AllThingsD » trademark

Judge: Proview Can't Sue Apple in California in iPad Trademark Battle

Jessica E. Vascellaro — Tue, 08 May 2012 23:30:21 +0000

A California judge threw out Proview Electronics Co.’s lawsuit against Apple Inc. over the iPad trademark in China, the latest twist in the legal fight over the rightful owner of the tablet’s name.

Judge Mark Pierce in the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County on May 4 approved Apple’s motion to dismiss the suit, which was first filed in February. The order wasn’t previously disclosed.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Apple, Proview Talking Settlement in iPad Trademark Spat

John Paczkowski — Mon, 07 May 2012 15:37:06 +0000

Apple’s battle with Proview over the rights to the iPad trademark in China may end up in a settlement after all.

According to Proview attorney Xie Xianghui, mediation talks between the two companies are progressing, albeit slowly. “We feel that the attitude of Apple has changed,” Xie told China’s government newswire. “Although they expressed that they were willing to negotiate, they have never taken any action before. But now, they are having conversations with us, and we have begun to consult on the case.”

And, evidently, Apple is looking to close the complaint. Xie says the company has already proposed a sum to end the litigation, though it’s not high enough for Proview. “Right now, there is still a big gap between the two sides on the settlement amount,” he said.

Which isn’t at all surprising. Apple has maintained throughout this battle that it legally owns the iPad mark across Asia, and that Proview is doing nothing more than squeezing it for additional money to use the trademark in China — despite the fact that it has already purchased those rights.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD earlier this year. “Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”

Chinese Official Says Proview Owns iPad Trademark, Not Apple

John Paczkowski — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:14:28 +0000

Who owns the iPad trademark in China? Apple claims it does. But, evidently, Chinese government officials disagree.

Fu Shuangjian, the vice minister of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), an agency that enforces trade laws in China, said today that Apple gadfly Proview is still the holder of the iPad trademark in the country.

“According to the provisions of China Trademark Law, currently Shenzhen Proview is the legal registrant of the iPad trademark,” Fu told reporters at a news conference in Beijing.

Fu’s remarks are the first the SAIC has made on Apple’s ongoing battle with Proview for ownership of the iPad trademark, and while they certainly won’t determine its outcome, they do suggest that Apple’s chances of winning it in court might not be as good as evidence suggests. And if that’s truly the case, Apple may be better off settling with the opportunistic Proview — as much as the prospect of doing so must chafe.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

Apple, Proview Will Try to Talk Out iPad Trademark Tussle

John Paczkowski — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 18:08:56 +0000

Apple’s battle over the iPad trademark in China could be moving toward resolution. That’s the word from the attorney representing Proview, Apple’s antagonist in the spat, who tells IDG that the two companies have agreed to participate in a mediation session.

Meanwhile, the case — a rat’s nest of a dispute over just who owns the rights to the iPad trademark in China — drags on, Proview’s financial situation continues to worsen and Apple’s new iPad continues to be unavailable for purchase in mainland China.

Of course, Proview has said all along that it’s willing to negotiate a settlement. Problem is, Apple may not see the need for one. It contends that it reached an agreement with Proview years ago, when it first purchased the company’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries, and it has a fair bit of evidence to back it up.

Apple did not respond to requests for comment.

Apple Calls Proview Stance "Misleading"

Loretta Chao — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:02:40 +0000

Apple Inc. elaborated on its claim to the iPad trademark in China on Tuesday, saying that the computer maker’s opponent in a court battle is “misleading Chinese courts and customers.”

Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu said Proview International Holding Ltd. and its subsidiaries tricked Apple into signing a 2009 agreement in such a way that opens ownership of the Chinese trademarks to questions. She said Proview, which is based in Hong Kong, now is trying unfairly to extract more money for the same transaction.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Apple vs. Proview: We Lawyers Have a Word for Cases Like This, and It Starts With "Cluster"

John Paczkowski — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:30:18 +0000

The hearing that could determine ownership of the iPad trademark in China kicked off this morning with a broad rehash of the battle we’ve seen play out in the media over the past few weeks: Apple arguing it bought Proview Technology’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark several years ago, and Proview claiming it bought them from an affiliate that didn’t own them.

“Apple meticulously formed a band of lawyers to buy the trademark, but the transacted amount was given to Taiwan’s Proview, not Shenzhen’s Proview,” Proview’s attorneys told the court, adding that the iPad trademark therefore still belongs to Proview’s Shenzhen unit, its claimed original owner.

