Samsung was officially labeled as uncool by a British judge earlier this month, but it’s Apple that will face the real embarrassment: it’s now been ordered to place advertisements confirming Samsung isn’t a copycat.
This certain front of the patent wars involves Apple’s claims that the original version of the Galaxy Tab ripped off the style of the iPad. Apple has the general lead in the battle thanks to an injunction banning the Samsung device from sale in the US until a full hearing.
Nonetheless, Apple lost a situation on the identical issue in the United Kingdom exactly where Judge Colin Birss mentioned there was no critical prospect of confusion. In a statement that was welcome news to Samsung’s legal team and maybe not so much to its advertising and marketing division, Birss mentioned “[The Samsung devices] do not have the very same understated and intense simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression created is different.”
Samsung decided to push its luck a bit after that verdict and asked for an injunction banning Apple from making any public statement indicating that the Galaxy Tab copied its styles.
Judge Birss has now rejected that argument, ruling that it would infringe Apple’s rights to totally free speech. He ruled that Apple is allowed to say it believes Samsung copied it, as lengthy as this is obviously expressed as an opinion rather than a statement of reality.
However, to make the legal scenario clear Birss has agreed to Samsung’s request that Apple be forced to publish a notice stating that the court ruled that Samsung didn’t commit a legal breach. This notice should be place in newspaper and magazine ads as effectively as staying on the home page of Apple’s UK web site for six months.
The precise facts aren’t confirmed, though Samsung had suggested the advertisements go in the Day-to-day Mail and Monetary Times newspapers, the Guardian’s mobile magazine, and tech mag T3.
The ads may not seem instantly as the judge has also provided Apple permission to appeal against the original patent verdict. It’s likely it won’t be forced to comply with the new ruling unless and till that appeal is rejected.
No connected posts.