Read moreHowever the U.S. trademark office has a couple of reasonable objections
Read moreHowever the U.S. trademark office has a couple of reasonable objections
Last edited by DR; 05-04-2014 at 09:59 PM.
Test
McEwin (07-04-2014)
Seems rather ridiculous to me.
For a min I thought that it was Apple we were talking about Ha-Ha
I'm getting quite concerned at the number of trademark claims on common place words, especially as businesses seem to be able to pass these rhediculus trademarks that would have been impossible to claim 2-5 years ago
Furthermore it seems that this strange trademark claiming that it is making the market more uneven as only the big companies can pull it off.
To conclude, as much as I hope companies would stop this strange trademark culture, I feel without a shadow of a doubt Google will obtain this trademark...
Google should be told to foxtrot oscar by the US Trademarks Office, glass is so generic and applies to items and objects from time immemorial, will Pyrex be required to pay royalties for thgeir heat rewsistant glass cookware, or Pilkington pay for using glass to describe their products?
If it was Apple, the story would have been about how they were given the trademark.
The "don't be evil" motto is officially dead then lol.
Not in that case - as I understand it (haven't done much research because - lets be honest - Google are being d--ks) it's "Glass" as it pertains to computer use. But you've got a point obliquely - will Corning have to license "Gorilla Glass", which seems a bit daft when GG predates "Glass". Funny that the derogatory term "Glassoles" now seems to apply to Google too.
Yep, new motto is "be evil ... it works for everyone else".
This trademark and patent practices are getting way out of hand.
Maybe it's me but I don't particularly have an issue with google getting a trademark on the word glass. The trademark would be limited to electronic 'glasses' anyways so it's in essence the same as samsung galaxy, theres already a trademark for galaxy chocolate but because it's a different type of product it doesn't conflict. In relation to Gorilla Glass it wouldn't have an issue as I belive the trademark is for 'gorilla' and glass is a description of what it is.
This isn't like apple trying to trademark iPhone when several other companies used it already in a similar device or trying to trademark iTV for the apple tv.
Well Cadbury failed to trademark purple, so I think Google might have a problem with this.
I mostly agree with you but in this case I'd say that 'Glass', even if it is capitalized, is still just a description of the product and perhaps shouldn't be eligible for trademark. It is a piece of glass, just on a frame with a display projected into it...
We can just wait and see though I suppose, it's not like they need it anyway as they already have 'Google Glass'. *shrug*
This is like Paramount Pictures trying to trademark the name "USS Enterprise"... oh, wait.
To me this is them trying to trademark against anyone else making virtual eyeware and calling it Glass. As opposed to anyone using the name glass for the likes of window panes, a 'glass' down the pub, etc
As I understand it, Google is not trying to trademark the word 'glass', Google is trying to trademark a device (i.e. a logo) which is the word glass in a particular stylised font. Their struggles arise from the fact that glass is at least in part descriptive of the goods for which the mark is intended and that there is no evidence that a consumer would associate the particular stylised font as an indication of origin.
Its somewhat being blown out of proportion .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)