The problem with that argument, as Apple’s legal team was quick to point out, is that negotiations over the iPad trademark were authorized by Rowell Yang, chairman of Proview Shenzhen, and the actual transfer agreement was signed by Ray Mai, head of Shenzhen’s legal department.

Proview’s explanation for this, according to its lawyers: “Personnel may have multiple roles or titles within the group, but the question is in what capacity were they acting?“

And that really gets to the heart of the issue here: Did Apple buy the iPad China trademark from a company that didn’t own it?

“The ownership of the trademark when it was allegedly sold is not really in doubt; it was owned by Proview-Taiwan,” Dan Harris, an intellectual-property attorney at Harris & Moure, explains. “The real question is whether Proview-Shenzhen authorized Proview-Taiwan to sell the iPad trademark to Apple.”

Because if it is determined that it didn’t, Apple is in quite a bind. “The value of iPad’s trademark rocketed after Apple launched the tablet computer in January 2010,” the company’s legal team told the court. “In the eyes of the consumer, iPad is associated with Apple. If the court decides that Proview wins the case, then this will confuse consumers and hurt their interests.”

And it will force Apple to negotatiate a new deal with its cash-strapped opponent, undoubtedly a very expensive one.

Which is exactly what Proview is seeking here.

Said Harris, in a separate interview with AllThingsD, “We lawyers have a word for cases like this: Clusterf–k. The facts are going to keep coming out, and nobody is going to look very pure as they do, and this just strikes me as the kind of case that both sides are going to want to settle.”

Proview Takes a Shot at Apple in California Court

John Paczkowski — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:37:54 +0000

Looks like Proview doesn’t need to find a law firm to sue Apple in the United States, as it said last week.

Not only does it already have one, but according to The Wall Street Journal it has already filed suit — on Feb. 17, the very day Li Su, chairman of Hejun Vanguard Group, a consulting company representing Proview’s creditors, said it was “selecting from three American law firms to sue Apple in the United States for $2 billion in compensation.”

Filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in Santa Clara County, the suit accuses Apple of fraud for using its IP Application Development subsidiary to purchase the iPad trademark from Proview. Apple acted “with oppression, fraud and/or malice,” Proview alleges.

Evidently, if Proview had known Apple’s plans for the trademarks, it would have held out for a lot more than the $55,000 it ultimately sold them for. But it didn’t. And now it’s trying to retroactively rejigger the deal through the courts, seeking to rescind the original agreement and prevent Apple from using the iPad name on its products.

Apple, for its part, insists it purchased Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark fair and square, and has quite a bit of evidence to back it up. Among the documents supporting Apple’s argument: A Dec. 23, 2009 contract signed by a Proview representative, stipulating that the company will transfer to Apple all rights, “powers and benefits belonging or accrued to the [iPad] trademarks, including the right to sue for past infringements and passing off.”

Proview Loses Bid to Ban iPad in Shanghai

John Paczkowski — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:43:11 +0000

A major setback for Proview in its battle with Apple over the rights to the iPad trademark in China.

The Pudong District People’s Court has denied the company’s request for an injunction that would have temporarily halted iPad sales in Shanghai.

“We had requested an injunction that would force Apple to stop sales of the iPad on the grounds that they are infringing upon Proview’s trademark, but the court has rejected our request and decided that it will not hear the case,” said Proview attorney Xie Xianghui.

The decision doesn’t end Apple’s contentious battle with Proview, but it’s an important victory for the company, nonetheless. It keeps the iPad on the shelves of Apple’s three flagship stores in Shanghai, and postpones further proceedings until the Guangdong Provincial High Court hears its appeal on the broader trademark dispute. And it sets a tough precedent for Proview, which hopes to squeeze Apple for more money to turn over the China trademark.

Surprise -- Proview's Ready to Talk Settlement With Apple

John Paczkowski — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:45:29 +0000

Proview's Shenzhen Headquarters

Proview, the bankrupt company embroiled in a pitched battle with Apple over the Chinese rights to the iPad trademark, says it’s willing to negotiate out of court to reach a settlement. On the eve of a hearing that would determine whether or not an injunction against iPad sales in Shanghai is upheld, lawyers for the foundering Chinese company indicated it was looking for a deal.

“We are now preparing for negotiations,” attorney Xie Xianghui told the AFP. “The court cases will continue until we reach an agreement.”

