When Apple announced Snow Leopard, they also detailed a new developer service that can be used to full take advantage of the dual cores in newer Intel Macs. The Apple website tells us the following about GrandCentral:

Grand Central takes full advantage [of the processor cores] by making all of Mac OS X multicore aware and optimizing it for allocating tasks across multiple cores and processors. Grand Central also makes it much easier for developers to create programs that squeeze every last drop of power from multicore systems.

MacNN is reporting that Apple applied for a trademark on the name "Grand Central" under USPTO serial number 77626943. The trademark was filed under "009" classification, which is "computer software; computer operating system software."

We can only wonder if this trademark filing will cause an uproar from Google, who acquired the Grand Central telephony service.

Continue reading to see a screenshot of the trademark filing.

[via MacNN]

A firm named Man and Machine is suing both Apple and CBS for trademark infringement for using the Mighty Mouse name to describe a computer input device. Man and Machine makes hygenic water- and chemical-resistant keyboards and mice for hospitals and laboratories.

Man and Machine claims CBS (who owns the cartoon property, which may or may not be pictured) did not have the legal authority to license the name to Apple. Man and Machine holds a trademark for use of the Mighty Mouse name in conjunction with an interface controller. It claims it first used the term in 2004, but only filed for the trademark in December 2007. CBS's trademark (which covers Apple's device) was filed in July 2007, indicating its first use was in 2005 (when the Mighty Mouse came out).

Thus the tension. It's unclear if Man and Machine licensed the Mighty Mouse name (as Apple did) and whether or not that will influence the outcome.

[via 9-to-5 Mac]

According to the Wall Street Journal Apple has received an interesting new trademark for the three-dimensional shape of the iPod. Traditional trademarks have generally been granted for two-dimensional designs (logos, etc.) so actually trademarking the shape of the iPod is unusual. One key advantage of the trademark over patents is that while the latter expire after a period of time, a trademark can be continually renewed.

In some ways this move on Apple's part is rather curious as the shape in question is the classic iPod shape, and I think at this point it's clear that the classic is more the past than future of iPod design. The awarded trademark itself is for the "design of a portable and handheld digital electronic media device comprised of a rectangular casing displaying circular and rectangular shapes therein arranged in an aesthetically pleasing manner." However, Apple has also applied for a similar trademark for the iPhone. For those of us of a certain age the phrase "look and feel" can't help but come to mind, though this time with rather more success for Cupertino.

[via Daring Fireball]

Sometimes you have to think that we'd all be better off if Apple's marketing and trademark folks just dropped the corporate legal department out of their Rolodexes. Last week Bloomberg & Wired reported that Apple is still challenging the New York City environmental initiative GreenNYC's logo, which does look like an apple but not all that much like this Apple's apple. The trademark dispute hinges on the likelihood of public confusion and the possible dilution of Apple's mark, both of which seem to fail the silly test -- but you never do know.

Considering that Apple was on the receiving end of a trademark fight with the Beatles for decades, it's not clear why it's prudent or necessary for the company to pick a fight with a city known as "the Big Apple" since before the invention of the vacuum tube. I guess once you stake out your orchard, you have to make sure those darn kids don't steal the fruit. More on this story from BloggingStocks and the NYT.

Update: Nilay Patel at Engadget (who is a lawyer) describes the opposition filing as a normal part of the trademark process. Still seems kind of petty.

Our sibling site, Engadget, is reporting that Apple has apparently applied for trademark protection on a gaming device. The trademark in question would protect the word "APPLE" under the following circumstances: "toys, games and playthings, namely, hand-held units for playing electronic games; hand-held units for playing video games; stand alone video game machines; electronic games other than those adapted for use with television receivers only; LCD game machines; electronic educational game machines; toys, namely battery-powered computer games."

Engadget also reminds us about Apple's recent patent filing of a touch gaming device. Could this mean that Apple is working on Pippin 2.0? Time can only tell. However, I wouldn't hold my breath, since Apple often randomly trademarks names and such.

