Last word on expedited trade mark applications; Vonage in trouble

The IPKat has now heard how quickly you can get a trade mark application through in Greece, if you really try. According to his friend Michalis Kosmopoulos you face a wait of ... er, 16 to 18 months, and there are no provisions for expedited applications . Just as well, isn't it, that businesses are never in a hurry to underpin their business plans with a trade mark registration.

Bad news for internet phone company Vonage, via Simon Haslam and the BBC website: the company has lost a patent case that could threaten phone services for its 2.2 million customers, after a US jury ordered Vonage to pay $58m to deadly rival Verizon for infringing three patents, plus royalties of 5.5% of future sales. Verizon has now asked for an injunction that would stop Vonage from connecting its customers to landline telephones.

The IPKat wonders whether, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in eBay v MercExchange, this is exactly the sort of situation in which, given the likely disruption of so many phone users and the typically licence-related scenario for a solution, injunctive relief would be refused. Merpel says, I wonder who US juries are biased against when both parties in the litigation are American.
Last word on expedited trade mark applications; Vonage in trouble Last word on expedited trade mark applications; Vonage in trouble Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 Rating: 5

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:

Powered by Blogger.