Legion of Lawyers - Framework to change chassis design over Lenovo trademark dispute

[HomeBoi]

This is a good thing, cause who wants to be associated with Lenovo's shitty gaming brand anyway.

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think a general issue is how weird trademarking really is at the heart of things.  If framework brought this to court I could easily see this being struck down, where Framework would be able to use it...but that would be costly and use funds that frankly framework likely doesn't have.

 

Had it been a more complex design, I would understand it...but I mean it's a circle in a circle.  To an extent it was likely designed like that out of utility, where 3 points is likely enough rigidity/flexibility without compromising on breaking and at the same time clearly has a "click me" sort of look to it.  Actually if anything I thought it looked a lot like the chrome logo.

 

Overall I would say since it's there for an utility purpose I don't think it would necessarily infringe on the trademark (as with trademarks you have to prove that it has an effect/misrepresentation to the target audience).  In this case, I doubt that people would see it and think, of this is a lenovo product; which would mean Framework would be allowed to use it [but again, it would need to be battled out in courts...which would be costly compared to what they are doing]

I don't know about that. Some might actually think it's a legion product if they know what the logo looks like and sees the case. Again it's not like this is intentional but that doesn't change the fact that Lenovo has to fight it. Also a simple cease and desist letter telling them to simply change the button shape I'd by far the least aggressive way they could have handled this and honestly props for them being civil about it. 

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I don't know about that. Some might actually think it's a legion product if they know what the logo looks like and sees the case. Again it's not like this is intentional but that doesn't change the fact that Lenovo has to fight it. Also a simple cease and desist letter telling them to simply change the button shape I'd by far the least aggressive way they could have handled this and honestly props for them being civil about it. 

Originally I thought it was just Lenovo doing their thing protecting their trademark, because I am aware you need to protect the trademark...the more I think of it though, the more I feel that maybe Lenovo is being a bit shady in terms of "protecting" their trademark.

 

The first, the O it seems is from the entire word, so even using "part" of a trademark.  They don't brand their Legion products with just the O, so I'd argue that anyone who would "recognize" that would not think it to be a Lenovo Legion product...on top of that, since it's the full name and they only use an "O" it already diminishes the claim that it can cause confusion.  Even if they can claim it was similar enough to spark brand confusion, Framework could easily argue functional doctrine.  They used it as a button, without knowledge of the O logo.  It serves a purpose as a button...so inherently there will be similarities...e.g. most buttons are round and they need to add enough supports to support it without making it too stiff.  That is why I don't think that Lenovo would have had to pursue it in this case...simply because it was a smaller element of their current design, and had a functional aspect to the design.  They wouldn't be at risk of losing it (as if someone tries claiming they didn't pursue it in this case, they could easily say that the functionality of the design and only a partial similarity meant they felt it didn't dilute the brand)

 

But tossing the above aside...Does anyone actually have a link to their trademark number? Bolding this because I am genuinely curious.  I did a trademark search and could only find them trademarking "Lenovo Legion" and the not Legion brand itself...and specifically I couldn't find the current "Legion" design they showed as being actually trademarked.
 

*edit* Apparently the US trademark office link didn't work...but you can search for the trademark 87304106*end edit*

 

Unless I'm mistaken, this actually is the largest sticking point.  It's a word based trademark not a design trademark.  If they only registered their name, they wouldn't have a claim then on saying that it too closely matches the logo...since they didn't register the logo itself (just the name).  Actually if I'm not mistaken that means they don't have the right to claim trademark infringement on the O at all because the O is part of a non-trademarked design.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Originally I thought it was just Lenovo doing their thing protecting their trademark, because I am aware you need to protect the trademark...the more I think of it though, the more I feel that maybe Lenovo is being a bit shady in terms of "protecting" their trademark.

 

The first, the O it seems is from the entire word, so even using "part" of a trademark.  They don't brand their Legion products with just the O, so I'd argue that anyone who would "recognize" that would not think it to be a Lenovo Legion product...on top of that, since it's the full name and they only use an "O" it already diminishes the claim that it can cause confusion.  Even if they can claim it was similar enough to spark brand confusion, Framework could easily argue functional doctrine.  They used it as a button, without knowledge of the O logo.  It serves a purpose as a button...so inherently there will be similarities...e.g. most buttons are round and they need to add enough supports to support it without making it too stiff.  That is why I don't think that Lenovo would have had to pursue it in this case...simply because it was a smaller element of their current design, and had a functional aspect to the design.  They wouldn't be at risk of losing it (as if someone tries claiming they didn't pursue it in this case, they could easily say that the functionality of the design and only a partial similarity meant they felt it didn't dilute the brand)

 

But tossing the above aside...Does anyone actually have a link to their trademark number? Bolding this because I am genuinely curious.  I did a trademark search and could only find them trademarking "Lenovo Legion" and the not Legion brand itself...and specifically I couldn't find the current "Legion" design they showed as being actually trademarked.
 

