Xiaomi Clones Apple's Memoji With New 'Mimoji' Avatars [Updated]

[code-m]

Do you understand what a trademark is?

Please see my prior post relating to this topic.

 

[code-m]

1) “I am unable to find where your claim that...”

Where did I make any such claim? You are making a straw man argument.

Hmm, you were the one who claimed trademark and copyright issues.

2) “facial features cannot be copyrighted”

Yes they can. Please show me the law that says they cannot? I can show you plenty of cases where they have been copyrighted.

Human facial features can be copyrighted, well if there is any validity to your claim it just proves how messed the USPTO system is.

But go ahead, show me your sources for human facial features that have been copyrighted.

3) “Coke” stuff

Not sure what you are trying to say, but I assure you that regardless of your name, or how you pronounce it, if you try to sell Koke, Koch, Joe Coke, or anything in the neighborhood of “coke” you will be sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and you will lose. See also Lanham Act section 43(c).

First:
"evoke among prospective purchasers a positive response that is associated exclusively with the goods or services of the trademark owner."

Second:
"Tarnishment cases often involve provocative or humorous uses of well-known marks, but "tarnishment is not limited to seamy conduct."

See my prior post on Apple's trademark for "Memoji" lawsuit. Lanham Act sect 43(c) that relates to trademarks not copyright, there is a difference. The Koch family if released a cola product and the logo is different, it would be interesting how the law would decide this as it is a family name, release a cola product, but the logo is different. One how does one pronounce the name (there is some disagreement), will people be confused (highly doubt it), is there any damage to Coke (probably not). One is a family name that precedes Coke trademark registration and two it is spelt differently. One again Coke in this situation has to prove intent, harm and financial loss due to the confusion.

No, he does not.

That is a rich assumption, according to USPTO trademarks are relating to the name, as mentioned there is a lawsuit with Apple being named for using the name "Memoji", there is no trademark by Apple for using the name "Memoji".

If you are talking about copyright, Disney can sue Apple and Xiamoi for the use of "Memoji" or "Mimoji" likeness to Disney/Pixar characters, I don't see any such lawsuit so what are you claiming? Someone would think that you suffered financial loss or have financial interests in Apple.

 

[cmChimera]

Please see my prior post relating to this topic.

After reading everything you've posted, I'm convinced that you do not.

 

[Baymowe335]

This is going to trigger some folks here for sure.

I personally don't care. They look nice!

Just because you don’t respect intellectual property laws, doesn’t mean this isn’t a clear violation and quite sad. It’s nothing new though.

 

[Steve121178]

Who cares! It's only kids that use this stuff anyway. Let them get on with it.

 

[i-John]

Who conducted their "internal audit"? Stevie Wonder?
[doublepost=1562293767][/doublepost]

Who cares! It's only kids that use this stuff anyway. Let them get on with it.

Kids who get their parents to buy phones. Just because YOU don't use it doesn't mean that it's not of value to the creators.
If you allow something like this go, where will it stop? Starting a precedent.

 

[cmaier]

Hmm, you were the one who claimed trademark and copyright issues.



Human facial features can be copyrighted, well if there is any validity to your claim it just proves how messed the USPO system is.

But go ahead, show me your sources for human facial features that have been copyrighted.



First:
"evoke among prospective purchasers a positive response that is associated exclusively with the goods or services of the trademark owner."

Second:
"Tarnishment cases often involve provocative or humorous uses of well-known marks, but "tarnishment is not limited to seamy conduct."

See my prior post on Apple's trademark for "Memoji" lawsuit. Lanham Act sect 43(c) that relates to trademarks not copyright, there is a difference. The Koch family if released a cola product and the logo is different, it would be interesting how the law would decide this as it is a family name, release a cola product, but the logo is different. One how does one pronounce the name (there is some disagreement), will people be confused (highly doubt it), is there any damage to Coke (probably not). One is a family name that precedes Coke trademark registration and two it is spelt differently. One again Coke in this situation has to prove intent, harm and financial loss due to the confusion.



That is a rich assumption, according to USPO trademarks are relating to the name, as mentioned there is a lawsuit with Apple being named for using the name "Memoji", there is no trademark by Apple for using the name "Memoji".

If you are talking about copyright, Disney can sue Apple and Xiamoi for the use of "Memoji" or "Mimoji" likeness to Disney/Pixar characters, I don't see any such lawsuit so what are you claiming? Someone would think that you suffered financial loss or have financial interests in Apple.

First, it’s the USPTO, not the USPO. Second, you are lying. I never claimed trademark or copyright issues. I merely pointed out that you were incredibly wrong in claiming you need to prove damages in copyright law.

Second, every photograph you take of a face is copyrighted. I’m not sure why you think faces are not copyrightable.

Third, “Koch cola” would clearly be trademark infringement. Stop it already.

 

[ROGmaster]

First, it’s the USPTO, not the USPO. Second, you are lying. I never claimed trademark or copyright issues. I merely pointed out that you were incredibly wrong in claiming you need to prove damages in copyright law.

Possibly but a case like this would have real weight if damages can be proved because as code-m pointed out Apple most likely can't prove any financial damages even if they wanted to. And I'm talking about real proof not suppositions.

Second, every photograph you take of a face is copyrighted. I’m not sure why you think faces are not copyrightable.

The photograph itself is the one that is copyrighted not the face. Anyway he was talking about facial expressions a human face can make not photographs.

Third, “Koch cola” would clearly be trademark infringement. Stop it already.

I think he was talking about something like this.

Here's their website. https://business.greencola.com/
It's a real company thta's doing business in a lot of European countries.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Just because you don’t respect intellectual property laws, doesn’t mean this isn’t a clear violation and quite sad. It’s nothing new though.

That's quite the leap there, from care to respect, but that's what happens when predictions come true and people get triggered.

I down own this intellectual property. This is for Apple to defend. Thus I don't care. I am a Sith after all.

 

[Kcetech1]

I cant see how anyone can really argue over facial avatars too much anymore. They have been in Skype, and a few old messaging systems and even a crude version in AIM back in the late 90's full torso avatars have been in everything since the x-box original and I think even before then, none of it is exactly new, even on phones.

 

[tex210]

Can we have cross-platform facetime and iMessages already.

 

[cmaier]

Can we have cross-platform facetime and iMessages already.

Why would apple do that?

 

[YaBe]

Just outright ban all things made by Chinese companies!

it would be fun living in the Stone Age.....

 

[tex210]

Why would apple do that?

Oh, IDK, maybe because I feel like it was a promised feature? I do understand your point, but pretty please.

Everything has changed now!
https://www.thestreet.com/story/128...-stock-plummeted-to-a-one-year-low-today.html
The old excuses don’t apply.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_happened_to_making_facetime_an_open/

Edit- maybe not.

 

[Shanghaichica]

Do you think that Apple's Memojis are an original concept? They weren't the first.

But as is typical these days, something is only a "thing" when a mega-corp says so. This is why a company like Disney can take public-domain fairy tales, put their mark on it, now they own the copyright... which keeps getting extended so that nothing they own will ever enter the public domain.

Agreed. Apple were not the first even with Animoji. But having a life like Avatar which is customisable, even Samsung tried that first in direct response to Apple’s Animoji with their AR emoji. Samsung were not the first either.