RSS
Australian Trademark Tribunal Tells Apple That It Can't Stop Other Products From Using The Letter 'i'
from the imorons-in-ihurry dept
Late last year we noticed that Apple seemed to be getting needlessly (and at times ridiculously) aggressive over its trademarks in Australia. There was the software developer who had a product named iPodRip, which had been around for years, which Steve Jobs suddenly decided needed to change its name. When the developer pleaded directly to Jobs, Jobs replied "Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal," which is amusing since the Beatles once tried to force Jobs to change the name of Apple -- and to him it was a big deal. Then there's the lawsuit against Macpro, a company that's been in business for 26 years -- since before Apple even had Macintosh as a product. And, finally, there's Apple's decision to fight Woolworth's in Australia (and New Zealand) because its logo looks sorta like an apple, though absolutely nothing like Apple's apple logo.
While some of those disputes are ongoing, Apple has now lost a different trademark claim, while also being smacked down for thinking that just because a product has the letter "i" it means it violates an Apple trademark. In this case, it wasn't even the first letter of the product -- which was DOPi. Admittedly, this is iPod backwards, but no moron in a hurry -- which, I should note, was the legal standard that Apple's own lawyers brought back into vogue a few years ago -- is going to look at a product called DOPi and confuse it with an official Apple product.
And it wasn't like the folks on the tribunal just don't like Apple. The head guy is apparently a fan, but finds it ridiculous that Apple seems to think anything with an "i" is infringing:
While some of those disputes are ongoing, Apple has now lost a different trademark claim, while also being smacked down for thinking that just because a product has the letter "i" it means it violates an Apple trademark. In this case, it wasn't even the first letter of the product -- which was DOPi. Admittedly, this is iPod backwards, but no moron in a hurry -- which, I should note, was the legal standard that Apple's own lawyers brought back into vogue a few years ago -- is going to look at a product called DOPi and confuse it with an official Apple product.
And it wasn't like the folks on the tribunal just don't like Apple. The head guy is apparently a fan, but finds it ridiculous that Apple seems to think anything with an "i" is infringing:
In the tribunal hearing, IP Australia, the government body that oversees trademark applications, said Apple overlooked the fact that there were already a large number of products that have the "i" prefix, for example iSkin and iSoft to name just two, all of which are operating in the same class of electronic goods as Apple.Chalk one up for iCommon sense.
The registrar overseeing the case Michael Kirov, who confessed to being a tech head and a fan of Apple's products, judged that Apple failed to demonstrate that a "person of ordinary intelligence and memory" would automatically assume that just because a product carries the letter "i" it is an Apple product.
I have an idea...
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
I’m looking for research...
The Growing App Market
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
I’m looking for policy...
Jon Potter: Software Patent Trolls Can Be Stopped By U.S. Patent Office And Congress
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
good way to start a Friday. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
In My Imagination…
Apple Again Responds with iNuke
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I have just been sent here by Apple to tell you to
cease and desist immediately.
We (Apple) may have a product in the future that uses the word icommon or icommon technology (also yet to be developed) and dont appreciate you violating one of our (yet to be) trademarks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@www.eZee.se
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: iCommon
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So....
First we are going after Nintendo for having the i in "Nintendo", that is a clear violation of our copyright.
We have repeatedly told them its no big deal to simply drop the i and be Nntendo, we think it has a nice ring to it.
Heck! We even suggested they use this as they slogan:
Two N's are better than one
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, that's iNFRINGEMENT!!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @www.eZee.se
Our lawyers will be contacting you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @www.eZee.se
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Can We Use Eye Eyenstead?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
New higher trademark bar
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can We Use Eye Eyenstead?
That'll be $40k or both your kidneys, por favor....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Can We Use Eye Eyenstead?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I like a reasonable man
I like how Australia has raised the bar a bit above a moron in a hurry.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
what about
would be interested in hearing your opinion on that one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment