Showing posts with label judgments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgments. Show all posts

Wednesday, 18 July 2012

Red bull Wins trademark battle



The energy drink company "Red bull" succeeded in its trademark infringement suit against Sun Mark Inc for  use of trademark  "Bullet" for their drinks and also for advertising slogan "No bull in this Can"

 The defendants, Sun mark and associated shipping sea Air & Land forwarding used the trademark "BULLET"for their energy drink. Red bull alleged that Sun mark's use has violated rights of Red bull in their mark "BULLIT" for energy drinks.

London High Court Judge, Mr Arnold siding with Red Bull's claim opined that Sunmark's use of "Bullet" is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion among the customers that it belong to Red bull. Further he added that use of  "no bull ...." slogan amounted to taking unfair advantage of repute of Red Bull.

But many including Sun mark's founder Dr Ranger finds Red Bull's acts as bully - boy tactics and unnecessary. Sun mark  now plans to prefer an appeal against this judgement and stated that Red bull's trademark bullit was registered in bad faith and the company had no plans to use it.


Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Linkedin, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley & More in IP Conflict

In a patent trolling operation, Parallel Iron has sued a bunch of tech companies and banks because of the file systems they use.

The lawsuits were filed in April and those lawsuits were refiled in June. It also filed a bunch of new lawsuits, some of which were more specific about the file system. For example, in the Facebook and Amazon cases, the concerned file system is the Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS). In the Oracle suit, it's parallel Network File System (pNFS). Amongst all the defendants, EMC seems to be the only company who tried to first sue for declaratory judgment in a different venue. But still EMC has been dragged in the lawsuit with all the others in Delaware on the same day that EMC filed its own suit in Massachusetts. 


The facts of this suit suggest that the four inventors on these patents made some amazing breakthrough, and everyone else copied it: 
"In this technological age, we take for granted the ability to access tremendous amounts of data through our computers and the Internet, a process that seems effortless and unremarkable. But this apparent effortlessness is an illusion, made possible only by technological wizardry. The amount of information that is used by many companies has outstripped the storage capacity of individual memory devices. The information must be stored across hundreds or thousands of individual memory devices and machines. The ability to keep track of information as it is distributed across numerous devices and machines, while still allowing users to retrieve it seamlessly upon request, is a feat that was impossible until recently. It was made possible by the innovations of technological pioneers like Melvin James Bullen, Steven Louis Dodd, William Thomas Lynch, and David James Herbison.
Bullen, Dodd, Lynch and Herbison were, among others, members of a company dedicated to solving the difficult problems that limited the capacity of computer technology and the Internet, particularly problems concerning data storage. These engineers found innovative solutions for these problems and patented several technologies for data storage, including the ones at issue in this case. Many of the data-access feats we take for granted today are possible because of the data-storage inventions of Bullen, Dodd, Lynch and Herbison."

The patents in question are
7,197,662, 7,543,177 and 7,958,388, which are for "methods and systems for a storage system." The original filing dates for the patents in question come into picture around years 2002 and 2003. For Example, the year 2002 witnessed the original filing date of the 7,197,662 patent.