Thing is, Apple contends an agreement was reached years ago, when it first purchased Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries, and it has a fair bit of evidence to back it up. Among the documents supporting Apple’s argument — a Dec. 23, 2009 contract signed by a Proview representative, stipulating that the company will transfer to Apple all rights, “powers and benefits belonging or accrued to the [iPad] trademarks, including the right to sue for past infringements and passing off.”

Given this, is Apple even open to an agreement with a company it claims is not only reneging on an agreement, but smearing it in the media in the hopes of squeezing it for a chunk of go-away money?

Let’s just say Proview might want to lower its hopes a tad.

Apple Threatens to Sue Proview for Defamation -- Read the Letter

John Paczkowski — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:43:55 +0000

Proview’s legal battle with Apple over the iPad trademark grows more inane by the day.

This morning, the bankrupt company said it won a ruling from People’s Intermediate Court in Huizhou barring Sundan, a Chinese electronics retail chain, from selling iPads. But the decision applies only to Sundan’s Huizhou branch. So it’s not exactly a broad-reaching victory.

Essentially, it’s like a court telling your local RadioShack to stop selling iPads.

Meanwhile, Apple, which insists it purchased the iPad trademark in China from Proview years ago, is threatening to sue the company for defamation, alleging its founder, Yang Rongshan, has made false and misleading statements against it.

“It is inappropriate to release information contrary to the facts to the media, especially when such disclosures have the effect of wrongfully causing damage to Apple’s reputation,” said a letter to Yang. “Making misrepresentations in the press to inflame the situation is adversely affecting the interests of the parties in seeking any resolution of the matter. On behalf of Apple, we formally reserve all rights to take further legal action against any individuals and entities for any damages that may result from defamatory statements and unlawful actions intended to wrongfully interfere with Apple’s business and business relationships.”

Proview did not respond to a request for comment.

The letter in full, below:

Apple_proview –

Proview to Apple: You Owe Us $2 Billion

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:10:59 +0000

Proview's iPad, which bears an uncanny resemblance to another famous Apple product.

Proview, the foundering Chinese company battling with Apple over the iPad trademark, originally wanted millions of dollars for the rights to the mark in China. Now it wants billions.

At a press conference in Beijing on Friday, Li Su, chairman of Hejun Vanguard Group, a consulting company representing Proview’s creditors, said the company is gearing up to sue Apple in the U.S. to collect what it feels it’s owed. “Right now we are selecting from three American law firms to sue Apple in the United States for $2 billion in compensation,” he said.

As for allegations that Proview is breaching its iPad trademark deal to squeeze Apple for more money, Proview CEO Yang Rongshan says that’s not the case at all. “We own the iPad trademark in China,” Yang said. “If you were in my position … you would try to protect your rights.”

Apple, however, argues that it’s not Proview’s rights that need to be protected. Apple insists that it acquired the iPad mark fair and square from Proview several years ago, and that Proview refuses to honor their agreement. As documents first published by AllThingsD show, Proview in December of 2009 agreed to transfer to Apple all rights to the iPad trademark in a number of countries, including China. (Ironically, an email from a Proview executive to the Apple agent negotiating the trademark transfer concludes, “As you know my company is an international company and always keep[s] its promise.”)

Apple has sued Proview once, in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, arguing that the iPad trademark in China should be transferred to it per the original agreement, but the court dismissed that lawsuit, “due to the lack of facts and legal proof.” Apple subsequently appealed that ruling to the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong province, and will argue its case once again in a Feb. 29 hearing.

Take a Look at Some of Apple's Evidence in Proview iPad Dispute

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:05:41 +0000

You’ve seen the text of the Chinese court decision that sided with Apple in its dispute with Proview Technology over rights to the iPad trademark in China. Now, here’s some of the supporting documentation.

Quick recap: Apple says it bought Proview Technology’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago, and that Proview refuses to honor their agreement. Proview says Apple bought the rights from an affiliate that didn’t own them.

Additional documents obtained by AllThingD include email from a representative of Proview Technology — not the other affiliate — to Apple’s representative regarding the deal, as well as a copy of the agreement itself.

Proview did not respond to requests for comment.

Here's the Chinese Court Ruling Backing Apple in iPad Trademark Tiff

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:25:23 +0000

Proview's Shenzhen Headquarters

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago. Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”

That was Apple’s statement to AllThingsD Wednesday on its increasingly contentious battle with Hong Kong-based Proview Technology, which insists it still owns the rights to the iPad trademark in China. And here’s the court decision to back it up.

In it, Judge Hon Poon writes that Proview’s conduct smells of conspiracy driven by financial desperation, and that there’s reason to believe that it acted in breach of its agreement with Apple by wrongfully refusing to honor its obligation to hand over the iPad trademark in China.

