Apple is being sued for violating another “i” trademark — this time its for iBooks.
[ad#Google Adsense 300×250 in story]The lawsuit is being brought by publisher John T. Colby, who purchased the rights to “ibooks” in 2006 and 2007, according to AppleInsider. The company is said to have published over 1,000 books using the name.
Of course, Apple’s original use of the term iBook was used for one of its computers. It didn’t start using the term for software until last year when it released the iBooks application and store.
The lawsuit contends that since Apple’s original trademark only covered hardware, it’s use to describe books is infringing on Colby’s trademark.
“Apple’s use of the mark ‘iBooks’ to denote the electronic library that can be accessed via its iPad tablet computer and its iPhone is likely to overwhelm the good will of plaintiffs’ ‘ibooks’ and ‘ipicturebooks’ marks and render them virtually worthless,” according to the lawsuit.
The current state of patent law gives me agita. Unless I’ve violated someone’s patent by saying that.
In which case, I never meant to say that.
{legal disclaimer follows}
You can’t really blame people for defending trademarks, since they do (unlike patents or copyrights) lose their teeth if the owner fails to protect them after becoming aware of potential infringement. My money is on them settling quietly out of court in a few months. Apple may even buy the trademark from them, as they did with Apple Records.
patents ≠ trademarks
Granted, my mistake. But if I understand the category correctly, both are managed as intellectual property. How differently are they litigated?
“Colby…is said to have published over 1,000 books using the name.
Apple’s use of the mark ‘iBooks’…is likely to overwhelm the good will of plaintiffs’ ‘ibooks’…and render them virtually worthless,” according to the lawsuit.”
In that case – I say pay them off with what they are worth – the cost of the 1,000 books they sold so far, and a bit extra as a ‘good will’ gesture!
Anyone else with an “i-whatever” trademark in the last 12 years is riding Apple’s coattails.
Colby has not done anything. It was the company he bought that did all the publishing.
That Colby apparently hasn’t used the mark and the fact that he waited a year to file anything may not look so good to the judges on the case
many ways.
For example, you don’t have to use a patent to keep it. You do a trademark
You can go years without defending a patent and nothing changes. Do that with a trademark and the judge could say that you clearly don’t really care and invalid your ‘mark
and so on.
And don’t ask about how copyrights mix into things. that gets really interesting.
You don’t have to use a patent to keep it, but we’ve seen evidence that if one isn’t defended, it can be ignored in practice.