Slashdot Mirror
iMac Clone Gets Sued
Jareth writes "Remember the iMac PC made by Future Power? Apparently Apple didn't like the idea of someone making money off of their design, so they are suing for damages. The story is over at Wired. "
Well, they can't win a case based upon "look & feel", but it'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Luckily, whoever invented the beige case isn't suing every computer manufacturer ever.
I think Apple can win this one. I'm pretty certain they trademarked that case design (something which is perfectly within their rights; Coca-Cola did it with the classic "Coke bottle" we all know and love). In this case, both companies have violated that trademark pretty badly; have you seen pictures of these things? Exact knock-offs, right down to the little ridges on the top of the case (no Apple logos of course). They're even offering them in the same colors, though they're naming them after gemstones instead of flavors.
I applaud Apple for this one. This isn't software, and it certainly isn't look-and-feel. It's a company trying to make money off of Apple's success with the iMac by making an inferior copy. Sorta like Windows only even more obvious.
Apple can win this lawsuit despite losing to Microsoft, for one basic reason: the two lawsuits are based on entirely different legal reasoning.
u rs.html
Apple lost the Microsoft suit because they had signed a contract saying that Microsoft could use some of the features of the Mac OS in a Windows product. They have of course not signed any such document with Future Power.
There are two legal tactics Apple could use, according to computer and intellectual property law specialist Curtis E. Karnow. The first is "trade dress," which covers the distinctive appearance of a product and its association with a certain company in the minds of consumers. The classic example of this is the distinctive appearance of the Coca Cola bottle. Trade dress is very difficult to prove, however, since you have to prove that consumers could be confused.
The other tactic Apple could take is dilution of trademark. From MacWeek:
" `Apple could charge Future Power with trademark dilution, which is much easier to prove than trade dress,' Karnow said. Proof of trademark dilution requires no substantive documentation of any confusion customers might experience when they see a product that looks much like the iMac."
Apple certainly has the iMac designs trademarked (and probably has design patents too), so this would be a relatively easy case to win.
For more information, see:
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/06/27/epower.html
http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/06/27/imacaliketh
-Roger Ford
remove NOSPAM from email to reply