For you lawyers and wannabe lawyers
- Thread starter Liquide
- Start date
- Status
Ranes said:
You should be careful giving such an unqualified answer, especially because it’s quite likely wrong.
[edit] I just reread this and realised in could be seen as an unintended insult to the posters qualifications. By unqualified I meant without any qualifying remarks such as "No, because...". Sorry for any insult. [edit]
This is a trademark issue and considering this would be a COMPUTER related magazine and I think IMAC is a registered trademark it may very well trigger a cease and desist letter from Apple (or whoever owns it now).
Last edited:
caudor
Adventurer
I wonder if Apple would also protest the use the name Iuz.
After all the lawyers parachute into his Kingdom, it may just convince him to change his name to Euz.
If not, he won't have the funds to start his next invasion due to legal expenses.
"Dark Lord, we just received a cease and desist letter from Apple Computer..."
After all the lawyers parachute into his Kingdom, it may just convince him to change his name to Euz.
If not, he won't have the funds to start his next invasion due to legal expenses."Dark Lord, we just received a cease and desist letter from Apple Computer..."
Marius Delphus
Adventurer
IMHO, "IMAG" is dangerously close to "iMac" and should be avoided. Nothing about the name (in this form) really connotes imagery -- it appears to be more or less randomly coined -- and so it would probably be judged based on its similarities in letter-by-letter spelling and most likely pronunciation.
"Iuz," on the other hand, does not appear to me to infringe upon "iMac." In any event, WOTC does not use the name "Iuz" in trade as a mark denoting anything computer-related, and so "Iuz" would receive a bit of laxity even were it more similar to "iMac."
Disclaimer: IANAL, but sometimes I play one....
"Iuz," on the other hand, does not appear to me to infringe upon "iMac." In any event, WOTC does not use the name "Iuz" in trade as a mark denoting anything computer-related, and so "Iuz" would receive a bit of laxity even were it more similar to "iMac."
Disclaimer: IANAL, but sometimes I play one....
Last edited:
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
The question is not if it would infringe or not.
The question is do you have the money to pay the scum sucking lawyers when Apple takes you to court. Whether or not you win in court you still end up wasting money a startup magazine can ill afford to waste.
The question is do you have the money to pay the scum sucking lawyers when Apple takes you to court. Whether or not you win in court you still end up wasting money a startup magazine can ill afford to waste.
DocMoriartty said:
You know, that's a pretty unjustified remark.
First, how is Apple wrong in wanting to protect its property?
Second, how are the attorneys wrong for doing what apple directs and pays them to do?
P.S. if it were a truly unjustified lawsuit you could force apple to foot the entire bill - attorney's fees and all.
Last edited:
alsih2o
First Post
Mort said:
quite often. the world has shown an easy to come by abhorence of the "i was only following orders" type.
it is like the "i only work here" type. well, everyone "only works here" which eventually means coporations have no responsibility.
being directed and paid to do something is no excuse for doing the wrong thing. having no morals of your own, and relying on those of your superiors is no excuse for any action
JacktheRabbit
Explorer
I never said it was right or wrong. I merely said that the real issue for a brand new magazine would be surviving the financial burden of the case.
As for my comment about lawyers in general I stand by it. Ive been fleeced enough to stand by what I said. When two people go to court in anything but a criminal case the only people who are guarunteed to win are the lawyers.
BTW, forcing the other party to foot the bill is a very difficult process to pull off even when you have cause. Add to that the simple fact that any large corporation could drag things out for nearly an unlimited amount of time and you realize that if your lawyer tries to tell you that you could win for legal costs then that lawyer is lying to you.
As for my comment about lawyers in general I stand by it. Ive been fleeced enough to stand by what I said. When two people go to court in anything but a criminal case the only people who are guarunteed to win are the lawyers.
BTW, forcing the other party to foot the bill is a very difficult process to pull off even when you have cause. Add to that the simple fact that any large corporation could drag things out for nearly an unlimited amount of time and you realize that if your lawyer tries to tell you that you could win for legal costs then that lawyer is lying to you.
Last edited:
Ranes
Adventurer
Hi.
I'd like to elaborate on my original comment. I didn't take any offense, Mort. Your point was completely valid.
iMac (note the lowercase 'i') is not copyright; it's trademarked. This is a different kettle of fish. Forget copyright. It isn't relevant to the discussion. Would a magazine called IMAG infringe this trademark? Most unlikely. Infringement would occur if IMAG was 'passing off' as an Apple or Apple-endorsed product. For instance, if the magazine was called iMAG (with the lower case 'i'), used the same font as the iMac logo and other graphic or editorial devices to make it appear as though it was something it wasn't (ie an Apple-certified resource), then its publisher would certainly get into trouble. But, given the difference in name, typography and - I admit to hazarding a guess here - an editorial remit that extends beyond the Apple platform, it would not be an issue.
How qualified is this opinion? I am not a lawyer. I have a couple of decades of experience in journalism and publishing. I have been educated in the matters of copyright and trademark law, to the extent that most journalists should be. Nevertheless, if in doubt, take professional advice.
One last thing: I am, of course, assuming that IMAG isn't already a trademark. Trademark searches don't cost a lot, by the way.
I'd like to elaborate on my original comment. I didn't take any offense, Mort. Your point was completely valid.
iMac (note the lowercase 'i') is not copyright; it's trademarked. This is a different kettle of fish. Forget copyright. It isn't relevant to the discussion. Would a magazine called IMAG infringe this trademark? Most unlikely. Infringement would occur if IMAG was 'passing off' as an Apple or Apple-endorsed product. For instance, if the magazine was called iMAG (with the lower case 'i'), used the same font as the iMac logo and other graphic or editorial devices to make it appear as though it was something it wasn't (ie an Apple-certified resource), then its publisher would certainly get into trouble. But, given the difference in name, typography and - I admit to hazarding a guess here - an editorial remit that extends beyond the Apple platform, it would not be an issue.
How qualified is this opinion? I am not a lawyer. I have a couple of decades of experience in journalism and publishing. I have been educated in the matters of copyright and trademark law, to the extent that most journalists should be. Nevertheless, if in doubt, take professional advice.
One last thing: I am, of course, assuming that IMAG isn't already a trademark. Trademark searches don't cost a lot, by the way.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar Threads
