Download apps Android: look

Showing posts with label look. Show all posts

Monday, March 13, 2017

A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness

The grounds for the German Federal Court of Justices decision in the Sparkassen Group/Banco Santander dispute over the validity of Sparkassens colour mark "red" (HSK 13) for financial services, namely retail banking, have been published last week. The 46-page judgment takes a very close look at the proper methodology of consumer surveys designed to prove acquired distinctiveness. Since no less than four surveys were submitted by the parties, two by each side, the Court had a wealth of material to work with.

Red.

If you are not familiar with the background of the dispute, have a look at our earlier post on the decision. Essentially, Banco Santander applied for a declaration of invalidity for lack of (acquired) distinctiveness of Sparkassens colour mark, was unsuccessful before the German IPO, successful before the Federal Patent Court and ultimately unsuccessful before the Bundesgerichtshof, which confirmed the validity of the mark. The case led to a referral to the CJEU, which was answered in the joined cases C?217/13 and C?218/13 in 2014 (see summary by Birgit Clark on IPKat).

Given the length of the decision, I can only highlight a few points in the following. The decision will be the reference case for the design of consumer surveys for proof of acquired distinctiveness for years to come.

The IPSOS survey from 2006 showed the participants a red card and opened with the following question:

Have you ever seen this colour in connection with financial institutions, or does it appear familiar in this context? Or have you never encountered this colour in connection with financial institutions?

According to the BGH, this question was suggestive, as it already created a link to a certain kind of companies, namely financial institutions. It already introduced the key question - whether the sign was understood as reference to a single entity - into the first question, which should only filter for persons that have never encountered the sign (para. 43). The proper way was to ask whether the respondents had seen the colour in connection with the claimed products.

A further "grave flaw" of the IPSOS survey was counting those respondents that said that they had never encountered the sign among the 66% of respondents that associated the sign with the Sparkassen Group. Those respondents who do not recall ever having seen the sign must be counted among those who do not perceive the sign as an indication of source (para. 45). The Pflüger survey submitted by Sparkassen Group in 2013 was not able to correct the deficiencies of the IPSOS survey from 2006. Surveys conducted several years after the relevant date - here the trade mark owner tried to prove acquired distinctiveness at the time of filing in 2002 - could only be considered if the market conditions were stable over longer periods of time, which was not established here (para. 50).

Too much paper...

Another flaw of the Pflüger survey - which equally applies to the IPSOS survey - was that the first question asked "Have you ever seen this colour in connection with financial services [as listed] or does it appear familiar in this context? Or have you never encountered this colour in this context?" According to the Court, the part of the question here put in italics is impermissible, as it leads respondents to consider a third answer, other than yes or no, to the question. It was fine to count those who spontaneously answered that the colour appeared familiar among those who know the sign, but "looks familiar" must not be an explicit option, as it leads to inflated figures (para. 72. In the case at hand, only about 17% of respondents spontaneously answer that the colour seems familiar, but 24% if explicitly given the option).

The Court addressed, but left deliberately open, the allocation of the burden of proof. According to German case law, if lack of acquired distinctiveness at the time of filing cannot be established, the validity of the mark is confirmed, so the burden of proof lies with the nullity plaintiff. According to the CJEUs judgment in cases C-217/13 and C-218/13, the opposite is true - the burden of proof for acquired distinctiveness lies with the trade mark owner (there at para. 68). The BGH did not have to decide the issue - it hints that it is unhappy with the CJEUs finding - because it found that the evidence on record established that the mark had acquired distinctiveness at the time of the Federal Patent Courts decision in 2015. Because Germany exercised the option under Article 3(3) second sentence Directive 2008/95, proof of acquired distinctiveness either at the time of filing or at the time of decision leads to validity of the mark (§ 8(3) German Trade Mark Act).

The respondents in the Pflüger survey answered the second question as follows:

In connection with financial services...
the colour refers to ("hinweisen") a specific financial institution (63%)
the colour refers to several financial institutions (8%)
the colour does not refer to any financial institution (4%)
cannot answer (6%)

This question was appropriate (para. 79). 62% of respondents named a company of the trade mark owners group in answer to the third question "Do you know the name of this financial instution?".

Overall, the Bundesgerichtshof considered that the survey, flawed as it was, proved that more than 50% of the relevant consumers perceived the colour as a reference to a specific financial institution, i.e. as distinctive. Although the Court repeats the old "there cannot be fixed percentage values as absolute limits" (para. 92), it is pretty clear that anything above 50% is enough (para. 109).

Also interesting is what the Court did not address with a single word - whether it is enough that the consumers perceive the colour as a reference to a single entity, or whether it must be demonstrated that they rely on the mark when choosing the product. As you may recall, Arnold J in his second KitKat decision (IPKat post) held that "the applicant or trade mark proprietor must prove that, at the relevant date, a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons perceives the relevant goods or services as originating from a particular undertaking because of the sign in question" (there at para. 57) and considered the survey evidence submitted by Nestlé, structurally very similar to the evidence before the Federal Court of Justice, to be inadequate to answer this question. Since the briefs are not on public record in Germany, it is unclear whether the nullity plaintiff even raised the issue. In any case, German Courts do not seem to be inclined to follow Arnold Js lead (for a critical take on the KitKat decision, see my recent piece in ABAs Landslide Magazine).

