So being something FAMOUS must denote something so unique as
completely distinguish it from every other form of it's class!

And here's the prime example of what constitutes FAMOUS in
spiders that weave webs to catch their prey. Only one spider in
all the World uses a web like the Extraordinary Net Catching
Spiders of Central America. Now that's what you call uniquely

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )