-
You just answered your own question. A trademark is for whatever is intimately associated with the brand. You do know the company is Research in Motion and not Blackberry?
Visual design cues in particular impact us very strongly; for example, when I see cute golden retriever pups I do get reminded of the Dirt Devil ads. It's well-known that marketing using cute baby animals, particularly puppies, positively impacts sales. Of course I am not talking trademark here but take it a step further to a design element linked to a particular brand. The logo is an excellent example. Another would be all the visuals for iOS and Android OS version: the specific depictions of certain cats, the honeybee. Apple's Map icon came up last year or so because someone (oh, I want to say Samsung
)copied it just a little too closely. The icon is not only very recognizable, it's a map pointing to 1 Infinity Loop, Apple's home.
Apple has a new icon it wants to use and doesn't want too close copying of it when they do start. Completely common behaviour. I bet HTC has trademarked a lot of its Sense UI, because it distinguishes that brand from all other Androids, just as I am sure that RIM has trademarked visuals and words for things linked to Blackberry as well as RIM.
BTW, sound is also a very powerful association and can also be trademarked.
And yeah, patents are completely different from trademark.Last edited by TGR1; 04-01-12 at 01:05 PM.
04-01-12 12:48 PM - It is not a Google Maps icon but for the proprietary Maps app used on Apple's iOS and is meant to tie that design to their product. In fact, I read that Apple is not using Google maps for the content.
I believe you are still thinking patents and operation. That is not what this is about. This is exactly along the lines of the BB logo or Macdonalds golden arches and purely for the design of that icon that Apple is showing.I think the notifications is a little to broad to justify the protection.
Why? Someone sees this icon and thinks, "Oh, I know that cute picture! It's for an Apple phone. I hear they are really easy to use and have great quality and the company treats their customers well. I need a new phone. Gotta check it out".
Same idea as for the USB icon (multiarmed thingy) which appears on a gazillion devices. From the usb.org website:
"In order to realize this opportunity, USB products must continue to enhance the consumers' experience through high quality and ease of use. That's why USB Implementers Forum, Inc. introduced trademark-protected logos for use with qualified products. To qualify for the right to display the certified USB logo in conjunction with a product, the product must pass USB-IF compliance testing for product quality."
You see? It's about association with expectations (and of course money ). Apple has spent a lot of effort building their brand, which consequently has a very high reputation for certain things, and which consequently feeds into promoting sales. They do not want to:
a) lose customers to rivals who piggyback on their work by copying
b) risk having their brand diluted by identical designs everywhere
c) risk losing their high reputation by poor quality knockoffs who fool customers into buying the copies
The above holds for every reputable company out there. Trademarks can be very important.
RIM has had its share of trademark issues: BBM as trademark conflict with BBM Canada. This is unfortunate for RIM because BBM really is understood in the vernacular as their messaging service so to be able to freely wave a trademark around would be powerful. Pity they didn't settle years ago before BBM took off and clearly became of great value and thus the sale price jumped.
As I said, that was not a trademark issue but an example of how strong visual cues can be.Is your example of the puppies something that has been trademarked, OR is it an association of the brand based on marketing efforts. I totally understand the effects of visual association, but there must be some standard of what is accepted as a trademark or simply a visual cue.
Again, you must separate patents and trademarks. Motorola was purely about patents, not trademarks. And as I pointed out above, people really shouldn't dismiss Apple's or any other company's attempts to protect their brand.Also, this is Apples "thing", patenting / trademarking anything they can. One of the reasons why Google purchased Motorola.
What do you think of when you think Blackberry? Seems to me it is security. They really should have trademarked some phrase to promote that years ago. Now, with all the privacy stuff going around particularly with Google and FB, pulling out an old, well-known catch phrase about security would have been powerful, like a security blanket. It wouldn't matter that BB is also now associated with old, stodgy, lagging, etc. Seasoned can be good if marketed right.04-01-12 03:09 PM - That's an oversimplification and pretty emotional. I don't agree with you and I do think apple blows. I guess we'll just have to live with not agreeing.I'm not an Apple fanboy. I rock Android. However, it's attitudes like yours that have made Apple the corporate giant that it is today. Don't protect what you've designed, just scream that the other guy "blows", while watching him steal your stuff, and make a fortune.
04-01-12 08:39 PM - Ms, actually
Excellent example of where trademarked items are potentially valuable. Apple's current ad campaign focuses a lot on showing how easily people use the touchscreen for a gazillion purposes; and thus the viewer is exposed to closeups of the screen and thus the icons a lot. Repetition and exposure builds awareness and familiarity.Though, I still don't understand how notification icons reflect the company. Of the examples, such as "the golden arches" they are "things" that are visually associated with the company logo.
Maybe if Apple begins playing commercials with the notification icons, then trademark can be applied?
Note, though, that it's not that the icon is used in commercials that makes it desirable to trademark but that it is a highly visible design element that is fundamental to iOS. The brand association is important.
Googling says Patently Apple: back in Dec 2009. Remarkably effective. Verizon's "Can you hear me now?" is another excellent one that simply and immediately associates Verizon's claimed strength (superior call quality) versus AT&T. And effective trademarks have longevity. Verizon's is from back in 2004 and to this day it evokes in me a strong association with call quality. Note I don't use Verizon so haven't a clue if it's true but if it weren't for being CDMA, I would be strongly tempted to check Verizon's phones out.I assume that "there's an app for that" can (and probably has) been trademarked by Apple?
(its never been said before the Apple commercials)Last edited by TGR1; 04-02-12 at 12:23 AM.
04-02-12 12:18 AM
