• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Apple sued in trade mark dispute over Animoji

2. November 2017

Apple was accused of trade mark infringement by a U. S. citizen living in Japan a few days ago. The point of contention is the word mark “Animoji”, important for the new iPhone X.

Animoji is registered trade mark of plaintiff

EmoijThe famous smartphone manufacturer introduced its new iPhone X just a few weeks ago, which will be launched on November 3rd. And that’s exactly what the argument is about: Apple gave the 3-D animated characters in Emoji style in his new flagship the name Animoji. The plaintiff states that he invented the name Animoji in 2014 and had it registered at the American Patent and Trademark Office (UPSTO) as early as 2015.

Apple’s App Store distributed Plaintiff’s App “Animoji”

The dispute over trademark rights is heard before the United States District Court, Northern District of California (case 3:17-cv-05986). The plaintiff is Enrique Bonansea, a U.S. citizen living in Japan. Enrique Bonansea is an independent software entrepreneur who worked on projects for Microsoft, Adobe, Nike and others in the 1990s as part of an entrepreneurial alliance called “emonster, Inc.”. In 2003 he moved to Japan, where he has a Japanese cooperation called “emonster k. k.”.

The plaintiff was known to the Apple company because Mr. Bonansea operated and operates a messaging app called Animoji, which is distributed through the iOS App Store. Bonansea’s Animoji app has been downloaded more than 18,000 times, according to his own statement. Animated texts are sent with the app.

Apple filed application for cancellation of Animoji’s trade mark protection

iPhoneIn the petition, Enrique Bonansea states that Apple tried to buy the Animoji brand shortly before the launch of the iPhone X. The court will have to clarify whether this is true. According to Mr. Bonansea, in the summer of 2017, a company called The Emoji Law Group LLC contacted him in order to buy his trade mark brand. This Emoji Law Group LLC is allegedly a shell company of Apple. In September, shortly before the launch of the new iPhone X, Apple filed a petition with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office to have the Animoji brand deleted. Since the deletion has not yet been decided, this is an indication that Apple was aware that Animoji is currently a protected term. This means that Apple has deliberately committed the trademark infringement of the term Animoji.

In the pending case concerning the cancellation request, the court will also have to clarify the facts. Bonansea originally protected the controversial term “Animoji” under the name of the company “emonster, Inc.”. Apple claims that “emonster Inc.” did not exist when the registration was originally filed. The plaintiff asserts that the trademark entry was only registered by an error on the “emonster Inc” and should have been registered on “emonster k. k.” instead. And that this error was corrected very quickly. Whether rightfully or wrongly, the ANIMOJI mark has been registered with the American Patent & Trademark Office as a standard sign, without claiming any particular font, style, size or colour (Reg. No. 4,712,559) – and “FOR USE IN ANIMATING, PROCESSING, AND TRANSMITTING IMAGES, IN CLASS 9”.

If the lawsuit against Apple is successful, the case will be very expensive for the iPhone manufacturer: in addition to the financial loss, the reputation of the new flagship iPhone X would also be damaged. The complaints include trademark infringement and unfair competition. The judgement is eagerly awaited.

 

Are you suspected of having infringed trademark rights or is a competitor violating your rights?

Then we should talk to each other, because this is nothing to joke about! Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your brand.

CAT-call_en

 

Source:

Case 3:17-cv-05986 of District Court California

images: TheDigitalArtist / pixabay.com / CCO License || helloolly / pixabay.com / CC0 License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconAnimoji,  iphone,  U.S.

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.