[csmeder]

Cases like this set a bad precedent. This means Apple needs to be even more on the offensive than it has been: to not let this issue arise in the future.

This encourages companies to register every single trademark they might ever need - right now. This is sad news. It means they will register tons of trademarks they may never use. And this will stop you and I from being able to use these unused trademarks.

Strict trademark rulings hurt everyone in our community...

[inetsee]

This case does not set a bad precedent. Apple could probably buy the trademark using spare change they could find under their sofa cushions. Or they could come up with an alternative. It took me about 5 seconds to come up with something different (change the background color (I like green), and add a treble clef to the left of the notes). Voila, an image just as musical and sufficiently different to pass a trademark examination.

Strict trademark rulings don't hurt everyone in our community. They prevent big corporations from steamrolling over small businesses.

[enraged_camel]

>>Strict trademark rulings don't hurt everyone in our community. They prevent big corporations from steamrolling over small businesses.

Yep. My company recently caught a very large software vendor using our registered trademark slogan in their ads. After a lengthy court process, we were able to force them to license it. If it wasn't for trademark law, they would be benefiting from intellectual property we came up with, and as a much smaller company we would be powerless to stop them.

[trevelyan]

What was the slogan?

[snogglethorpe]

"The Camel is not Pleased."

[jfoutz]

Nah, apple has done this before. iPhone was actually in use by some cheap 2.4ghz wireless handset, before the jesus phone came out.

[mtgx]

Pretty sure that Apple tried to trademark it as soon as they launched the new iTunes icon. It's just that they've now gotten the final decision that they can't because one that is very similar to that already exists.

If only the Patent Office worked this way, too - rejecting many more new patents because there's already prior art for that. The problem with the Patent Office is that it's not strict at all about what they validate and approve as a patent. Pretty much anything goes it seems, from what we've seen recently.