oh dear apple - boo hoo
He who trolls last trolls longest.
Apple has lost the rights to the trademark "iPhone" in Brazil to a local manufacturer which makes an Android phone called the iPhone NEO. Yesterday the Brazilian Trademark and Patents Office rejected Apple's claims to the trademark "iPhone" in the category of telecoms and the category of electronic devices. "Registration …
This will be an interesting Journey for Apple:
(the lyrics are from memory, so, bear with me)
"It's been a MYSTERY
But STILL they TRY to SEE
HOW something GOOD could hurt so BAD
Caught on a ONE-WAY STREET
The TASTE of BITTERsweet
LOVE will SURVIVE SOMEhow, SOMEway....
Could also throw a few stanzas from Foreigner's "Urgent", hehehe...
Of course, if Apple throws around about US $600M, the lyrics could apply to the trademark holder AND the government of Brazil..
"Apple is contesting the decision on the basis that Gradiente failed to make use of its trademark within the five year window, states the Journal."
ok so the brazillian company applied for the trademark in 2008, they made it in 2012 - thats 4 years... is apple hoping that their lord and savior Jobshova will change spacetime to make their statement correct?
does physics actually matter in a universe with apple in it? is the answer to that question 42? seriously the world according to apple make no sense.
>>JDX - So you say something stupid, then when it gets a deserved negative response you respond with "Oh, I was just trolling"?
I've never, ever, claimed to have been trolling on these forums before, regardless of how unpopular my comment was. You can search if you like.
Surely one is supposed to be accused of trolling rather than accused not pretending to be trolling?
Can you read?
The article states that Apple applied for the trademark in 2007, not 2006. It also clearly stated that the Brazilian company have 5 years to use their trademark from the date it was granted, in 2008. Which they have done. It makes no sense for them to have used the name before 2008 because it was not protected by a trademark.
The reality distorsion field seems to impare fanbois' reading ability.
settle it once and for all - page 7 under the title "removal from register"
5 years FROM GRANT
i have experience applying for trademarks (and copyrights as it happens) and i can categorically tell you that it is ALWAYS from grant of application not from making the application that any forfeiture kicks in - regardless of country. but since i know that "well maybe not in brazil...." will be an argument youll notice that what i sent you to read above is describing the BRAZILIAN trademark process specifically.
my god, has apple issued a version of maps for the mind?
I always thought it a bit suspect having a trademark on such a trivial version of the generic term. I mean, can I have a trademark on "pHoNe", with that capitalisation?
(Note, I'm not saying generic terms can't be trademarked - e.g., nothing wrong having a company name of "Apple", so long as they don't sell actual apples.)
It leads to problems such as, would it be infringing if someone made a jPhone? Or who owns the rights to an iTV? The other problem is that other people may also independently have wanted to make trivial variations to the generic term, but are now prevented from doing so - a trademark should be one a term that people are unlikely to use in that context, unless they're clearly ripping them off.
I would say I wonder why no one's made an "itablet" just to annoy them, though a quick Google finds pages suggesting these do exist (and also throwing up pages from 2009/2010 from the media hyping Apple's then alleged product, even before it was originally announced - one from the Telegraph saying how it'll change our lives, well sorry, it's 2013 and I'm still waiting).
With trademark infringement, I think that the point is "Where does it start causing confusion?"
Take your "jPhone" for instance: As long as the "j" was accentuated -- ALWAYS accentuated -- so that there was NO way that a cursory glance would not mistake it for an "i" -- a different font, colored a bright, screaming red where the rest of the logo is turquoise, the tail of the 'j' is made longer than usual... the possibilities are endless -- it might pass the "not likely to cause confusion in the general public" smell test.On the other hand, making the logo in a similar font to Apple's, in the same all-black, with the tail of the "j" shortened or otherwise de-emphasized (which is,itself,another judgement call -- when is something "too much"?) to lessen the difference between a "j"and an "i" then a case can be made that it DOESN'T pass that test.
xPhone, if made suitably visually distinctive, might pass the test... it might not. aPhone, all the rest... same thing -- maybe maybe not. Picking theone letter that MOST CLOSELY resembles the one that differentiates an "iPhone" from a "phone", however,is likely to be a bit whiffy on the smell-test
The real question,though,is -- in the case of someone wanting to enter a market that ALREADY has a competitor selling a well-known and popular product with an identifiable name -- why would one WANT to use a similar-sounding/similar-looking name if they're NOT hoping to ride on the coattails of that other product in the public mind? Remember that the term"iPhone" was not in common usage when Apple named their product. Once they DID bring the term into common usage, however, it became the responsibility of companies following on from there NOT to attempt to infringe -- just the same as it would be their responsibility not to name their mobile phone the "Galazy S", or the "Blackbury", or any number of OTHER "trivial variations to the generic term" that resemble products already on the market.