The key paragraph:

“The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application [Apple's agent in the purchase] by acting in breach of the agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under [Proview CEO Yang Rongshan's] control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to [Apple]. Instead, they attempt to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US $10 million from Apple.”

The decision in full, below:

ProviewHongKongDecision

[Image credit Ciaxin Online]

Apple: China's Proview Trying to Weasel Out of iPad Trademark Deal

John Paczkowski — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:30:31 +0000

Proview Technology, the cash-strapped Chinese company scrapping with Apple over the iPad trademark, best steel itself for a long, grueling legal battle.

Cupertino is adamant that it legally owns the iPad mark throughout Asia, and that Proview is doing nothing more than squeezing it for additional money to use the trademark in China, despite the fact that it has already purchased those rights.

“We bought Proview’s worldwide rights to the iPad trademark in 10 different countries several years ago,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. “Proview refuses to honor their agreement with Apple in China, and a Hong Kong court has sided with Apple in this matter.”

And that does appear to be the case. In July, Judge Hon Poon ruled that there was more than enough evidence to suggest that Proview has breached its agreement with Apple by refusing to transfer to it the iPad trademark in China.

“The conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple … by acting in breach of the agreement,” Judge Hon Poon wrote. “Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under [Proview CEO Yang Rongshan's] control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to [Apple]. Instead, they attempt to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US $10 million from Apple.”

But that’s not how Proview sees the situation.

According to Proview, Apple’s agreement is with its Proview Electronics affiliate, which never controlled the iPad trademark for the Chinese market. It claims that Proview Technology, another affiliate, holds the rights to that mark to this day. Hard to believe that Apple would purchase the Asian rights to the iPad trademark without doing proper due diligence, but that is essentially what Proview is arguing.

And, of course, it is eager to sell that last mark at the highest possible price, now more than ever, as it has fallen on hard financial times.

As Yang told the FT back in 2012, “It is arrogant of Apple to just ignore our rights and go ahead selling the iPad in this market, and we will oppose that. Besides that, we are in big financial trouble and the trademarks are a valuable asset that could help us sort out part of that trouble.”

Hard not to read that as opportunistic. That said, it’s important to remember that Proview sold the global iPad trademark to Apple’s agent for about $55,104 in 2006, and since 2010 has likely been kicking itself for selling what is now a highly valuable mark for such a pittance.

Quite the rat’s nest here. And it’s only getting worse. Proview has now filed a request with Chinese Customs to block the import and export of iPads on trademark grounds.

As of this writing, Proview and CEO Yang Rongshan had not responded to requests for comment.

Facebook Countersues Timelines.com, Saying Its Trademarks Are Generic

Liz Gannes — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 07:00:09 +0000

Facebook earlier this week countersued Timelines.com, the small Web company that filed a trademark lawsuit in September over the social networking giant’s use of the word “timeline” to describe its upcoming profile redesign. Facebook called the term generic and descriptive (while printing it in lowercase), and pointed out that other services like Twitter use “timeline” for their chronological views. Via paidContent.

Hewlett-Packard Dons Its Ultrabook Suit

Arik Hesseldahl — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:11:23 +0000

It’s been about three weeks since Hewlett-Packard announced its decision to keep its PC division, formally known as the Personal Systems Group, or PSG. Today marked the first serious batch of new PC introductions from HP since that decision.

The one getting all the attention is an offering in the Ultrabook category that’s priced at $900. It’s called the HP Folio¹³, and aside from its price, its headline feature is that it delivers a full nine hours of battery life.

The Ultrabook is a concept primarily being pushed by Intel, so much so that Intel even owns the trademark rights to the name. Inside the Folio¹³ are the latest Intel Core processors. It represents the hopes of a PC industry that has seen anemic sales with little sign of a bounceback, though that depends on whom you ask.

Major challenges have been the continued popularity among consumers of Apple’s iPad, and to a lesser extent other tablets, and the impressive sales of Apple’s MacBook Air, which now accounts for nearly a third of Apple’s notebook sales. It may not be an Ultrabook technically, but conceptually the similarities are substantial: Thin, light, sporting solid-state drives and speedy boot-up times.

And while the MacBook Air is a big winner for Apple, there’s as yet little evidence that there’s much demand for a similar product running Windows. Last month, it emerged that Acer and Asus expect to sell only 100,000 each by the of 2011, which would amount to between one third and one half of what they originally hoped.

