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 …
He who trolls last trolls longest.
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.
And you think it does make sense someone is allowed to sell a product called iPhone? It's not even a different type of product.
For once common sense is on Apple's side.
They *applied* in 2000. It was *granted* in 2008.
because cisco might argue with you there
dont drink the apple flavoured coolaid my friend
that last one was @ jdx
just to be clear
No, they applied for the tradmark in 2000, and were granted it in 2008, so they didn't make use of the trademark within 5 years of applying for it, but did so within 5 years of it finally being granted. Exactly the sort of gray area that makes lawyers rich...
matters not - since the 5 years start from the moment the application is GRANTED not from when they apply for it, hence they were still well within the 5 year term
Um no. The Brazilian company applied for the trademark way back in 2000 but didn't get it approved until 2008. Apple applied in 2006, before any actual product had been created by Gradiente and after more than 5 years of them doing nothing with it.
They applied for the trademark in 2000 and it was granted in 2008; presumably Gradiente'll argue that they had 5 years from it being GRANTED to act upon it, whereas Apple will be contesting that they should have had a commercial model by 2005.
Since when is common sense on the side of the company that is using someone else's trademark that they applied for 7 years before the infringing party?
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?
"... applied for the trademark in 2008, they made it in 2012 - thats (sic) 4 years..."
1: granted in 2008, not applied.
2: 2008 to 2012 inclusive is 5 years. Egregious math fail.
true i should have used granted there - my bad
however its only 5 years if the trademark was granted 1st jan 2008 and the phone was made 31st dec 2012 (and thats even stretching it as it should really be 1st jan 2013)
otherwise still under 5 years. the math is strong with this one.
I'm going on what the BBC, quoting the Brazilian INPI who granted the trademark had to say, not Ana's in her bile spewing mood.
Wow I expect a bite or two, but that response was like when Jesus tells the fishermen to put down their nets one more time and they catch so many the boat almost sinks.
You're so easy to play.
JDX - So you say something stupid, then when it gets a deserved negative response you respond with "Oh, I was just trolling"?
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.
Apple agreed to buy the rights to use the name from Linksys I think.
In Brazil the company that got the iPhone name didn't produce a product until after the iPhone was launched, so it is blatant cashing in.
Trademarks have to be used or you lose them.
Oops you defended Apple! No thumbs up for you! So sayeth the holy church of Android!
Perhaps that's how you get the gold badge - kinda like a Daily Mail article, just designed to attract "vigorous discussion" amongst the masses...
>>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?
Trademarks have to be used or you lose them.
It seems it was used and within the window required by the law. What is the problem here?
>What is the problem here?
The problem here is that the most holy jobsonian grail - the jEsusphone no-less - has been spurned in Brazil. The fanboise faithful are clearly very upset and shall squeem and squeem until they're thick.
You. Were. Not. Trolling.
Immediately resign from your "handed down from on high for no apparent reason" gold badge, you have 'orribly embarrassed yourself.
The worlds best iphone?
It has Android on it so it must be good? yeah right. There are some downright awful cheap ass Android phones around that would make people rather have anal surgery than suffer.
Android works well on the high end phones, low end is a different matter.
"Android works well on the high end phones, low end is a different matter."
But what does work on the low end phones then? You certainly cant be saying iOS performs better than Android on shitty devices, can you?
I'm sure this won't affect Apple's investment in manufacturing in Brazil...
they had a strip or two torn off them.
Paris, because she knows about Brazilians.
>"It's about time... they had a strip or two torn off them."
I didn't get the joke the first two times I read it - very funny. Guess I need coffee this morning!
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".
Any company that has a name which is in the public consciousness has a right to defend it if something blatantly similar appears.
I suspect that unknown UK broadcasting company that's been operating for 50+ years might have something to say about the naming of an iTV device/product targeted at the UK market.
> Any company that has a name which is in the public consciousness has a right to defend it if something blatantly similar appears.
I hold the trademark on Anonymous Coward. All of you anonymous cowards posting under that name will hear from my lawyers.
"If Apple were really desperate" Looks like they are as they let a thing like this distract them. Bankruptcy around the corner, no doubt.
"shiny gimcrack" - Harsh!
'tis only a gewgaw.
No, it's ok. I can't find an iota of sympathy for Apple (thought some had fallen in with the lint in my pockets)
... to get a trademark application approved in one country?! That's ridiculous. The Brazilian government must be running on molasses.
They probably take 20 years to lay 100 miles of railway too, these backwards countries.
Why not molasses? Mussolini's govt ran the trains on thyme...
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.
"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.
The iphone strait isn't in Brazil, it;s in the far East somewhere...