Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
 71 
 on: 09-07-18 at 05:47 am 
Started by culvers - Last post by EvilLost
I agree with Robert.

Looking at the Apple guidelines you linked as an example...

"Authorized Use of Apple Trademarks" says: "2. Compatibility: Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark (but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo) in a referential phrase..."  So, Apple lets you use their "word marks" but not the "apple logo" and only in a "referential phrase." 

Nominative fair use makes no distinction between word and graphical marks afaik, and the "referential phrase" requirement is added by Apple.

Similarly, under "Unauthorized Use of Apple Trademarks" says: "2. Apple Logo and Apple-owned Graphic Symbols: You may not use the Apple Logo or any other Apple-owned graphic symbol, logo, or icon on or in connection with web sites, products, packaging, manuals, promotional/advertising materials, or for any other purpose except pursuant to an express written trademark license from Apple, such as a reseller agreement."

Really? Apple thinks I'm not allowed to use their graphical logos for any purpose (ie under fair use)?


Continuing, under "Mac Trademark" they have this gem:

"2. You may use “Mac” in your product name, company name, trade name, or service name provided your name satisfies the following criteria:

a. Your product is not a computer, computer system, or operating system software.

b. Your product is Mac compatible or the third party business is associated with Mac based computers.

c. “Mac” is used in combination with another non-generic or non-geographically-descriptive word.

Acceptable:   MacVenus      MacCharlie

Not acceptable:   MacCharleston      MacSales
"

They are trying to "dumb down" the TM rules for the average joe reading these guidelines, but the guidelines are clearly overreaching (what basis does point (c) have?) . I most certainly can call a business "MacCharleston" or "MacSales" as long as I don't have any confusion with Apple's products (for example, if I start a golf retail outlet in Charleston, SC...)

EDIT: A paper company in Florida actually has the word mark "MAC" registered http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:42186w.6.259

 72 
 on: 09-07-18 at 05:38 am 
Started by beancurdog - Last post by EvilLost
I generally do not use any article before words that are uncountable (for grammar reasons).

I would simply claim: "pouring water into a first cup" and then later refer back to it as "the water."

You can instead claim: "pouring an amount of water into a first cup" and then refer back to "the amount of water."

In both cases, I can see the possibility of an Examiner rejecting for clarity or indefiniteness because it is not clear how to determine how "much" water (or what amount of water) should be poured, though this could be handled fairly easily in the spec.

 73 
 on: 09-07-18 at 02:59 am 
Started by culvers - Last post by MYK
The distributor who sold you the stuff may be able to help you if you can't dig it up yourself -- but BEWARE that some distributors intentionally violate brand guidelines in an effort to try to steal trademark rights from the original manufacturer, and so they might try to manipulate you on that ....

On the flip side, many manufacturers claim rights that are far beyond what they are legally entitled to.  Some of Apple's guidelines, for example, are pretty indefensible, as I am sure you would agree.
I haven't noticed any;  what about their usage guidelines is overreach?

The situations we ran into were straight-out IP theft, such as a German distributor who filed to register our product's primary trademark in Germany so that he could sue to prevent us from ever selling through any other distributor there.  The China distributor had done that before we even had product on the market;  the owner was a friend of our CEO whom he had talked to about the company's plans.

 74 
 on: 09-07-18 at 02:24 am 
Started by beancurdog - Last post by beancurdog
Thanks for reply.

What about WATER?

A method for quenching my thirst, comprising the steps of:
pouring a water into a first cup;
transferring the water from the first cup into a second cup; and
drinking the water from the second cup.

"Pouring a water" is an improper writing from a normal grammatical viewpoint, but is it proper or at least possible in patent claiming?


I think some nouns, such as ink and maybe water as well, can be used in both ways of countable and uncoutable depending on the meaning.
As regards ink, it is treated as a countable noun when the word denotes a variety of the material, in my view.
My question is about the usage of the word meaning otherwise.

 75 
 on: 09-07-18 at 12:40 am 
Started by beancurdog - Last post by Toot Aps Esroh
Do you use an indefinite article "a" or "an" to introduce a new element whose word is ordinarily an Uncountable Noun, e.g. ink?


Hi, not entirely sure "ink" is a good example given there are numerous patents claiming various "inks" (which use the phrases "an ink" or "one or more inks"). 

I do understand the concept of an uncountable noun, I'm just not sure how one of these would work in the patent sense, because even if the word is normally an uncountable, in the patent sense you're usually describing in claims a particular one, hence "an ink" as mentioned above.

Can you give more discrete examples where the no-count noun can't be accommodated?

Thanks.

 76 
 on: 09-06-18 at 09:29 pm 
Started by beancurdog - Last post by beancurdog
Do you use an indefinite article "a" or "an" to introduce a new element whose word is ordinarily an Uncountable Noun, e.g. ink?

 77 
 on: 09-06-18 at 08:08 pm 
Started by culvers - Last post by Robert T Nicholson
The distributor who sold you the stuff may be able to help you if you can't dig it up yourself -- but BEWARE that some distributors intentionally violate brand guidelines in an effort to try to steal trademark rights from the original manufacturer, and so they might try to manipulate you on that ....

On the flip side, many manufacturers claim rights that are far beyond what they are legally entitled to.  Some of Apple's guidelines, for example, are pretty indefensible, as I am sure you would agree.




 78 
 on: 09-06-18 at 07:38 pm 
Started by fb - Last post by fb
I know they can both be pursued. But the question of the case is, if the current design (being just "taller" but otherwise same features) will have a decent chance as a design patent.

Patents can originally be filed with a dividing line that shows variable height/length. For example again, a taller refrigerator. If the first product would have originally been filed, and would have included the variable height, it would have encompassed the current taller version. But the first product was never filed. So the question is, will the current taller version be worth a patent.

If not, only trade dress can be pursued.

 79 
 on: 09-06-18 at 06:46 pm 
Started by Dazed-n-confused - Last post by Dazed-n-confused
Thank you both for clearly answering the question "is there any value to replying with nothing more than an explanation why the office has failed to make a PF case?" in the negative.

I'm glad I have good "combination doesn't teach or suggest all elements" arguments, though.  I dislike the notion of trying to argue motivation in a vacuum against an unstated rationale.  Unless one has a crystal clear "teaching away" argument, I guess.


Is this how it should be?  No.  Is this how it is?  Yes.


I think this is the first time I've gotten a US obviousness rejection where it only pointed to elements in the art with no allegation of obviousness/motivation.  So I hope it's not too prevalent a practice.  This examiner has sig authority, so I guess no one's looking over the work.  And may have been in a big hurry to get it out as there were some other goofy things going on that I haven't mentioned.

I've called a couple of times (left VMs) in the last couple of weeks but no callback so far, and the deadline's looming, so I'll just argue mainly the missing elements and mention in passing the failure to provide the reasoned rationale.

Thanks again.


 80 
 on: 09-06-18 at 02:36 pm 
Started by culvers - Last post by culvers
great thank you both

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.085 seconds with 18 queries.