[slapshot]

This case is about a trademark, not a patent. Any word or symbol that identifies a source of goods can be a trademark. Hence Apple getting a trademark on using the word "Apple" to sell computers even though people have been using the word "apple" to refer to fruit for hundreds of years. (The same goes for "Amazon" despite the river, "Windows" despite the ventilation system, and "Beats" despite the existence of rhythm). If one tried to sell computer parts under the name "Apple" or any reasonable variant thereof, it wouldn't be a defense to say "look, there's a fruit called the same thing."

The real problem here is that Zazzle caved in based on a weak letter about the trademark -- not that the trademark office somehow failed. If Apple Inc sent a letter to Zazzle asking to remove all references to the word "apple" in Zazzle, the problem wouldn't be that Apple's trademark is invalid (it's perfectly valid for selling computers), but rather that Apple would have stretched its trademark too far (it only grants the right to control uses related to selling computers). Same here. Somebody could quite reasonably sell computer products under the name "Pi" (see Raspberry Pi for example), but that wouldn't grant the right to remove all references to the number from Zazzle.

[lucaspiller]

I think the trademark office needs some reform as well. As I understand the process of an application first involves a search to check that the term hasn't been trademarked before or that very similar trademarks don't exist - not to check whether the term has been used before. The trademark is then "published for opposition" in the weekly trademark office Gazette, at which point anyone who believes they may incur damages from the trademark being granted (people selling "I love π." t-shirts) should contact the trademark office. In this case, the application can be seen on page 893 [0].

If I am selling something do I have to hire someone to check this every week to ensure someone doesn't file a trademark for any terms I have used? There is also the same thing for patents.

[0] http://www.uspto.gov/web/trademarks/tmog/20131112_OG.pdf

[rdtsc]

> Any word or symbol that identifies a source of goods can be a trademark

This is not exactly like Apple I think.

This is about printing texts on T-shirt. It is only a small step further from printing texts on a white paper.

Moreover it is about printing a letter in the Greek alphabet that also happens to be a common mathematical symbol.

I can see maybe if the trademark was about very specific font and color combined. They anyone else could just pick a different font. It doesn't seem to like that.

[chrismcb]

This is NOT about printing texts on a Tshirt. It is about a company trying to brand itself as "pi." (why they would want to do that is beyond me) JUST like Apple branded itself as "Apple" This company will make clothing apparel. This does NOT stop anyone else from putting the symbol pi on a tshirt. You just can't do it in a way that makes it look like you are the "pi." company.