IPHONE mark held inherently non-distinctive


Apple Inc applied to the Swiss Trade Mark Office to register the word mark IPHONE for broadly worded goods in classes 9 and 28, the specified class 9 goods being essentially telephones and functionally related products. The Office rejected the application for the class 9 goods on the grounds that the mark IPHONE will be immediately understood by consumers as describing a telephone with internet- or information technology-related functions, and accordingly represents a non-distinctive, descriptive indication.

Apple appealed the decision to the Federal...


Please log in to read the rest of this article.

New to Managing Intellectual Property? Take advantage of one week’s FREE access and become a Managing IP member today. It’s free to join and the benefits start straight away.

Already registered?

Please make sure you log in to read the rest of the article.

Log in

Join us now

Gain 7 days FREE access when you register now.

Join here

profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

Some interesting points. RT @Olswang: UK: Aereo and TVCatchup: Different courts, different laws, same result http://t.co/jQbmPMfcoC

Jul 11 2014 11:42 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

RT @kkomaitis: #Hollywood director: #piracy is necessary, and doesn't hurt revenues http://t.co/5zpeRkF6b3 via @guardian #license...

Jul 11 2014 10:45 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Kate Swaine of @wraggelaw on #CJEU Apple Store judgment: "We do not expect a raft of registrations quite yet" http://t.co/I9p2YOgDKB

Jul 11 2014 10:40 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the INTA Annual Meeting in Hong Kong



June 2014

Is Myriad spiralling out of control?

USPTO guidance for determining subject matter eligibility in claims resulting from laws of nature in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Myriad decision has caused high concern. Some believe a court challenge is likely if the agency does not change its policy. Michael Loney and Alli Pyrah introduce the debate



Most read articles

Supplements