decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple Corps v Apple Computer | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Consummate Demonstration of Famous!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 06:44 PM EDT
Yes Apple Corps Ltd and Apple Records - with its distinctive apple logo were
established in 1968 when Steve "Great artists steal" Jobs was 12 years
old.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Apple Corps v Apple Computer
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT
Link

Note that Apple Computer never gave up. They just kept pushing,
paying the piper along the way.

Compare to Microsoft.

No difference.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm with you...
Authored by: mrisch on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT
I agree on the functionality issues - this stuff should not be
protected trade dress for the most part, and I am skeptical
that there is confusion.

Though, note, if your mark is strong enough (and the apple
logo is, even if the name might not be), then you get to lock
out people on other products. That's what dilution is about.
It's also why it was important to say that the design was not
famous.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

For Apple to claim the rectangle...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 07:34 PM EDT
would be like someone trying to claim a soda pop can is protected and
distinctive, imo. A coke bottle, however, IS distinctive and protected.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A Lawsuit? haha.. try many... as in Too Many!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2012 @ 07:46 PM EDT
The last one from Apple Records went to court in 2007 I
believe and resulted in an out of court settlement. By the
way out of court settlements can be considered a loss before
considered to be a win for either side!

But again, which mark do you consider as FAMOUS? ...or let's
put it this way:

Motorola, Ford, IBM can be considered "FAMOUS" marks,
because they have remained unchanged throughout their
history. Each change puts that mark in jeopardy of not being
able to sustain it's legal right to being considered
"Famous"! ....and Apple's logo has changed more often than
King Henry changed wives! ^_*

[ 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 )