Yes, Calling A Phone The Black Cherry May Confuse People Into Thinking It's Related To The BlackBerry
from the no-argument-here dept
While we're often quite critical of frivolous trademark lawsuits that are clearly designed to to shut someone up or to try to squeeze money out of someone, there are times when trademark lawsuits are quite well justified. As we've said repeatedly, the real purpose of trademark law isn't about "intellectual property" at all -- but rather, it should be viewed as a consumer protection law. That is, it's really designed to keep Bob's Cola from packaging its bottles up so that people are tricked into thinking they're buying Coca Cola. So, with that in mind, it would seem that RIM has a pretty strong trademark case against handset maker LG, who has been trying to sell new phones with names like Black Label, Strawberry and Black Cherry. The "Black Label" one is more borderline -- as it's hard to see that RIM should be able to control the use of the word "Black" as it relates to any mobile device. However, it's not hard to see people hearing names like Strawberry and Black Cherry on a mobile device and simply assuming that they're somehow related to RIM's BlackBerry. Even worse, LG had apparently wanted to call one of its new devices the BlackPearl -- which is really sketchy, seeing as RIM is offering a device called the BlackBerry Pearl. On this one, we'd say that even the moron in a hurry test suggests that people would be confused into thinking that some of these LG phones were from RIM.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: black cherry, blackberry
Companies: lg, rim
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I can kinda see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can kinda see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Squishee, anyone?
So apparently it would be OK for Saturday Night Live to do a skit with a fictional product called an "iRack" but it's not ok for a real product called a Strawberry. Sorry, but isn't there prior art for Strawberries?
Personally I think Jack Daniels would be more upset by a product called "Black Label" than RIM would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squishee, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squishee, anyone?
We are talking about trademarks. Prior art concerns only patents.
"Personally I think Jack Daniels would be more upset by a product called "Black Label" than RIM would."
I think Jack Daniels would only have a problem if LG got into the business of selling booze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squishee, anyone?
malcolm in the middle, the simpsons, and saturday night live are all satire. their product is entertainment rather than the goods they are satirizing.
you can push trademark limits when you are satirizing the product rather then selling a competing item.
if my name is mcdonald and i'm a mechanic, then calling my business "mcdonald's garage" is fine. if i was a cook, then "mcdonald's diner" or "big mac's" probably won't pass muster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squishee, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squishee, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Squishee, anyone?
Or perhaps Johnnie Walker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all just more examples of Masnick maing sure to maintain his number of "business friendly" stories ... maybe he needs a cash injection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second, just because you can tell the difference between Blackberry and Blackcherry doesn’t mean everyone else can. I always figured that if someone was smart enough to see the difference they would also be smart enough to know that not every one is. Thank you for introducing me to a new level on my stupidity meter. Can I call it AC stupidity after you? Smart enough to know the difference, but not smart enough to consider other people before making a stupid generality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There wouldn't be a BlackJack 2 if there wasn't a settlement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
APPLE COMPUTER, INC. v. FORMULA INTERN. INC., 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The court determined that allowing Formula Intern to continue marketing the kits could result in irreperable harm to Apple's trademarks, and ruled in Apple's favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Empirical evidence
By the by, she is not a moron and not in a hurry. A pox upon ye who impugn her intelligence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Empirical evidence
You mother might not be too impressed with your opinion of her if she ever reads techdirt !.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see the basis for the lawsuit
Now Black Label I think LG has a shot at keeping, because no one would mistake this as being from RIM (or related to the Blackberry). And as for the Blackjack, this is not a berry, so no one assumed it was offered by RIM to begin with.