Original source: trademork.com

The litigation biz is a messy and complex one, which is why I'm thankful Engadget has rounded up law student members from the Columbia Science & Technology Law Review for a primer series covering the ins and outs of the potentially ensuing Apple/Cisco litigation. This first part covers trademarks - what they're for, how to maintain them and the available courses of action when your trademark gets the rip-off treatment.

Of particular interest to me is the fact that the owner of a trademark must be vigilant about maintaining control over it and defending their turf. If a company starts lying down and letting their 'mark run rampant, they can lose the reigns entirely. This series should be a great read for anyone interested in a quickie IP law education without all the student loans and all-nighters.

It's good to see two major putting down legal weapons of trademark war and setting an example for the children. Forbes is reporting that Cisco has agreed to give Apple some extra time to respond to their iPhone trademark lawsuit (perhaps they know they might not have a leg to stand on?) so the two companies can sit down and maybe work things out peacefully.

The actual discussions are forthcoming, but since Cisco is apparently still seeking interoperability, I'm betting these 'discussions' aren't going to last much longer than a 'chat.' Apple doesn't share a bed with another 3rd party very often, and the iPhone means they're joined at more than just the hip with Cingular already.

The sound of Steve Jobs saying 'iPhone' was music to many an Apple fan's ears yesterday, but it seems Steve may have spoken too soon. The Associated Press is reporting that Cisco is planning on suing Apple over the use of the word 'iPhone,' which Cisco has a trademark on. It was reported that Apple and Cisco were on the edge of making a deal, but no legal documents were signed before Steve hit the stage yesterday.

Does this mean that the iPhone is dead and long live the iPod Mobile? Only time will tell, but I am sure Cisco can be wooed with a bucket of money.

Update: Here is the text of Cisco's press release on the suit. Tip o' the hat to The Apple Blog.

If you're a TWiT fan (or a listener of almost any of Leo's other 200 podcasts), you might have heard in the past couple of weeks that he's pushing to change the term 'podcast' to 'netcast.' He's even gone so far as to start using it in his lingo on the shows (at least on the few of his shows I can keep up with), and is looking to trademark the term. Now before you run off and flame TWiT's forums, just hear the man out - because I think he has a good idea.

Leo has a couple of reasons for hoping to move the mountain that is now podcasting. The first is Apple's recent bullish attitude towards the terms 'pod' and 'podcast,' as they've been filing their own trademarks and sending nastygrams to companies who get even just a little too close to using these words in their names or products. For a term that was born out of the grassroots web broadcasting movement and coined out of love for Apple's little music player, this understandably felt like a slap in the face to many - including even Leo, who was recently dubbed podcaster of the year. Of course, on the flip side of that coin, I can also understand Apple's interest in protecting their product likeness and the word 'pod.' After all - when else has such a goofy, nerdy word become such an icon? Oh what a twisted web of vocabulary and intellectual property we weave.

Leo's second reason, and one that I feel is a bit more significant, is the implication of the deep roots the term 'podcasting' itself has grown, in light of its relationship to the iPod as a word and a product. Leo laments that to so many of podcasting's new target demographic (i.e. - all the non-early adopters who aren't listening to them, yet), the term 'podcast' itself implies that one needs an iPod to download and listen to them. Of course, it's pretty obvious to us nerds that this assumption couldn't be farther from the truth, but that is exactly Leo's point - he wants to change the term to drop that stigma for 'the other half;' the people who might or might not have heard of podcasting, but ultimately don't know much about it. Podcasting is all about leveling the playing field so anyone with some talent can share it with the world - but in this context, the term 'podcasting' is a bit counterproductive to the effort of breaking down the walls for one and all.

Let's face it - there are a lot of other DAPs out there, and a ton of other products on which one can listen to music. The 'song' wasn't renamed to 'pong' or 'iPong' - maybe it would be better, and more accessible, to adopt a generic term like 'netcast,' so more listeners can join the party.

Nothing warms the cockles of my heart more than a document from Apple's crack legal team. This list of Apple's trademarks and servicemarks is fun to read, especially if you are obsessed with Apple as much as I am (and we all know you are).

Some of my personal favorites? I'm glad you asked:

• Aristotle
• Inter·Poll
• NodeCheck
• Yum

That list is an incredibly geeky drinking game waiting to happen.