Anyway, this thing is getting a lot more play this morning. The Washington Post is reporting on it as well.

I agree that Blackberry shouldn’t have rights to any name beginning with “Black-” but in a very specific product class (cell phones/smartphones) the similarity can be confusingly similar (and apparently is to some people).

I’ve dealt with several trademark litigations and have in addition read tons of case law and analysis on the subject. I respectfully disagree, and believe that the suit is *not* frivolous. This is a question of IP/trademark rights and infringement, not consumer liability.

I worked for a consumer products company in both finance and brand marketing.
If a 3rd party (advertiser) takes the image of one products and overlays it against the verbage of a different product, then who is at fault.
Example; Walmart puts up a display of Coke and use the image of Pepsi in the ad, while talking about how refreshing Coke is.
Is Pepsi responsible for WalMart not doing due diligence and making sure that the images and verbage used in their instore displays don’t match? No.
Same situation with American Cell. Samsung is not responsible for the mistake.
If a customer walks into your store and starts talking about a smartphone that runs windows 5.0 and you show them a Treo 680 or Nokia E62, and they buy a BB 8700c, who’s fault is it that the customer and sales rep didn’t know the product?
The lawsuit is frivilous.

I saw a lawsuit filed against the makers of Vaseline Petroleum Jelly because even though the product is not sold in the aisle with Peanut Butter and Jelly/Jam and is not marked as a food product…some guy bought the medicated Vaseline, spread it on his toast and ate it.
He got sick and sued for false advertising and his medical cost.
Now you tell me whose fault is that?

You are correct…I am no lawyer and so I am simply commenting on what seems to make sense…as most of us are on these blogs…which is why a true legal opinion would help us better understand.

Thought: Good comments up until the last paragraph. *Actual* confusion, such as that displayed above, is a strong argument for trademark infringement. It’s not a question of claiming rights to every name beginning with “Black-” but to similar products and services beginning with it.

Jay: It doesn’t matter that the mistake here is not Samsung’s “fault.” There is actual confusion by a distributor. A court’s opinion could likely follow that presented in the last paragraph of the above article. And Samsung can be “at fault” because it gave a fairly similar name to a very similar product. The lawsuit isn’t “petty” if the similar names can cause confusion among typical consumers. ANd the upcoming 8800 models will, if anything, beeven more similar to the Blackjack.

(I bet you can guess what I do by day….)