🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1665@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> woody@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (William Edward Woody) writes:

>What amuses me the most about the Apple logo crackdown is the Apple logo
>itself--will Apple sue Apple Records, the company which used the green
>apple with a bite out of the side, the company which published some

It is not just the case that something is a trademark or isn't a trademark.
There is nothing wrong with the same word, symbol, etc., being used for
different things.  There is also a legal distinction between "strong"
trademarks (usually made up words that have probably never been used before
like "Exxon") and "weak" trademarks that have multiple users for different
products or in different geographic areas.   Someone with a strong trademark
can generally restrain others from using it even in unrelated areas but this
is not true for a weak trademark.  "Apple" strikes me as a weak trademark
but, off course, this would ultimately be up to the courts to decide it if
came to litigation.

>My only comment about all this is that the Apple lawyers are obviously
>obnoxious idiots who don't realize the thin ice Apple sometimes legally
>skates.

In trademarks you have to be obnoxious and hassle people that are using
marks that are close to or might infringe on your mark or you risk losing
your rights.

-- 
	+1 617-492-8860		Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA: dee@CCA.CCA.COM	usenet:	{cbosg,decvax,linus}!cca!dee