Indeed, most of it comes down to the protection of "intellectual properties" which are obviously intangible and unquantifiable, and therefore a matter of individual judgement. The use of trademarks adds an extra "layer" of protection to these intellectual properties to prevent their use elsewhere, but the ultimate concern is always whether or not the newer company is "passing off" - a term intended to describe the efforts of a company to either actively encourage or passively allow the public to believe that they have a connection with the pre-existing company.cat wrote:Just because it is a TM doesn't mean another company can't use it, given reasonable grounds, I think it only extends to similar products. You couldn't, for instance, have Apple Windows X, but you could have Coldseal Windows.cdd wrote:I think that was Johnny's misinterpretation. Microsoft suing those companies would be totally ridiculous.DJGM wrote:I wasn't actually suggesting that Microsoft would attempt to sue those other companies using the word "Vista" in
their product names. I was thinking it'd be more the other way round, with Microsoft being on the recieving end.
It probably goes without saying that Microsoft would win, should any such legal actions take place . . .
As far as other companies suing Micro$oft goes, you can't trademark a word that's in the dictionary. Microsoft's product title is "Windows Vista" - that "Windows" and "Vista" are next to each other is the important thing. If there were a risk of Microsoft receiving a lawsuit then how could there be several companies all incorporating the word "Vista" in their company name / product titles?
I think much of it is down to whether or not the company with the TM feels it is in their interests to sue or not.
cat's example above demonstrates this. Similarly, you wouldn't get away with "Apple Technology Solutions", because it could be very easily demonstrated - rightly or wrongly - that you were attempting to pass yourself off as being in some way connected to the Apple Computer we all know and hate. However, it would be far more difficult to demonstrate this if you were to use the name "Apple Grocery Store" as there is no obvious link to Apple Computer, and it's easy to argue that the name is directly relevant to the type of business that you're in.
In fact, get yourself a good enough good lawyer, and you could probably argue that Apple Grocery Store has more right to the "Apple" trademark than Steve Jobs does; you could spank millions of pounds out of Steve's ass. He'd love it. Forgive me; once again, I am distracted by my fantasies - back on topic.
