Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: trademarkia.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to trademarkia.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Perhaps the new head will care about false swears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Former Google Lawyer Michelle Lee To Run US Patent Office

    On the application it talks about how false declarations can get you charged Federally. Alas, the "new normal" seems to be 'that was the least untruthful thing I could have said', so frauds and suspected frauds are allowed to skate. Perhaps the new head will actually care about applications that one can suspect are fraudulent.

    The email address in this application used to be used by her Father who has a bit of a tax problem.

    The application has a checkbox for 'if you are a lawyer' and that is unchecked. Comparing her record with the State Bar shows a different email address.

  2. Re:"competing freeware program" by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1 · on RealNetworks Sues Dutch Webmaster Over Hyperlink To Freeware

    It's "Real Alternative". I.e. obviously and explicitly not Real. It's like the store-brand cereals that say "If you like Name Brand® Cereal(TM), try this!"

    They're only allowed to claim that it infringes if the name is,
    (1) similar to RealNetwork's trademark (which "Real Alternative" is),
    (2) in the same field (which it is, but for instance the United Dairy Industry Association's "REAL" trademark isn't), and
    (3) could be confused with RealNetwork by consumers.

    It can't possibly be confused for RealNetwork, since it's obviously an alternative to RealNetwork.

  3. Inventor turned troll? by jlutes · · Score: 1 · on Bittorrent and uTorrent Sued For Patent Violations

    Hey look, it's another patent troll. I did a bit of research about the guy behind it (Scott Redmond) and it appears he has gone from a failed innovator to get-rich-quick troll. Sad. http://www.trademarkia.com/company-redmond-scott-3344589-page-1-2

  4. Re:Chromium trademark by Kulfaangaren! · · Score: 2 · on Google Sued Over Chromebook Name

    They already did in 2008 apparently ... http://www.trademarkia.com/chromium-77980388.html

  5. Re:Pointless by Raenex · · Score: 1 · on Red Hat Uncloaks 'Java Killer': the Ceylon Project

    Oracle doesn't own the JVM - they own their reference implementation.

    They own the trademark for JVM:

    http://www.trademarkia.com/jvm-75918281.html

    They also own the trademark for Java (not gonna even bother supplying a reference for that one).

    They also own patents, and potentially copyright, that might be violated in an implementation of a JVM. Google tried to get around the trademark issue but got caught up in patents and copyrights. I wish the Oracle case against Google would get resolved soon, just to see where things stand. I suspect Google will end up settling and paying a hefty license fee to Oracle, which would still suck for other JVM implementations.

  6. Re:Uh. by DigiShaman · · Score: 1 · on Apple Handcuffs Web Apps On iPhone Home Screen

    I always thought it was just a joke, but that phrase was actually trademarked by Apple last year.

    http://www.trademarkia.com/theres-an-app-for-that-77980556.html

  7. Re:What did Apple say about this? by mysidia · · Score: 1 · on Facebook To Own the Word "Face"

    Does the ruling include Facetime?

    Apple already Applied for the Face Time trademark; although Facebook's application for "Face" in 2005 definitely predates Apple's filing in June 2010.

    However, Facebook has not used the mark "Face" in commerce, they have only used it in conjunction with the word Book as in "Facebook"; they have to pay the fee first and have exclusive use of the actual mark "Face" in commerce within the field of their trademark, before the trademark can become enforceable.

    This could be difficult as Apple has prior use of the mark 'Face' in commerce, in conjunction with 'Time' 'Facetime', within the same field Facebook is applying. In other words: not only has Facebook not used the mark in commerce, they don't even have exclusive use of marks that look like that, because there are a lot of other products starting with the mark "Face" .

    These circumstances could make it difficult or impossible for Facebook to effectively enforce its mark in the courtroom.