Poundland is in the middle of a legal dispute with US food giant Mondelēz over the trademarking of the Toblerone chocolate bar. The budget retailer has claimed that Toblerone is, as it attempts to defend its right to launch its own bar Twin Peaks. The legal wrangle is one of many brand name battles over trademarks. We take a look at five of the biggest - and most surprising - below. Walk in the woods. Iceland v Iceland The Icelandic Government last year, the British frozen goods supermarket, over the trademark of its name.
It said that it was pursuing the case in the courts because the supermarket had stopped Icelandic companies from using the word 'Iceland' to describe themselves, and that it had 'aggressively pursued and won multiple cases' against Icelandic companies that use the word in their products. The British frozen food giant owns the Europe-wide trademark registration for the word 'Iceland', but the Icelandic government said that this was 'exceptionally broad and ambiguous in definition, often rendering the country’s firms unable to describe their products as Icelandic'. The legal dispute is ongoing and will likely take years to resolve following a number of failed talks between both parties. Microsoft v MikeRoweSoft In 2003, Canadian student Mike Rowe set up a website under the domain name MikeRoweSoft.com, deliberately adding 'soft' at the end because of the humorous phonetic pun.
But it didn't take long for Microsoft to find out, and it demanded Mr Rowe give up the domain name because it considered it to be a trademark infringement because of the phonetic resemblance to its corporate name. After receiving legal papers from the tech company, Mr Rowe, who was 17 at the time, asked to be compensated for giving up the domain.
Mircrosoft offered $10 (£7.75), which Mr Rowe rejected and responded with a request for $10,000. WWF v WWF Another legal trademark spat featured the World Wildlife Fund and the World Wrestling Federation,. In 2001, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the federation had breached a 1994 agreement with the World Wildlife Fund that bars the wrestling group from using the WWF acronym. A spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, which registered the trademark WWF in 1961 when it was founded, said the wrestling group had breached the agreement 'countless, thousands of times.' After challenging the ruling, the wrestlers eventually gave up the fight and rebranded to World Wrestling Entertainment, or 'WWE'. However, in 2009 an Appeal Court panel overturned the verdict on the grounds that there was no evidence to show that McCurry was passing off its own product as that of McDonald's.
![]() ![]()
McDonald's appealed the decision but it was upheld by the Federal Court. Lawyer Sri Dev Nair, who represented the Malaysian restaurant, said at the time: 'It is the end of the road for McDonald's. McCurry can use the prefix. 'McCurry and McDonald's are two different businesses which sell different types of food and they have different customers,' he added.
Microsoft Word 2007运行在上 这次发行包含了许多变化,包括新的支持XML的文件格式,重新设计的界面,集成的公式编辑器和书目管理。此外,提出了XML数据包,经过对象模型和文件格式可以得到的,称作自定义的XML——这可以利用在同一个新的被称作连接控制工具结构文档的特性的关联之中。它也有只针对带有焦点的对象有特殊功能的内容标签,还有一些其他特性如Live Preview(通过它你可以在不作出任何永久变化时查看文件)、迷你工具栏,超级工具提示,快速访问工具栏SmartArt等。 Word 2007使用.docx新檔案格式。Windows系统的Word 2000-2003用户可以安装一个名为“Microsoft Office兼容包”的免费的插件从而可以打开,编辑以及保存新的Word 2007文件。 另外,Word 2007版本開始可以以.doc格式儲存文件,該格式可在Word 97至2003中使用。 Word 2007是Microsoft Office 2007 System的一部分,是继Word 2003之后的版本。這版本包括很多的改變,包括了对新的基于XML文件格式的支持以及一個被重新設計的界面。 Word 2010. Office 2013 for Personal Computers-standard system requirements. 4 December 2012 19 December 2012. 针对Word、Excel及PowerPoint 2007文件的Microsoft Office兼容包. 在Word 2007中怎样另存为doc. 2009-12-29. 怎样配置Word 2007使之总是存储为doc.
Shustek, Len. 2014-03-24 2014-03-29. Levin, Roy. Official Microsoft Blog. 2014-03-25 2014-03-29.
Office Watch News. Tsang, Cheryl. Microsoft: First Generation.纽约:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mikerowesoft Word
Liebowitz, Stan J. & Margolis, Stephen E. Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology奥克兰:独立学院。.
Microsoft argued that their trademark had been infringed because of the phonetic resemblance between 'Microsoft' and 'MikeRoweSoft'. Microsoft vs. MikeRoweSoft was a legal dispute between and a student named Mike Rowe over the 'MikeRoweSoft.com'. The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a student's part-time business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community.
A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox and additional compensation. – Mike Rowe The domain name MikeRoweSoft.com was initially registered by Canadian student Mike Rowe in August 2003. Rowe set up the site as a part-time web design business, choosing the domain because of the phonetic pun by adding the word 'soft' to the end of his name. Microsoft saw the name as because of its resemblance to their trademarked corporate name and demanded that he give up the domain.
After receiving a letter on January 14, 2004 from Microsoft's Canadian legal representatives, Rowe replied asking to be compensated for giving up the domain. Microsoft offered to pay Rowe's of $10, the original cost of registering the domain name. Rowe countered asking instead for $10,000, later claiming that he did this because he was 'mad at' Microsoft for their initial $10 offer. Microsoft declined the offer and sent a order spanning 25 pages.
Microsoft accused Rowe of setting up the site in order to try to force them into a large financial settlement, a practice known as. Press coverage and settlement Rowe went to the press, creating publicity for the case and garnering support for his cause, including donations of over $6,000 and an offer of free advice from a lawyer. At one point Rowe was forced to take down his site after it was overwhelmed by around 250,000 over a period of twelve hours, only managing to get the site back up after changing to a service provider with a higher capacity. The case, portrayed as a struggle by the media, characterized Microsoft in a negative light. The resulting bad publicity was later described as a 'public relations mess.'
The public showing of support that Rowe received was credited with 'softening Microsoft's stance,' leading to an eventual settlement. In late January 2004, it was revealed that the two parties had come to an, with Microsoft taking control of the domain. In return Microsoft agreed to pay all of the expenses that Rowe had incurred including setting up a new site at and redirecting traffic to MikeRoweforums.com. Additionally, Microsoft provided Rowe with a subscription to the, an all expenses paid trip for him and his family to the Microsoft Research Tech Fest at their headquarters in, training for and an with a selection of games. Following an online poll, Rowe donated most of his legal defense fund to a children's and used the remaining money for his future university education. Further developments. – Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler After settling the dispute with Microsoft, Rowe attempted to off the documentation he had received on the on-line auction site, describing it as 'a piece of Internet history.'
The materials included one copy of the original 25 page cease and desist letter as well as an inch-thick book containing copies of trademarks, web pages and e-mails between him and Microsoft. The auction received more than half a million page views and bidding rose to more than $200,000. The high bids turned out to be fraudulent and the auction was restricted to pre-approved bidders.
After restarting from the reserve price of $500, the documents eventually sold for $1,037. Microsoft later admitted that they may have been too aggressive in their defense of the 'Microsoft' trademark. Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark.
This view was also espoused by, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements. Robertson opined that —had legal proceedings ensued — Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft. See also. References.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |