Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / / NOT BERRY NICE

NOT BERRY NICE


The IPKat learns from Engadget of a new spate of berry-inspired litigation. RIM has filed a claim in Los Angeles, arguing that Samsung’s BlackJack handset infringes RIM’s BlackBerry trade mark.

The IPKat doubts whether there would be any confusion, but he suspects that it’s more than coincidental that Samsung has chosen, of all the possible names, one beginning with the word ‘black’. Having said that, while unfair advantage is actionable in the EU, it isn’t in the US.
NOT BERRY NICE NOT BERRY NICE Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, December 10, 2006 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousMonday, 11 December 2006 at 10:07:00 GMT

    If IPSEI and PEPSI are likely to be confused under 5(2) (see Registry decision), then they may well have no need of an unfair advantage cause. These days 5(2) seems to be as elastic as the courts want it.

    ReplyDelete

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.