*edit* Apparently the US trademark office link didn't work...but you can search for the trademark 87304106*end edit*

 

Unless I'm mistaken, this actually is the largest sticking point.  It's a word based trademark not a design trademark.  If they only registered their name, they wouldn't have a claim then on saying that it too closely matches the logo...since they didn't register the logo itself (just the name).  Actually if I'm not mistaken that means they don't have the right to claim trademark infringement on the O at all because the O is part of a non-trademarked design.

First and foremost I highly doubt that they would go after it unless they thought it was necessary to keep their trademark. Also I would trust that their lawyers who's jobs is mostly this wouldn't know what they are doing. Lastly it's not like this is a huge issue. I mean all they asked was for them to change the button which is incredibly easy for them to do. I highly doubt anyone with a brain would take this to court over such a small matter as its a complete waste of time and there is still the chance you lose. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

First and foremost I highly doubt that they would go after it unless they thought it was necessary to keep their trademark. Also I would trust that their lawyers who's jobs is mostly this wouldn't know what they are doing. Lastly it's not like this is a huge issue. I mean all they asked was for them to change the button which is incredibly easy for them to do. I highly doubt anyone with a brain would take this to court over such a small matter as its a complete waste of time and there is still the chance you lose. 

Well I mean they have lawyers on their salary so it's not like it really has much overhead from doing so...it also causes a headache for the competitor.

 

There are examples of companies utilizing trademarks as weapons *cough* Apple *cough* and it really gets me when companies try applying trademarks over some things that clearly aren't.  It doesn't really hurt them by trying to go after trademark "infringements" even if it really isn't truly their trademark.

[GhostRoadieBL]

12 hours ago, Arika S said:

Microsoft would disagree, after all the windows logo is just a square with 2 lines through it and is one of the most recognisable logos on the planet.

 

 

 

good luck putting that on any computer product and not having legal issues.

The difference is Microsoft hasn't gone after anyone who has a window or blue square. They could, they don't. Mainly because their brand recognition is so universal, Lenovo going after a common shape is the issue.

Does a small company's low volume power button support shape really match the legal response? It's like Windows going after a kindergarden class for painting a picture of a window.

[grg994]

IP offices should start requiring trademarks to consist of more then 6-8 lines of drawing. It's a joke that a shape taken from an elementary school geometry book can be protected.

And btw "logo minimalism" is just distasteful anyways imo

[TetraSky]

At least it's for the 3D printed case and not the actual laptop chassis. Should be relatively easy and inexpensive to change.

 

But IMO, saying anyone would be confused by the design for being Lenovo's Legion is a bit farfetched. As it is on the Framework's github and no one would see that case and think "oh hey, is that the new Legion product from Lenovo? Never seen it before"

[Arika]

11 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Does a small company's low volume power button support shape really match the legal response?

Yes, because they HAVE to do it to protect their trademark.

 

Quote

You can lose your exclusive proprietary interest in a mark if it is not properly defended. Although a trademark can be recognized at common law, your best protection comes from using a registrable mark and getting it registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark or service mark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others. If you don’t keep aware of who is using your mark or a mark substantially similar to yours, your mark may become commonplace in use, fall into the public domain and you will lose your exclusive right to use it.

https://www.lodhs.com/blog/defend-your-trademark-or-you-could-lose-it/

 

what response would you have suggested Lenovo take instead of what they did?

[jagdtigger]

31 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Yes, because they HAVE to do it to protect their trademark.

An internal part designed in a paricular shape for a particular function is hardly any base for lenovo's actions.... Also their trademark should be void because its just a generic shape.

[Arika]

10 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

An internal part designed in a paricular shape for a particular function is hardly any base for lenovo's actions....

Yes actually it is. it's the only defining feature/design on the entire case.

 

Quote

Also their trademark should be void because its just a generic shape.

using that logic so is the logo for:

• Windows
• Mercedes
• mcdonalds
• nike
• target
• mastercard

 

[jagdtigger]

21 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Yes actually it is. it's the only defining feature/design on the entire case.