I would guess if someone wanted to name their cell phone device the Bon Bon, LG would throw a fit it was too similar to the Chocolate. RIM has a legitimate case here, for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, and LG, knock off the marketing gimmicks. Naming a phone after a food does not even remotely tempt me to buy the phone. I could probably care less what the phone is called (call it model number PZL635KR-300 and see if I care). I care about what features the phone has, how easy it is to use, etc. As the racing legend Carroll Shelby said about cars, a name does not make the car famous, but rather, the car makes the name. If you build an exceptional car, you could call it just about anything, and people will love it. The same should be true of any product. Make an exceptional phone, and people (for the most part) won't care what it's called, only that it's a great phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bring it
I think Johnnie Walker would have a better claim, with their own Red, Green, and Black Label Scotch. And LG calling a phone Black Pearl while RIM sells the BlackBerry Pearl is definately over the line.
This comment sponsored by Koko's Cola, preferred by 3 out of 5 great apes over the leading carbonated beverage. Think that would pull a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McDonalds vs. McDowells
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Test for Trademark Infringement: Likelihood of Con
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue and be sued.
If RIM can sue on the similarity of name perhaps Apple could as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
Okay... someone saying that Black Cherry and Black Berry are completely different... I only disagree because as a former phone salesperson, I know that when a company comes out with a variation on a phone, they often make slight changes to the name. Take into account the RAZER and the CRAZER. One is the ultra-thin flip phone, and the other is an ultra-thin phone with some additional features which I don't recall (I don't like either one). Both are Motorola. When I read the name Black Cherry, I (prior to reading the article) thought that it was a new version of the BlackBerry, and perhaps had a different feature or two. I didn't think the same of the Strawberry, which I immediately associated with the Chocolate (I guess LG would like that mental association). I'm not sure why I associated it with the Chocolate... probably because it's a color. The Chocolate is a chocolate colored phone. I can see, though, how some people who aren't very familiar with the Blackberry would associate the Strawberry with a red or pink-colored blackberry. Would it still be a blackberry if it was blue... or would they call it the Blueberry?
My point is... you have to understand that even though YOU might have a blackberry and be able to easily tell it apart from other high-featured wireless devices, doesn't mean that someone who's loved one said they want a blackberry for christmas would remember the exact fruit name if the first thing they saw when walking into a wireless store was the Strawberry. This is especially true at Holiday time, when I often get a list of things that my nephews want, and end up having to call their parents from the store because there are 8 things that I think might be the "perfect toy" that's on my mental shopping list.
Black Pearl... I didn't know blackberry was coming out with a "Pearl" so I immediately associated this phone with the "pirates of the carribean" movie, and thought it would probably have some themed content and/or a casing that reflected the themes in the movie... such as a picture of the ship as the wallpaper, and a picture of captain Jack Sparrow on the carrying case.
While we're on trademarks... what about the Touch and the iTouch.... Samsung and Apple... I bet we'll see them here next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirates of Mobility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEFINITELY infringement
RIM definitely does not have exclusive rights to a qwerty-style email / web mobile device.
But the DO have the right to protect their product names. I definitely consider RIM's claims against Samsung pertaining to the 'Blackjack' 100% valid AND ENFORCEABLE by word of the law. Samsung is parasitic-type company, rarely innovating, mostly mimicking its Western, more innovative counterparts (Remember the 'Blade' brand name they put on their at-the-time thinnest phone intended to compete with the RAZR? Hmm.)
I support meaningful penalties against Samsung to end their *intentional* attempt to create 'brand confusion' to increase their own sales.
Want proof? I met a guy recently (smart, venture cap person, not some dolt who doesn't know anything about technology) that said "so the Blackjack that's a new Blackberry product?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing Department Getting Lazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HIRE MARKETING PEOPLE WHO CAN COME UP WITH ORIGINAL NAMES, SHEESH!!!
It's so obvious that there's a copy-cat thing going on here. If the most imaginitive names you can come up with for names of cell phone models are names of fruit, then you deserve to be slapped with a lawsuit. I may have hated the RAZR/KRAZR phones from Motorola, but the names were definitely unique, and there's no mistaking them for a phone from a different manufacturer. C'mon LG, you're better than this. Get some real names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]