 viperpa33sWhy Me?Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL | Don't understand I don't understand why in some cases not all that a company needs to explain why they are suing. Is Cisco expecting people to feel sorry for them and get public approval? I don't think a company needs public approval, they can sue whenever they feel like.
Cisco's lawyers say it's not about money but it is. A licensing agreement will be signed and Apple will pay compensation to Cisco. Apple hasn't paid the money so that's what the stink is all about. |
|
| said by viperpa33s:Cisco's lawyers say it's not about money but it is. A licensing agreement will be signed and Apple will pay compensation to Cisco. Apple hasn't paid the money so that's what the stink is all about. It may indeed not be (directly) about money in terms of licensing royalties or cash payment. Cisco is really, really, into selling their own products, and may truly want the name. |
|
|
|
 GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | reply to viperpa33s
No, it's not necessarily about the money.
I'm not sure how many trademark/service mark agreements you've negotiated, but when it comes to larger organizations, it's not really about the money. It may be with trademark troll types. But that's not the case here. |
|
1 edit | reply to viperpa33s
If a company fails to actively guard and take action to protect a trademark that it owns then it will lose said trademark.
If Cisco took no action on this issue then they would lose their claim to the iPhone trademark so it is not just about money it is about protecting their IP. |
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to SD6
said by SD6:said by viperpa33s:Cisco's lawyers say it's not about money but it is. A licensing agreement will be signed and Apple will pay compensation to Cisco. Apple hasn't paid the money so that's what the stink is all about. It may indeed not be (directly) about money in terms of licensing royalties or cash payment. Cisco is really, really, into selling their own products, and may truly want the name. It's totally about the money. Doesn't "selling their own products" = money??? |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | said by sporkme:said by SD6:said by viperpa33s:Cisco's lawyers say it's not about money but it is. A licensing agreement will be signed and Apple will pay compensation to Cisco. Apple hasn't paid the money so that's what the stink is all about. It may indeed not be (directly) about money in terms of licensing royalties or cash payment. Cisco is really, really, into selling their own products, and may truly want the name. It's totally about the money. Doesn't "selling their own products" = money??? The point was that it's not about the money in the sense of suing to gain money for money's sake like the patent trolls do.
It's about protecting your mark, which indirectly can lead to sustained sales through less confusion or dilution of the mark. |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to Shark_615
said by Shark_615:If a company fails to actively guard and take action to protect a trademark that it owns then it will lose said trademark. If Cisco took no action on this issue then they would lose their claim to the iPhone trademark so it is not just about money it is about protecting their IP. How do you lose a trademark that is registered?  |
|
GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Through dilution when a TM becomes generic.
Xerox, Kleenex, Thermos are all marks that struggled with this. It becomes dangerous for a company when trademarks are used as generic nouns/verbs for the object/action. For example, "get me a kleenex", or "xerox this paper" or "pour it into the thermos" are all phrases that are dangerous for their respective companies.
Proper usage of the trademark is as an adjective. For example, saying "get me a Kleenex tissue" or "copy this paper in the Xerox machine" etc. is okay.
A trademark owner is obligated to police their marks and enforce them.
Here's a link: »cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool···.htm#toc
An excerpt:
Trademark rights can also be lost through genericity. Sometimes, trademarks that are originally distinctive can become generic over time, thereby losing its trademark protectionKellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938). A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer. So, for example, the term "thermos" has become a generic term and is no longer entitled to trademark protection. Although it once denoted a specific manufacturer, the term now stands for the general type of product. Similarly, both "aspirin" and "cellophane" have been held to be generic. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F.505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921). In deciding whether a term is generic, courts will often look to dictionary definitions, the use of the term in newspapers and magazines, and any evidence of attempts by the trademark owner to police its mark. |
|
