You have to first take a look at the PowerMacCube and the Cobalt Qube. This is a totally different situation than the iMac clones.
It's a similar shape and size, but a different color with other different factors of asthetics.
Consider: - the iMac and the eOne: + similar naming notion + very similar shape involving a complex shape (ie. not a basic block) + very similar coloring + same market - the Mac Cube and the Cobalt Qube: + different markets + a simple shape + very different overall appearance
Also consider that Apple might be able to cite "prior work" given the NeXT cube.
Interestingly enough, the NeXT cube was far closer in appearance to the Cobalt than the new G4 cube. You could argue that the new G4 cube isn't even a cube given it's cool plexiglass shell.
Clearly there is no case on the grounds of infringement of a particular design. But there is a reasonable case for confusion of trademark in a similar market. Apple could probably settle very easily by simply giving the box a better name and avoiding the use of the word "cube". Maybe they should do like Cobalt and call their box the "Que-oob".
I think that the some of the iMac knock-offs were ridiculous, but some other machines were lumped in the fray unfairly (the Gateway dead-end).
Slashdot Mirror
This weekend I heard about this: http://www.sancube.com/
Oh my gosh! Another cube? Quick, sue them! And make some irrelevant references to the iMac while you're at it.
Actually, the SanCube seems to have a more similar market to the Cobalt Qube than does the G4 Cube. But, all three target different consumers.
You have to first take a look at the PowerMacCube and the Cobalt Qube. This is a totally different situation than the iMac clones.
It's a similar shape and size, but a different color with other different factors of asthetics.
Consider:
- the iMac and the eOne:
+ similar naming notion
+ very similar shape involving a complex shape (ie. not a basic block)
+ very similar coloring
+ same market
- the Mac Cube and the Cobalt Qube:
+ different markets
+ a simple shape
+ very different overall appearance
Also consider that Apple might be able to cite "prior work" given the NeXT cube.
Interestingly enough, the NeXT cube was far closer in appearance to the Cobalt than the new G4 cube. You could argue that the new G4 cube isn't even a cube given it's cool plexiglass shell.
Clearly there is no case on the grounds of infringement of a particular design. But there is a reasonable case for confusion of trademark in a similar market. Apple could probably settle very easily by simply giving the box a better name and avoiding the use of the word "cube". Maybe they should do like Cobalt and call their box the "Que-oob".
I think that the some of the iMac knock-offs were ridiculous, but some other machines were lumped in the fray unfairly (the Gateway dead-end).