No it isnt, that shape is quite old BTW. I seen it many times used to protect small cooling fans on enclosures.

 

 

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

using that logic so is the logo for:

• Windows
• Mercedes
• mcdonalds
• nike
• target
• mastercard

 

*sigh*

Everyone jumps into the well you jump after them?

[Arika]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

No it isnt,

Yes it is

There are holes, and there's the power button structure, it's the only thing on the case that isn't a hole. The files are open source, you can go look at them here:

https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/Mainboard/tree/main/Mechanical/Printable Case

 

6 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

that shape is quite old BTW. I seen it many times used to protect small cooling fans on enclosures.

if no one had previously had it trademarked, then it doesn't matter. Lenovo currently own the trademark.

 

14 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

*sigh*

Everyone jumps into the well you jump after them?

.....What?? How is that in anyway a response to what i said?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

.....What?? How is that in anyway a response to what i said?

Cadbury had a trademark purple hue/shade for like 20+ years. Shapes and logos happen to be part of the most trademarkable things. The very quick part I watch on WAN show seems to be that Framework essentially agree it was an oops and needs to be changed 

[Distinctly Average]

On 8/19/2022 at 10:07 AM, Arika S said:

Microsoft would disagree, after all the windows logo is just a square with 2 lines through it and is one of the most recognisable logos on the planet.

 

 

 

good luck putting that on any computer product and not having legal issues.

Basically, they nicked the Greek flag.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_Greek_flags

 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Cadbury had a trademark purple hue/shade for like 20+ years. Shapes and logos happen to be part of the most trademarkable things. The very quick part I watch on WAN show seems to be that Framework essentially agree it was an oops and needs to be changed 

I totally agree with what was said on the WAN show in the sense of needing to protect a trademark...with that said there are still a couple things that makes me think that it doesn't (when I began thinking)

 

1) What specifically does their trademark cover?  Honestly, if someone has any information on this let me know.  I did a US trademark search and only found them trademarking the name...not the logo!  I found the Lenovo logo, even some old trademark symbols they own but nothing about Legion.  I really do wish they included the second page/exhibit...as I'd like to see where I went wrong in my search (literal sense, I went to the US trademark website and searched Lenovo as the company name and went through all the trademarks linked to them)

 

2) They are claiming a functional component; and trademarks don't apply when the design choice was out of functionality...so it weakens a bit in terms of claiming [functional doctrine].

 

3) The cease and desist doesn't say they trademarked the O, rather the legion design.  Admittedly a bit weaker, but when considering 2, it should be easy enough that they could say they thought no one would ever get confused given the design of the product.

 

[GhostRoadieBL]

21 hours ago, Arika S said:

Yes, because they HAVE to do it to protect their trademark

Ah parroting the WANshow, protecting the trademark also requires the trademark to have a clear potential of being infringed upon.

 

Even looking through their trademark filing https://www.trademarkelite.com/europe/trademark/trademark-detail/016309197/LENOVO-LEGION

It doesn't list the logo or which version of the logo considering image searching it doesn't even show the 3 part circle without the mercedes tri-point.

 

Still pathetic when countless chinese knock off handhelds use the same design for speaker grills or even the Ubuntu logo is the same, this really does stink of a big company pushing around the little guy in the twisted post-capitalism supress all innovation way so many companies fall victim to.

[Arika]

2 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Ah parroting the WANshow,

No. I made this argument before wan show aired. Check the first page of this thread and made the same cments in other threads in the past about it.

 

Unfortunately people just keep ignoring this fact, so I have to keep repeating myself.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Ah parroting the WANshow, protecting the trademark also requires the trademark to have a clear potential of being infringed upon.

6 hours ago, Arika S said:

No. I made this argument before wan show aired.

Agree with @Arika S it was said on the WAN show, appeared as though they even saw comments like that and were agreeing with it.

 

I don't even blame the WAN show for believing it either, as what they said and what Arika said is true.  One has to pursue potential trademark infringements to not lose it, so there is often an over abundance of caution (in the sense that they go after anything that's similar)

 

Where I think the argument is wrong though is that as you stated, and as I stated before the WAN show...do they even have the trademark on that?  Like I said, searching the trademark they trademarked the words not the logo.  The best they could hope for is the claim of an unregistered trademark...but at that stage even how many people were unaware yet techsavy didn't know that was their logo I would say it doesn't qualify for that sort of protection...