Yes, it’s early days for Ultrabooks — machines that support Intel’s full design vision won’t be on the market for another several months. And the industry is just now starting to bang the drum seriously for the Ultrabook. Asus Chairman Jonney Shih talked about the category in an interview with Walt Mossberg at AsiaD last month.

In its press releases, HP expressed the hopes of an entire industry when it quoted IDC analyst Crawford Del Prete saying he expects PC makers — including HP — to sell 95 million Ultrabooks by 2015. At their current levels, there’s nowhere to go but up.

Apple Files Patent Suit Against Samsung Over Galaxy Line of Phones and Tablets

Ina Fried — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:01:55 +0000

In the latest intellectual property suit to hit the smartphone industry, Apple is suing Samsung, alleging the Galaxy line of phones and tablets infringe on a number of the company’s patents and trademarks.

The suit, filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges patent and trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition. Apple is seeking injunctions, actual damages and punitive damages, as well as a finding that the alleged infringement was willful.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung said it would fight Apple’s legal action in the courts.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.”

The smartphone industry is filled with patent actions, including an ongoing battle between Apple and Nokia, suits between Microsoft and Motorola, as well as a suit by Oracle against Google, to name but a few. This one is particularly interesting because Samsung is a prominent supplier for a number of Apple products.

Apple’s lengthy court filing, seen by Mobilized, is filled with what Apple claims are examples of the copy-catting, ranging from core technology to screen icons to hardware shape. In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons.

In addition to the patent and trademark claims, Apple also alleges infringement of the “trade dress” of the iPhone and iPad, a legal term meaning they sure look a whole lot alike. Apple charges that everything from the icons on the Galaxy screen to the way the phone is packaged infringe on Apple’s designs.

“Samsung’s Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,” Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung’s tablet, like Apple’s, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons.

Even as Apple is filing its latest claims, the company suffered a setback in earlier cases it has pending against HTC and Nokia with the U.S. International Trade Commission. According to Bloomberg, ITC staff has recommended siding against Apple in those cases, which also involve phone patents.

Apple’s suit against Samsung not only contains lots of harsh words, but also has lots of pretty pictures, including some that show side-by-side shots of Samsung’s products stacked up against Apple’s patent diagrams and against Apple’s products themselves.

In one head-to-head comparison, Apple shows the iPhone 3GS next to the original Galaxy i9000 model sold in South Korea last year.

Updated 3:10 p.m. with Samsung comment.

How About We Call It APP Store, as in "Amazon Portable Program Store"

John Paczkowski — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:13:30 +0000

Apple is giving Amazon a bit of unwanted advance publicity ahead of the launch of the retailer’s new Android Appstore. Claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition, it’s suing Amazon over the “App Store” trademark.

In a complaint filed last week in California, Apple accused Amazon of improperly using its App Store mark to promote its “Appstore” mobile software developer program and the associated download service it plans to launch tomorrow. “Consumers of mobile software downloads are likely to be confused as to whether Amazon’s mobile software download service is sponsored or approved by Apple,” Apple argued in the suit.

“We’ve asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers,” Apple spokesperson Kristin Huguet told me. But Amazon has ignored the company’s appeals. According to the lawsuit, Apple contacted the retailer three times to demand it stop using the mark, with no success. Evidently, Amazon has cast its lot with Microsoft which has challenged Apple’s application for the trademark arguing “app store” is too generic a term and would prevent competitors from using it to describe their own products. And that does seem a reasonable argument; “app store” isn’t a particularly innovative turn of phrase. But as this Google Trend line shows, the phrase didn’t enter the vernacular until 2008, right around the time Apple began popularizing it…

(Thanks for the headline, Joseph)

QOTD: Like "Office" and "Word" Aren't Generic…

John Paczkowski — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:06:32 +0000

– Apple defends its right to trademark “App Store”

QOTD

John Paczkowski — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:55:49 +0000

Australia's Scoopon Won't Sell URL for $286,000, So Groupon Sues

Tricia Duryee — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:30:56 +0000

Here’s the kind of attention you get when everyone thinks you have deep pockets.

In an appeal to customers today, Groupon co-founder and CEO Andrew Mason explained in a blog post why it is suing an Australian competitor, Scoopon.

And the story is pretty juicy: Gabby and Hezi Leibovitch, two brothers who started Scoopon in Australia, have purchased the Groupon.com.au domain name, registered the company name of Groupon Pty Limited and tried registering the Groupon trademark in Australia.