Interestingly -- to me, at least -- is; that, if I read aright, Apple maintains the sole right to the name iPhone for "computing devices", just not cellphones. Does this mean that the Brazilian company has to cripple their (otherwise,non-infringing) telephone so that it can't access the Google store or run non-phone applications? It seems to me that a case could be made that allowing it to run non-telephony-related apps would put it dangerously close to, if not INTO, the area of a "computing device".
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I presume Apple will be watching closely to see if they can get evidence to show that Android phones are confusingly similar the the US iPhone (losing track of where they can't use the name these days). Just wait for the number of people returning them as they were expecting the Apple variant.
Of course if that number is negligible then Apple may have to find a different reason.
So little time. Some of you need a new hobby. It was an corrupt decision that was the result of people being paid off. I give you a little under the table and we can all profit off the Americans. If I were apple, I would pull the iphone strait out of brazil before anyone could even blink.
This post has been deleted by its author
"It was an corrupt decision that was the result of people being paid off." Yes it was, but the article isn't about the billion dollar judgement in the Apple vs Samsung patent infringement case. Please stay on-topic.
Speaking of which, I would have found it highly suspicious if the trademark had been given to the rich American company when the other party put their application in 7 years earlier, years before anyone had even heard of the Apple iPhone.
I wonder did they trademark Jesus Phone, might be a tough one to get past them in a strongly catholic country...... But no-one would be in any doubt what the product was.
I wonder if they export those android iphones? maybe its a nice metal case with some fruit above it on the back, or possibly just a picture of some rainforest on fire.
Samsung's team pushed very hard in 2012 to get their "market share" numbers up to sail past Apple's iPhone in order to ride their new found momentum into 2013 and into all-new territory with a new operating system. That will sting Google's Android whose only star player is Samsung.
Thats right! A new Korean report states that Samsung is going to try a breakaway move from Google with its own operating system and perhaps a new Samsung Store for online shoppers. Now that Samsung Electronics has emerged as a global smartphone leader, it must correct its one glaring weakness: Software. Samsung is reported about to introduce its very own operating system at the Mobile World Congress at the end of this month. Samsung will showcase a high-end phone running on the new OS to a closed group of clients.
Samsung officially announced that it plans to release the phone within this year.
And poor el-Reg cant bring you the news because they're too slow milking click-throughs working up the Fandroids against Appletards.
Tsk tsk tsk
You do know that Samsung already has its own App Store type thing, don't you? But it is android apps in there.
Are you suggesting (leaking?) the idea that Samsung has invented a new os on the quiet but has enough debs and apps to take on google / apple?
No wonder you are AC.
So who says Apple doesn't plagiarise repeatedly?
Apples logo and name were 'borrowed' from competitors when it could only afford half-page adverts in the BYTE magazine.
Now a COUNTRY has proved that Apple missed the mark by several years.
They should have done a Walmart - paid off officials in South America.
quote: "Remember, this is where the Android (and Windows) fanbois come to play.
ANY attempt to defend Apple in any way will meet with the total disapproval of the Android children, and ther true revealed faith.
I'd like to thank everyone in this thread for making my point for me."
I'd have to say that your comments do seem to fly a little close to "true revealed faith" territory themselves, you know. Are you implying that a trademark applied for in 2000 should be nullified because another manufacturer created a product with the same name in a different country, seven years later? The first iPhone was released on June 29, 2007 (according to wikifiddlers, anyway), which is definitely prior to the grant of trademark, but is seven years after the application by Gradiente.
On a purely logical basis, the trademark and patent system would have to be first come, first served. Since this is what has appeared to happen in Brazil (2000 is definitely before 2007, when Apple applied), I can only assume that you are advocating that large companies should be able to shortcut the system because they have done something in an entirely different jurisdiction? Are you implying that the US Trademark granted to Apple should have precedence worldwide?
I'm sure you are a very nice person, but you do appear to be (deliberately?) ignoring some of the basic facts of this story in your rush to tar anyone who disagrees with your (implied) opinion as some sort of mindless "fanboi" of an alternative phone operating system. I hate to be the adult in the room, but an OS is just a tool the same as the phone itself; the issue here is one of naming rights not hardware capabilities, and I cannot honestly find fault with the way it has been handled. Brazil, as an independant coutry with sovereign rights, are at liberty to handle this any way they see fit. They have handled it exactly in accordance with their own statutes, and since Dec 2012 is contained within the 5 year period from 2008 (I note that article does not state the date in 2008 that marks the start of the 5 year period) Gradiente would appear to have satisfied their obligations to keep the trademark.
Lets see how the appeal by Apple turns out. That will speak volumes about Brazil's legislative structure, and tolerance to bribery, not this decision :)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021