Psion Claims "netBook" Trademark; Google Abides

[nined22]

"In other word, trademarks and copyrights don't matter........ "

To me, it's not that they don't matter, it's that this one probably lacks the validity Psion claims. To prove up a case, they'd probably have to show "secondary meaning" and "likelihood of confusion." It's hard to believe they can show that consumers looking for a product known as "Netbook" are actually looking for a Psion with a 190mhz processor and 32mb of RAM (expandable to 64mb!!). And that these people will be "fooled" into buying product with Atom and gigabytes of memory - a "netbook."

It does appear, though, that I was partially mistaken in my post above. The applications for MSI and Coby show as "live" in the TESS database, but I should have followed the links a bit further. Evidently, the PTO has preliminarily decided that those marks are likely to confuse, and has asked the applicants for additional information before deciding whether to grant or deny registration.

 

[savethenetbooks]

The key thing is that so far as we can tell Psion had nothing whatsoever to do with the growth of the netbook brand and as such it is *them* hijacking it from the public, not the other way round (which is what trademarks are designed to protect).

Anyway, the first mission (Reverse the Google AdWords "netbook" ban) is well underway and the ball's in Google's court now.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]savethenetbooks[/nom]The key thing is that so far as we can tell Psion had nothing whatsoever to do with the growth of the netbook brand and as such it is *them* hijacking it from the public, not the other way round (which is what trademarks are designed to protect).[/citation]
I don't see it that way. They have a valid trademark on a product not even dissimilar in form and function from the current batch of "netbooks." Just because people forgot it existed doesn't mean it stopped being their property, right?

 

[savethenetbooks]

Wrong. The term has to act as a source-identifier, which is to say that when people hear "netbook" they think "psion". If people forget the term then the trademark essentially ceases to exist (even if it is registered - it loses its teeth).

 

[savethenetbooks]

[citation][nom]nined22[/nom]It does appear, though, that I was partially mistaken in my post above. The applications for MSI and Coby show as "live" in the TESS database, but I should have followed the links a bit further. Evidently, the PTO has preliminarily decided that those marks are likely to confuse, and has asked the applicants for additional information before deciding whether to grant or deny registration.[/citation]
I wouldn't put too much weight in USPTO's refusals, just as I wouldn't put too much weight in Google's AdWords ban. USPTO don't review the validity of existing trademarks when they assess new ones - it's up to the applicant to start that process.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

[citation][nom]savethenetbooks[/nom]Wrong. The term has to act as a source-identifier, which is to say that when people hear "netbook" they think "psion". If people forget the term then the trademark essentially ceases to exist (even if it is registered - it loses its teeth).[/citation]
Really? That sounds wackier than IP laws usually are. The original netBook line of products hadn't even been out of production for five years before the "netbook" craze started catching on. I think you're going to have to say more than "people forgot it" to fight Psion's claims to protected intellectual property.

 

[Guest]

I believe everytime someone searches for Netbooks that this possibly hurts my business
As the legal owner of the trademark netbookpro.com and also it’s domain name, I feel that a C&D letter from my company to Psion or any company using the internet to prompt products using the Netbook or Netbookpro would be apporiate..Whereas Netbookpro.com is an internet based company which depends on the internet for business. Your comments would be appreciated—Jim