 

Unregistered trademarks are a lot more restrictive (more region based)...and given they changed their logo to that Legion back in Jan 2022, I'd really argue that they don't have the right to request Framework remove the design.  If they wanted all those rights they should have applied for a trademark

 

The other thing is in this case I don't think choosing to not pursue it would harm their trademark, since Framework had come up with that as a functional component (i.e. they needed to have connections for the button to work correctly...and look like a button).

 

It gets even worse when you consider it was only the O, and even in their claim the O is only part of it.

[jagdtigger]

On 8/20/2022 at 12:48 PM, Arika S said:

Yes it is

Just because you repeat it wont make it true, but since you are reluctant to do it here. I looked up one example for you:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3xmqqi5xwi7rdiu/Screenshot_20220821_185701.png?dl=0

https://youtu.be/k2v7k-wAm2E?t=144

Guess their trademark just got voided because someone else already used that shape wwwaaaaayyyyy before them....

 

[soldier_ph]

TFW some lawyers get mad over a 3D Printed logo which no one would ever recognize as the logo of its apparent owner.

[hishnash]

44 minutes ago, soldier_ph said:

TFW some lawyers get mad over a 3D Printed logo which no one would ever recognize as the logo of its apparent owner.

Its not about getting mad, this is down to how Trademark law works if you do not defend your trademark you loose it as then next time someone comes along as uses it (this time intentionally badly) you cant stop them s they can point at framework and say you let framework use it and thus it is not longer a trademark... this is just how trademark (can copywrite) law works. 

[Arika]

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Guess their trademark just got voided because someone else already used that shape wwwaaaaayyyyy before them

Not how trademarks work at all. A trademark is only enforceable from the date of application until expiry. Not retroactively going back to the beginning of time.

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, hishnash said:

Its not about getting mad, this is down to how Trademark law works if you do not defend your trademark you loose it as then next time someone comes along as uses it (this time intentionally badly) you cant stop them s they can point at framework and say you let framework use it and thus it is not longer a trademark... this is just how trademark (can copywrite) law works. 

There are caveats to it though.  e.g. Functional doctrine I think can still blow this out of the water (especially if there are prior cases of it's use).

 

While it's true you have to pursue potential trademark infringements, I really do feel that one can argue that this doesn't even cross the line of infringement.  So it wouldn't invalidate their trademark, because if someone brought them to court they can merely argue that Framework's use as of a functional nature and only a partial use of the "trademark" itself so they felt that there would be no confusion.  Like they don't fully lose trademark, they would effectively lose it for someone trying to use it as a power button...but I honestly think that that shape should not be trademarkable for a power button as it's highly functional.

 

5 hours ago, Arika S said:

Not how trademarks work at all. A trademark is only enforceable from the date of application until expiry. Not retroactively going back to the beginning of time.

Well I mean, from the trademark search I did, and the search Ghost did they might not have it as a registered trademark from what we could find [could argue unregistered though]...but it's clear Lenovo Legion was trademarked by them the words not the logo from what we found.

 

The fact it has been used on computer cases before, as a practical element actually could lend credence that they don't have the right to it when it's used as a functional piece.  Again, functional doctrine.  Given Framework used it and likely designed it as a functional piece, it could really be argued that Lenovo might not actually have needed to pursue it.

 

On top of that, it's asking again...what trademark are they pursuing?  As everyone is talking as though it's a registered trademark; if it's an unregistered trademark it actually flips the script quite a bit.

 

Actually, I'm not sure what exactly the rules surrounding an unregistered trademark is...as I don't think it is governed by the same laws even.  One thing I know though, it's highly region based...it doesn't apply country wide (unless you can prove it's a country wide trademark).  Actually if it's an unregistered trademark and there are prior cases of it being used, it might not even qualify as an unregistered trademark in the area of components such as that.

 

Reading into it a bit if it's an unregistered trademark the best they can do is actually get a court ordered cease and desist...which they are effectively trying to do without a court order.

 

Honestly, if it's not a registered trademark, then I think it's pretty scummy to pursue it.  If they want to use that as a trademark and pursue people for it, they should register it; not send cease and desist letters.

[hishnash]

27 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

While it's true you have to pursue potential trademark infringements, I really do feel that one can argue that this doesn't even cross the line of infringement. 

you can but that is not the responsibility for Lenovo's lawyers.  When you consider the cost of writing a cease and desist letter, if framework responded with a strong case as to why it is not a breach then they could file that and have done the needed paperwork but if they just did not appear to do anything they then need to do much more work in the future if someone else comes along and is infringing anthem and users the framework as an example of them not enforcing the trademark/copywrite.