BlackBerry Forums Support Community

BlackBerry Forums Support Community (http://www.blackberryforums.com/)
-   RIM Stock/Legal Discussion (http://www.blackberryforums.com/rim-stock-legal-discussion/)
-   -   RIM vs. Samsung (http://www.blackberryforums.com/rim-stock-legal-discussion/57468-rim-vs-samsung.html)

ibrg 12-11-2006 08:40 PM

RIM vs. Samsung
 
Apparently one company, American Cell, who's based out of California and sells the BlackBerry Pearl, got the device confused with the BlackJack by Samsung. That's why RIM is Suing Samsung over the name BlackJack (info taken from RIMarkable.com).
For the link to American Cell's boo-boo click here



secrecyguy 12-11-2006 08:53 PM

I am sure they will fix it soon so I don't think the link will not work very soon.

The name is very similar and they may win this case. Or they may settle it out of court.

BigWorm 12-11-2006 11:15 PM

yeah but BLACK BERRY is unfuggwitable because of the "Pin 2 Pin" thats why I got it!!!!

admartinezjr 12-11-2006 11:44 PM

Robb from RIMarkable has a mention of this in his blog. This will certainly add more fuel to the battle between RIM and Samsung over the Blackjack name.

Example of why RIM is Suing Samsung over the name BlackJack | RIMarkable | The official, unofficial BlackBerry Weblog

ibrg 12-12-2006 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by admartinezjr
Robb from RIMarkable has a mention of this in his blog.

I have mentioned it in my original post...
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigWorm
yeah but BLACK BERRY is unfuggwitable because of the "Pin 2 Pin" thats why I got it!!!!

Samsung is a BIG and clever player in this market...

NJBlackBerry 12-12-2006 07:35 AM

And I always get confused between Lexus the car and Lexus the legal search tool....

paulbblc 12-12-2006 07:45 AM

If it didn't run WM5, I'd be tempted to purchase the BlackJack. It seems as if Samsung thought they were being clever, turned out it's going to bite them in the butt. However they had to have known this was going to happen if they named it this, therefore it leads me to believe they have something up their sleeve. Why would anyone set themselves up to lose money like they're about to?

greggebhardt 12-12-2006 07:46 AM

So let me get this straight. Balckberry is upset because Samsung names one of their phone the Blackjack? HA!

I can't see RIM winning that battle and they better look twice as Samsung is HUGE and can afford to fight that winning battle!

TheBigNewt 12-12-2006 08:34 AM

A clever ploy to get free publicity at probably nominal cost overall.

shuffle 12-12-2006 09:10 AM

Yeah, RIM will loose this one if it goes that far - blackjack is not close enough to blackberry.

DrMoze 12-12-2006 10:55 AM

First, RIM may or may not *lose* (only one 'o' in that word!), but there is legitimate basis for a suit. Given several reports of actual confusion by consumers, RIM does have a decent chance of winning or persuading Samsung to settle. IMO, of course. But I am an IP attorney by day (and many evenings!) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Peregrine 12-12-2006 11:30 AM

I disagree with the ip attorney. RIM doesn't stand a chance and needs to back off.
Blackjack is a card game or a weapon. Blackberry is a fruit.
What's next? RIM going to patent any device that starts with the word BLACK*...

There is no similarity.
And if anyone confuese the word BLACKBERRY with BLACKJACK then they must have been living in a cave for the past several years. BLACKBERRY is such a well known term...

ibrg 12-12-2006 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrine
I disagree with the ip attorney. RIM doesn't stand a chance and needs to back off...

I tend to agree. Thus far the mistakes that were made between the two phones (Blackjack and Pearl) were made by cell phone providers (such as the one I mentioned in the first post with a link). Samsung could argue that cell phone providers need to pay closer attention to the product they sell.
Blackjack and Blackberry arenít that close by name and certainly not close by their meaning (although Blackjack is also "a black variety of the mineral sphalerite or zinc blende" which is somewhat related).
The phones themselves have some similarities but many phones look alike.