Available link for download

Our best look yet at the Samsung Galaxy Note 7

Loads of photos claiming to show the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 have leaked over the last couple of months, but for the most part theyve all been focused on the front of the phone. As such weve had a good look at the screen and iris scanner, but not at the back, the camera or the ports.

Well today thats all changed, as a new batch of photos has been posted to Weibo and spotted by TechTastic, giving us a clear look at the front, back and bottom edge of the Note 7.

From the back it looks a lot like the Samsung Galaxy S7, with a reflective black covering thats likely made of glass and a camera that looks exactly the same, complete with a lens that appears to protrude slightly from the back.

Note 7 leak

While the same design doesnt mean the same specs it suggests there probably isnt going to be a huge change to the snapper, which on the S7 is 12MP with optical image stabilization and indeed most current camera rumors point to a 12MP one.

The back is otherwise plain and lacks the Samsung logo found there on the Galaxy S7 and Galaxy S7 Edge, but then the handset is likely a prototype rather than a finished version.

New ports and old screens

At the bottom edge the design is again a lot like the Galaxy S7 range, with a 3.5mm headphone port and a speaker. However, there are two key differences, firstly the USB port appears to be USB-C rather than micro USB. Thats not the first weve heard of Samsung making the switch, so its believable.

The other difference is the slot on the right for the S Pen. We dont get a good look at the pen itself here, but it leaked just yesterday and looks similar to the Galaxy Note 5s.

Note 7 leak

Theres less to say about the front, as weve seen it so often, but the screen appears to be flat here, which further suggests this is just a prototype, albeit a functional one, as were not expecting to see a flat version of the Note 7.

Then again, this is the second flat screen version weve seen leaked in as many days, so its always possible that Samsung will surprise us with both flat and curved models.

Well know soon, as the Galaxy Note 7 is almost certainly going to be unveiled on August 2, which is now less than two weeks away.

Cant wait? Check out the best supersized phones available now

Source: TechRadar
posted by ConnectMe
Source: LivingIntunes

Available link for download

What to look for when buying smartphones in 2016

The truth remains that your choice of Android phone is dependent on the depth of your purse. There will always be low ends and high ends android smartphones but what you choose depends on the price you can afford. Android as a mobile OS is taking the lead, overtaking the almighty Blackberry and iPhone.
Many people are interested in buying android phones but are confused on which brands and models to buy because new models of Tecno, Gionee, Infinix, Innjoo and HTC phones are launched on a frequent basis.
This is one major reason why I have decided to come up with this extensive guide on what you should look out for while trying to buy an android phone.

Price: How much can you afford to buy this phone? Are you looking at buying phones just above 10k-20k, 20k-30k, 30k-40k, 40k-above? In the world of Android, there would always be good phones whose specs would meet your budget.When you are done choosing your budget friendly price, you can go ahead to the next tip!.
Brand: Some brands of android phones have been tested and trusted over time. Always go for brands of android smartphones with OS versions that have easy access to new updates like Lollipop and Android-M. Though there are many phones in the market right now, so many strange names that cant be vouched for, always stick to brands that have been recommended for durability.
Battery Capacity: The strength of a battery cannot be negotiated when it comes to having a good experience with the phone. If that android phone you are checking to buy has anything less than 2500mAh capacity, just drop it. If you do otherwise, you will get to know my reasons later in the future.
RAM Features: For an average user, a RAM capacity of 1GB and 8GB of internal memory (with external memory slot) is considered satisfactory, any lesser is a flop.
Screen Size: If you are planning to get an android smart-phone with respect to screen size, I will suggest you to go for the minimum of 4.5 inches. Anything lesser will attracts momentrial difficulties such as Error when typing on keyboard, Small Game play Icons and so on which might ofcourse generate physical problems with the phone.
Camera Quality: Though the camera quality of a phone is dependent on the phone model, Such that the 5MP of Android Phone X is better than the 8MP of Android Phone Y. So the quantity of the MP should not be used to determine the quality of some android phone cameras. So when you decides to buy an android phone, remember to do more research about Camera quality not the pixels.
Availability of Accessories: Have you ever wondered that if you lost or damaged one of the follow-come accessories of your android, how will it be replaced. For example, the accessories of Innjoo Phones is next to not available, So if any part such as the Screen, Touch-Pad, Ear-Piece, Battery, Pouch, Charger e.t.c... get lost, It wont be replaceable, So I will strongly advice you to go for phones with maximum and full support for accessories provision anytime, anywhere...

What other things do you think should be considered before picking an android phone to buy? Share it. Are you still confused on which phone to buy? Drop a comment below so we help you with the best!... Feel free to criticise the lists if we miss anything. Enjoy!!!...

Available link for download

Download apps Android

Monday, March 13, 2017

A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness

A close look at survey methodology for proof of acquired distinctiveness

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Our best look yet at the Samsung Galaxy Note 7

Our best look yet at the Samsung Galaxy Note 7

New ports and old screens

Saturday, January 21, 2017

What to look for when buying smartphones in 2016

What to look for when buying smartphones in 2016