Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Handhelds Hardware

Commodore Smartphone Hits Trademark Opposition 46

damnbunni writes: As reported on amiga-news.de, it appears that Massimo Canigiani didn't license the Commodore trademarks before announcing that Commodore PET Smartphone. The company that actually owns the mark, Commodore Holdings, is not amused. It's not like it would have been hard to determine who owns it and try to license. The C= Holdings trademark is registered with the same EU agency 'CBM Limited' applied for a new mark. I can't see much of an excuse here. The company holding Commodore's trademarks is literally Commodore Holdings. They can't even say "We had NO IDEA who to contact!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Commodore Smartphone Hits Trademark Opposition

Comments Filter:
  • like the VIC-20, i.e. cassette recorder/player to store data? (sorry but the name instantly reminded me of the early 80s products).
  • by Anonymous Coward
    What's next? An Amiga smartphone? Sinclare 2015?
  • I'm not sure about legal expertise, but these geeks are awesome.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • Who owns it? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Announcer ( 816755 ) on Friday August 14, 2015 @06:10PM (#50319697) Homepage

    I have a page where I put up a bunch of info about my experiments and memories of my Commodore systems. In the years that page has existed, the ownership of the C= logo/name/etc changed hands FIVE TIMES! Just now, I Googled it, and got this page:

    http://www.commodorecorp.com/ [commodorecorp.com]

    It hasn't been updated since 2013.

    My attempt at a disclaimer is at the bottom of this page:

    http://webcache.googleusercont... [googleusercontent.com]
    (Google cached, to prevent Slashdotting my Host's server.)

    • [quote]It hasn't been updated since 2013.[/quote]
      It also looks like exactly 1 URL at that domain actually returns content.

      • I noticed that, too... and yet, that company is suing someone for using a name they haven't bothered to do anything with since 2013?

        • If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it. Actually using the trademark isn't a requirement.

          It really doesn't matter if they're not actively using it. You can't just decide that it's yours now and release something with it.

          And it seems like they should have known from the start they have no legal way to just suddenly decide it was theirs for the taking.

    • I have a page where I put up a bunch of info about my experiments and memories of my Commodore systems. In the years that page has existed, the ownership of the C= logo/name/etc changed hands FIVE TIMES!

      It's not just that, it's that- as far as I can tell- the rights to Commodore's various products and brands have not only been split up, but also sublicensed over the years to the point of being a confusing mess.

      The company (*) that made the "Commodore 64x" around four years ago- you remember, the PC in a case that at least *looked* like a C64- also released the "Amiga 1000", "2000" and "3000" [pixelperfectgaming.com]. These had sod all to do with the original Amigas of those names. In fact they weren't even computers in their own

  • I'm sure when the article was posted originally a bunch of people said "how the hell do they propose to do that since they don't own it".

    Is this just a case of someone deciding they'd simply appropriate someone's trademark and release a product around it?

    From the sounds of it, this was legally DOA before it was announced.

    Something about this sounds really sketchy to me.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Brings about an interesting point, can you own a trademark without a product or service. So for something like $300 a word can you buy out the English language http://www.oxforddictionaries.... [oxforddictionaries.com], 7000 commonly used words only $2.1 million dollars what a bargain. Psychopathic capitalism, is it not a wonder (they did it on the internet via domain names so why not spread it out into to the rest of the world).

      • can you own a trademark without a product or service

        Yes, you can.

        So for something like $300 a word can you buy out the English language

        No, because English words are not specific enough to be trademarks. Trademarks are limited to a particular market segment... so while "Apple" is a unique name for a computer brand, it's not a unique name for a brand of fruit.

        Even within the market, a trademark is invalid if it's not unique enough. Typically, the judgement is based on whether a reasonable person would know exactly what product is being referred to when the trademark is used. This boils down to the oft-quoted rule that trademarks

  • for someone 'easy to contact' they sure have been absent from the commodore scene, absent from the fans, absent from the planet earth when this phone was announced.

    Commodore should be public by now, it's old hat tech. And thanks to AROS and WinUAE it's already supplanted in the free world, and honestly done much better.

    • by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

      its only their responsibility to protect their property, nothing else, and they did

      so get the fuck over yourself

  • by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Saturday August 15, 2015 @07:14AM (#50321605)

    Of course it was stupid to use trademarked names and symbols without caring about the trademark holders.

    On the other hand, selling trademarks without the actual products is a scam in itself. Since the 90s, a whole bunch of domestic TV makers went belly up. And without exempt, the trademarks were bought up by asian scammers that now slap these trademarks on cheap chinese TVs tricking elderly people (like my late uncle) into buying them at inflated prices as they thing they're buying some local quality products.

1000 beers served at a Twins game = 1 Killibrew

Working...