Ti sve vreme i konstantno opravdavas to kao pravni pojam, ali si pobrkao - ti sve vreme govoris ono sto bi odgovaralo "Trademark dilution" a ne Brand Dilution. Ne razumem se (eto priznajem) u to na koji nacin je presuda dobila"brand dilution" kao korisceni termin, ali evo na internetu ne postoji slucaj "Brand Dilution" a ni "Trademark Dilution" na osnovu ovakvih slicnosti.
Presuda :
"Dilution? Apple proved that the registered iPhone and unregistered iPhone 3G
trade dress were diluted. No others."
Primer trade dress dilution-a :
"Adidas America v. Payless Shoesource, 2008 WL 4279812 (D. OR., 2008): The diversity of approaches to assessing actual dilution is also evident in the Adidas decision which presented a very strong case for dilution of trade dress but did not entail a survey. Instead, the plaintiff’s winning argument utilized an extensive report by a consumer psychology expert who presented a convincing argument that actual dilution could be determined upon the strength of consumer association alone. "
Garancija je napisao(la):
webster - druze, polako sada si ti taj koji slobodno tumaci pravne termine, usled nerazumevanja istih.
dakle, NIJE pojnavljanje iste price. PRECEDENTNO pravo DEFINISE pojmove kao sto su trade dress i brand dilution. Ne moze se menjati pravo u korist Apple-a, a Trade dress se podize kao pravni argument kada je u pitanju KOPIJA prozivoda, a ne slican prozivod. pogotovo kada je nesto tako razlicito kao sto je 4G.
Ti sve vreme i konstantno opravdavas to kao pravni pojam, ali si pobrkao - ti sve vreme govoris ono sto bi odgovaralo "Trademark dilution" a ne Brand Dilution.
Evo par citata cisto da se vidi ko ovde brka termine :
"To establish a superior right to your unique Trade Dress, your Trade Dress must indicate or be distinctive towards your business or product. This is accomplished by showing that the public associates your Trade Dress with a particular source. Examples of a Trade Dress would involve the coloring, shape and or the overall packaging of your products. You must also indicate that a competitor's Trade Dress might resemble your company's Trade Dress. Therefore, creating a false sense of affiliation or collaboration between the two companies to the public."
"Trade dress creates a visual impression which functions like a word trademark. As the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in Two Pesos and Qualitex there is really no difference between a word trademark and a visual trademark except that a word mark may be spoken while trade dress and color per se must be seen to make a commercial impression."
"In Two Pesos the Supreme Court said not only that restaurant decor may be protected as trade dress, but also that restaurant--and other trade dresses--may be inherently distinctive and protectable from the moment of adoption."
"At the outset it is worth noting that there are two necessary elements which must be effectively proven to sustain any claim of trademark dilution. The first necessary element is fame of the mark...In short, claims of trademark dilution require only a showing of fame and a showing similarity of the concerned marks "
"In response to these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court eventually heard Moseley v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 807. The Court’s ruling in Moseley clarified the following standards and limitations in regard to sustaining a claim for trademark dilution:
1. Dilution may only be based upon a claim of actual dilution, likelihood of dilution is insufficient.
2. Showing confusion, either a likelihood or actual, is not necessary in proving dilution.
3. Whether or not the senior and junior mark holders are competitors is not a limiting factor.
4. Showing actual loss of sales is not a requisite element to proving dilution."
"It is not necessary for there to be copying, actual confusion or direct competition for there to be likelihood of confusion. "
Dakle nadam se da sada shvatas o cemu se radi, jasnije od ovoga ne moze biti. Dakle nema govora uopste o tome da mesanje apple i samsung proizvoda ima ikakve veze sa trade dress dilution-om, ovakva banalizacija samo pokazuje osnovno nepoznavanje tematike o kojoj se prica.
Webster, da li misliš da definitivno nije postojao "prior art" za patente bounce
Ovo slobodno mozes pitati i domaci Korejski sud koji je presudio da je bounce back patent validan i da ga Samsungovi uredjaji krse.
roadracer je napisao(la):
To je verovatno prilično dobar prevod. Ja bih doduše upotrebio „razvodnjavanje”.
Khm, to bi recimo bio doslovan prevod, znam da se u ekonomiji, vezano za kapital, koristi izraz razvodnjavanje ali mislim da bi u ovom slucaju doslovan prevod bio prilicno pogresan.
![[Miki]](/data/avatars/m/5/5360.jpg?1612777309){kind=avatar}