Peregrine 12-12-2006 12:03 PM

Yea, I could see them suing because it's very very similar, but not over the name.

greggebhardt 12-12-2006 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrMoze
First, RIM may or may not *lose* (only one 'o' in that word!), but there is legitimate basis for a suit. Given several reports of actual confusion by consumers, RIM does have a decent chance of winning or persuading Samsung to settle. IMO, of course. But I am an IP attorney by day (and many evenings!) so I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Some consumers will always be confused. I simply do not think RIM has a chance of getting a penny. Attorneys will sue for anything if they think they can make money.

DrMoze 12-12-2006 12:19 PM

Feel free to disagree with an IP attorney who actually deals with trademark infringement. I guarantee your uninformed opinion won't sway any court.

The issue here is that the names *are* confusingly similar for related goods and services. In that respect, Blackjack and Blackberry are similar enough to create likelihood of confusion. There are already several reported cases of *actual* confusion, which is strong evidence in a trademark suit. It doesn't matter *who* is confused, because Samsung is the entity that selected the Blackjack name that is leading to confusion.

So, your lay off-the-cuff opinion notwithstanding, there clearly *is* similarity and RIM does have a viable legal basis to bring suit. (Need I remind you of the rights that have been secured for "Mc-anything"? :) )

ibrg 12-12-2006 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrMoze
(Need I remind you of the rights that have been secured for "Mc-anything"? :) )

iDisagree :razz: 8-)

juice901 12-12-2006 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrMoze
The issue here is that the names *are* confusingly similar for related goods and services. In that respect, Blackjack and Blackberry are similar enough to create likelihood of confusion.

Exactly. I agree

paulbblc 12-12-2006 12:55 PM

*moved to RIM Stock/Legal Discussion forum and edited title*

SanFrancisco 12-12-2006 01:39 PM

I litigated enough IP cases to know a little about this.

First, it looks as though it's the vendor who made the goof, calling the Black Jack a Pearl. It looks like a small time vendor, so I can see them getting confused. But could be a fraud attempt since many consumers would assume that the Black Jack was in fact "the Pearl" everyone was mentioning.

Second, as to Samsung, it's a close call on the names. But there certainly is enough of a basis for RIM to sue [meaning the suit would survive a Rule 11 motion].

Historically, there are many, many cases where businesses have won lawsuits protecting their trademarks, but there are also some BIG losses.

Monster cable has won many lawsuits against businesses using the word monster in the name.

McDonald's has won and lost some. E.g., they lost a suit against an individual whose name was "Big Mac." He had the domain name "bigmac.com" and McDonald's sued him for infringement, but McDonald's lost because the guy's nickname was "Big Mac" and the Court said his domain name was not an attempt to squat or hold hostage the name so he could sell it to McDonald's.

I recall a small business that sold falafel, was named "Falafel King." Burger King successfully got the owner to change the name because, BK argued, people would think that Falafel King was somehow related to or run by BK.

Microsoft sued an alternative OS called Lindows for trademark infringement saying among other things that Lindows confused the public into thinking that it was Windows related or a product sold by MS.

End result, MS settled for over $100 million because the Judge had indicated that he was inclined to rule that Windows was NOT a protectible name, nor was it a trademark. Rather than risk a judicial ruling or precedent that Windows could not be a trademark [too common a word], MS settled by paying money to the people it sued.

Trademark is one issue, trade dress is another [an item made to look similar to a more established product so to confuse the public into thinking they are buying the more established product, such as Gallo wine or SanDisk memory chips].

The issue here, with the word "black" in the name, will the public be confused into thinking they are buying a BlackBerry when in fact they are buying a Black Jack?

The foundation of a good case is there since both devices are smart phones. It also seems that Samsung's bad motive is present. Of the zillion names one could choose, why pick a name with the word "black" in it? One might also wonder about Samsung's motive when that one vendor was either confused or did in fact use the term Black Jack to fool consumers into thinking they were buying Pearl phones.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.