E moj websteru kako polovicno tumacis pravo u ovom slucaju.
Ne, za razliku od tebe ja sebi ne dajem za pravo da ista tumacim, ima ljudi koji su za to daleko strucniji od mene i njih iskljucivo citiram, svi citati su od vrsnih eksperata za intelektualnu svojinu. doduse ti si Igoritza, mag za sve njih.
Garancija je napisao(la):
dakle, ovo je direktan citat iz Lanham Act 1995 godine, i to sto si ti napisao, ocigledno ide na nastavak teksta, koji sam gore bold-ovao. Dakle dokazivanje dilution-a se moze pokrenuti kada postoji "Blurring" odnosno obmanjivanje potrosaca da je proizvod koji kupuju direktna kopija (kineski iPhone i njegov kvalitet, dakle BREND kopija), ili Tarnishment koji se takodje odnosi na nameru optuzenog da prevari, odnosno poveze kvalitet robe koji nudi sa proizvodom onog ko podize tuzbu.
Jos jednom, kao doduse i uvek kada su tvoji argumenti u pitanju, pokazujes krajnju povrsnost u tematici o kojoj pricas. Dakle :
"The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) was signed into law on October 6, 2006. The TDRA amends Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), to allow an owner of a famous trademark to assert a claim based on a
likelihood of dilution."
"The statute now specifically provides a "likelihood of dilution" standard under which a court may issue an injunction. The TDRA creates a cause of action for the owner of a famous mark against any person who uses a mark or trade name in commerce that is "likely to cause dilution" of the famous mark "
regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury."
Garancija je napisao(la):
ja ovde u Samsung-Apple ne vidim ni jedan slucaj gde je bilo ko obmanut, a ako je porota imala za zadatak da analizira oba prozivoda i da dodje do zakljucka da je korisnicima ponudjen uredjaj koji bi obmanuo, i zbunio prodavca, onda je ta porota uradila los posao.
Ovaj put sam cak podebljao i podvukao tekst u nadi da ces prestati toliko povrsnih stvari da pises, pogotovo s obzirom da sam ti 10 puta barem citirao strucnjake za intelektualnu svojinu koji govore o trade dress dilutionu i koji isticu da dokazivanje trade dress dilution-a nema apsolutno nikakve veze sa obmanama.
Garancija je napisao(la):
Ti moras da shvatis da "dilution" kao pravni termin, ide na ime i identifikaciju firme, gde je veliki kamen spoticanja ogromno SAMSUNG koje stoji na svakom uredjaju. patent infringement tuzbe mogu da stoje, ali damages usled Trademark Dilution-a su nepostojece, odnosno samo ih je ova porota videla. Trademark Dilution je u kratkim crtama - prevara optuzenog da proda prozivod koristeci "trademark" onog ko podize tuzbu na krilima njegovog imena i i identifikacije zaradi.
Ti treba da napravis ogromnu razliku izmedju
BRAND DILUTION-a i
TRADE DRESS DILUTION-a, vidim i ovde u tekstu da konstantno brkas termine, ponovicu ti po 10. put presudu porote :
"Dilution? Apple proved that the registered iPhone and unregistered iPhone 3G
trade dress were diluted. No others."
S obzirom da sa ponosom istices da si veliki poznavalac precedentnog prava (mozda si koriscenjem ovih izraza glavna faca u neinformisanom drustvu ali kod bilo koga imalo upucenog ostavljas utisak samo nekog ko je povrsno upucen u mnoge stvari o kojima prica) interesuje me kako to da su ti ovi slucajevi trade dress dilution-a promakli?
"Gateway, Inc. v. Companion Products, 2002 WL 34248562 (D. SD., 2003): Gateway involved the famous trade dress of the ‘Gateway Cow Motif’ and a computer accessories designer selling products comprised of several different cow-appearing items which allegedly called the Gateway-Motif to mind. A survey was conducted in the case and published and the judge found the evidence it yielded to be compelling but the survey was designed to show a likelihood of confusion. Even though Gateway prevailed on both the counts of confusion and trade dress dilution, the only published empirical evidence was the confusion assessment and it is well established that proving confusion is an entirely different standard and proposition than proving dilution."
"I.P. Lund Trading v. Kohler Co., 11 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D. Mass., 1998): This case involved a dispute between two makers of faucets. In holding that there was sufficient evidence of actual dilution the court considered an application of the Mead Data Factors which assess the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the products, the sophistication of consumers, the question of predatory intent, and renown of each of the concerned marks. Through an analysis of these factors the court was comfortable in arriving at the conclusion that actual dilution was occurring. The main problem with this decision is that it offered no real explanation as to how an actual reduction in selling power by loss of distinctiveness was occurring. This case stands for the example that even after Moseley, courts take a wide swath of approaches in deciding what truly needs to be shown to constitute actual dilution and are sometimes prepared to take logical leaps of faith."
"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."
sta ima tu vise da se pise:
