Gameindustry.biz reports that Sony failed to gain an interim injunction at the beginning of the week against Nuplayer, an online retailer that has been selling Sony’s PSP game system.
Sony has released the PSP games system overseas, but has delayed its release in Europe. Nuplayer began offering them online to UK consumers and Sony sought an interim injunction. Nuplayer offered to remove Sony’s trade marks from its websites and the packaging so that consumers would only see that this was a Sony product when they opened the box. Sony countered that this would deface its products and so would still be infringement.
The judge said that he needed some time to decide whether to grant the injunction. At the time the story was reported by Gamesindustry.biz his judgment was expected today or Monday, but the IPKat suspect that since the courts have been disrupted by the events in London, judgment may be at some time near the beginning of next week.
Has the court been involved in empirical testing of the PSP system? Merpel asks
The IPKat thinks Nuplayer’s offer is a little odd – wouldn’t selling Sony’s products without Sony’s trade marks count as reverse passing off (when a defendant fails to make clear where genuine goods of the claimant originated from and passed them off as his own)?
SONY SEEKS INTERIM INJUNCTION IN PSP CASE
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Friday, July 08, 2005
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html