“The way we see things, this is a classic case of domain squatting–an unfortunate reality of the Internet business,” Mason wrote. “As Groupon became internationally known, opportunistic domain squatters around the world started to buy local Groupon domain names, thinking that we’d eventually be forced to buy them at an insane price.”

But wait, there’s more: Groupon offered the brothers $286,000 for the Groupon.com.au domain and trademark, and Mason claims they accepted the offer.

Then they changed their minds (presumably around the time Groupon turned down $6 billion from Google, and then was rumored to be raising nearly $1 billion in fresh capital). No doubt, the Leibovitch brothers now have a much richer number in mind.

To that end, Mason says his company is choosing the path of last resort: “Left with no other options, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Scoopon, claiming that their Groupon trademark was filed in bad faith (amongst other things).”

In the meantime, the nearly $300,000 offer continues to stand, and Groupon has opened shop under an alias: www.stardeals.com.au/.

If a court doesn’t come down on his side, Mason is hoping customers will: “Apologies–we don’t like to bother our customers with these things, but felt you deserved to understand why it’s taking us so long in Australia,” he wrote.

A “Groupon in Australia” Facebook group has been created to raise awareness of the situation, and by this afternoon had already counted 568 members.

Myte, Gyst and Veer: Who's Doing Palm's Branding, Chaucer?

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:12:38 +0000

Companies often file trademarks on brands that they never end up using, so this trio of USPTO filings, made by Hewlett-Packard on December 10 isn’t exactly remarkable. But it is interesting in that the marks for which the company has applied–”Gyst,” “Myte” and “Veer“–sound suspiciously like the names of Palm products.

Certainly it doesn’t take a big leap to imagine Myte as a name for the the next iteration of the Palm Pixi, which is rumored to be smaller than its predecessor–perhaps even “the smallest smartphone ever.”

And Veer and Gyst? Who knows. Maybe HP’s branding team has been reading a bit too much Chaucer lately.

Court Says eBay Sales of L'Oréal Samples Breach Trademark

Frances Robinson — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:14:28 +0000

EBay Inc. may have to change the way it protects L’Oréal SA’s trademarks after Europe’s highest court said Thursday that the cosmetics company can prohibit the sale on the auction site of free samples and products intended for outside Europe.

However, the European Court of Justice’s advocate general, Niilo Jaaskinen, in giving his opinion, said eBay could continue to purchase advertising keywords, including L’Oréal trademarks, in order to direct users of Internet search engines to its site.

The ECJ said L’Oréal can prohibit the sale of “testers and dramming bottles, often marked with the words ‘not for sale’… supplied without charge to the trade mark proprietor’s authorized distributors,” because they “cannot be considered as being goods put on the market with the consent of the trade mark proprietor.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

LimeWire Disavows New "Pirate Edition"

Ethan Smith — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:00:06 +0000

LimeWire LLC, potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for copyright infringement, issued a cease-and-desist notice of its own Wednesday, trying to prevent anonymous computer programmers from distributing a “pirate edition” of its file-sharing software.

A federal court has permanently enjoined the New York company from distributing its software, which lets users upload and download free, often illegal, copies of songs and other media. But earlier this week a new version, “LimeWire Pirate Edition,” surfaced online, purportedly created by a “secret” team of software developers.

“We demand that all persons using the LimeWire software, name, or trademark in order to upload or download copyrighted works in any manner cease and desist from doing so,” said a statement on LimeWire.com. The statement also asserted that the company is “taking all steps to comply with the injunction.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Drinking Site Groggle Drops Name After Fight With Google

Jennifer Valentino-DeVries — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 20:00:19 +0000

It sounds like a great name for a site that helps people find the best prices on alcohol in their area–Groggle. But you know who didn’t think it was such a great name? Google.

The search giant objected over the similarity of the Groggle name to Google’s own when the founders of the Australian drinking site applied for a trademark application as they prepared to launch their service in April, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. After a six-month legal battle, Groggle’s co-founders said that they had settled with Google last month, and they changed the name of their site to Drinkle.

The Groggle–or Drinkle–team announced on Facebook and Twitter that they were “forging ahead” after the trademark fight delayed their launch. They added that they were going to “celebrate by drinking Australia’s most [expensive] bottle of beer”–Crown Ambassador 2010 Reserve, which is made by Australia’s Foster’s and has a list price of $90. (The lager got a good review on Twitter from one of the site’s co-founders, who said it had “deep golden colour and rich complex flavours.”)

Read the rest of this post on the original site