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. 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.


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:

Powered by Blogger.