Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[infloss]

Trying to help friend/colleague on this, though I'm not an attorney - just have a little more experience with trademark than her.

For the sake of illustration the product is called iMachine... (replace Machine with any tool or thing of some sort).  It's software that simulates (or at least tries to simulate) the machine and is downloaded from an online app store (android or apple).    Once downloaded it operates on its own without needing online access.  One can optionally download virtual goods to modify the look of the virtual machine.

iMachine is rejected as being merely descriptive.  Examiner considers 'i' to stand for Internet, and Machine to describe the machine it tries to simulate. 

In this case, 'Internet Machine' would seem to imply (to me at least), either a real machine that's modified to work with the Internet, or possibly a simulation of the machine that's runs in the browser over the Internet.  There's no real machine called 'Internet Machine'.  And actually, I think most wouldn't even think 'i' stands for Internet in this case.

So, the question. Is the use of the Internet in this case (purely for distribution, and perhaps for distribution of add-on material) significant enough of a feature that it makes iMachine descriptive?  Anyone know of any cases/decisions which show, distribution method of the product (and/or distribution of add-on option) isn't significant enough to make the mark descriptive?

My understanding is if there's doubt about the descriptiveness, the examiner needs to side with the applicant, so in this case some related case, should be enough to make a persuasive argument, no?

[SoftmasterG]

An iPhone App is not an Internet Application.  Look into the trademark application for iBook or iBooks to see arguments that Apple has made concerning merely descriptive.