Dell Accuses Psion of "Fraud" Over Netbook

Barence writes "Dell has issued court papers in the US, accusing Psion of fraudulently laying claim to the term netbook. Psion sent out warning letters late last year to PC manufacturers, retailers and bloggers alike, asking them to stop using the term netbook, which the company registered as a trademark in the late 1990s. But in a Petition for Cancellation of Psion's trademark, the PC manufacturer accuses Psion of abandoning the term and fraudulently claiming it was still in use. 'Psion is not currently offering laptop computers under the Netbook trademark,' Dell's petition claims. The petition also claims that Psion made false statements about its use of the term Netbook in a sworn declaration to the US Trademark Office."

Comments

Miniature timeline

[phantomfive]

1989 - First known use of the word 'netbook' (registered trademark by Asymetrix corp)
1991 - Trademark abandoned by Asymetrix
1996 - Psion applies to the USPTO for the trademark for netbook
1999 - First reference I can find to a Psion netbook
2003 - Netbook Pro is released (doesn't seem to be for sale anymore, it was a 'clamshell PDA')
2008 - Claimed genericization of the term netbook by Asus and others.
December 2008 - Psion sends cease and desist letters to a bunch of companies
Now - Dell retaliates, files court papers claiming that Psion is not planning on producing a product called a netbook (which is probably true, it's not really their target market, but they seem to like expanding so who knows).

The fact that the term in and of itself is generic may not be enough, after all we have apple computer, and apples are pretty common. It does look like it could be an expensive fight, and I would be surprised if Psion decides to fight it out to the end. IANAL

What are you talking about?

[adam]

I get the distinct impression you are speaking for a complete lay perspective rather than from ANY experience with trademark law.

FYI, it's generally accepted there are five different categories of trademark, each more defensible than the next. The least most defensible mark is a "descriptive" mark. Like "facial tissue." Had the Kleenex brand chosen "Facial Tissue[tm]" for their mark, they may well have lost control of the mark because generic terms cannot function as trademarks.

We all call them Kleenex, but they are facial tissues. If someone had tried to trademark 'facial tissue' we would be in the same ballpark here.

The most defensible mark is a fanciful one, that is a word which does not otherwise exist (Kodak, Xerox, Pepsi, etc). Afaik, Kleenex actually is the best possible name one could choose to associate with tissues, since it is entirely fanciful (and Kleenex company has done a good job associating their name with tissues). As an aside, it is possible for a diluted mark to lose its protected status (such as with Bayer's "Aspirin" analgesic).

These marketing people might as well start trying to trademark things like 'desk' 'pen' or 'screen'.

Netbook would probably fall under the "Suggestive" trademark category (the third most defensible category, behind Arbitrary and Fanciful). Net and Book both exist as words, but were previously not widely applied to this sort of device.

So, in conclusion, "Netbook" is nothing like "pen" or "desk," as far as trademarks go. Neither of these examples would even be registerable, unless they were referring to something they weren't (you could make a ketchup product called "DESK" or a cell phone called "PEN").