Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fungineer
And which means that no competitor will be able to call device a Capital-B-l-a-c-k-Capital-Something-Something, one word, as well as likely Capital-Something-Something-Capital-B-e-r-ry. Like RedBerry, for instance.
|
That's a "yes" answer, according to the question I was asking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GMK
DallasFlier said, "If RIM should win this case, will or will not the direct result be a "de-facto" trademarking of the word "black" with respect to the entire cell phone/PDA/smartphone industry segment -"
One word answer: Will!! If RIM prevails, who in their right mind would name a similar looking smartphone black anything or anything berry, etc, etc. Not by order of the court or anything so dramatic, just common sense.
|
Thanks, Fungineer and GMK, for being willing to at least answer the question that I still insist SanFran worked so hard to avoid answering with long-winded legal arguments.
At least we now agree on something - that this would effectively enjoin all phone/PDA manufacturers from using the word "Black" in terms of "Black[Anything] for a phone. We may not agree on whether that's right or not, but at least we agree that would be the effective result of a RIM win here. (And I suspect SanFran agrees too, but was unwilling to simply admit that that would be the outcome.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GMK
We're on opposite sides of the opinion table on this issue but I'd go you one step further or earlier as the case may be. I think Samsung falls into the "who in their right mind" category even before the suit was filed.
|
Let me step back even further then, and say I think RIM may have been guilty of "who in their right mind" long before that, by choosing such a combination of such VERY common words as a basic color! That, to me, is probably the original "who in their right mind" in this case. And that's the crux of the matter to me. I don't think ANY company should be allowed to get an effective trademark on exceedingly common, everyday words. If they were worried about that, then they should have been just a *bit* more creative and intelligent in their original naming of the device. Kleenex and Xerox are great examples - I can't imagine any way that any other manufacturer could imitate those names without it being instantly cut and dried what they were up to. And if some company were to try to clone similar monikers to THOSE names, I'd be TOTALLY on the other side of the argument. Shame on RIM years ago for not being more creative in their naming and coming up with something clearly and unambiguously unique like those names. As a matter of basic principle, I just don't think that its right, for instance, that a company couldn't make a smartphone with a short antenna sticking out the bottom for some good reason and decide to call it a "BlackCat."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GMK
Most, if not all other forums and blogs are pretty much outraged at RIMs outrageous claim. Man, am I in the minority.
|
And that, as I believe you yourself pointed out earlier, is just ONE of the risks that RIM is taking here. Whether winning at trial while at the same time losing large in the court of public opinion is a good thing or not is certainly debatable, I'd say.
And the OTHER major risk they face, as SanFran himself pointed out, is what appears to me to be a case that Samsung's attorneys should make sure to cite as potential precedent - where a Judge made it known to Microsoft that if they continued to pursue their case against "Lindows" that they would find themself with a precedent-setting opinion stating that "windows" was a word that was entirely too common and widespread to be due any protection or trademark rights. They'll sure have egg on their face (and a hole in their bank accounts) should they get a Judge who thinks similarly to the one Microsoft faced in that case.
Again - thanks to both of you for answering the simple question I had repeatedly asked and SanFran had repeatedly avoided - at least it gives ground for continued discussion.