Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Australia Your Rights Online Apple

Apple Loses Aussie Trademark Complaint Over "i" Name 177

Posted by timothy
from the but-maybe-only-at-the-end dept.
CuteSteveJobs writes "Apple has been dealt a severe blow having been told that it no longer has a monopoly on the letter 'i' for product naming. IP Australia, the government body that oversees trademark applications, rejected Apple's complaint against a company selling 'DOPi' laptop bags. Last year Australian computer company Macpro Computers claimed that after 26 years of flying its own Macpro brand that Apple was 'trying to burn us out' with legal fees. This was after Apple released its own Macpro line 3½ years ago. Apple lost that complaint, but is appealing. Last year Apple went after supermarket Woolworths complaining their new logo which featured a 'W' fashioned into the shape of an apple. (Woolworths sells real apples.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Loses Aussie Trademark Complaint Over "i" Name

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:06AM (#31461950)

    ...but if Apple was as big as Microsoft is now and had the same legal attitude, the legal climate in computing would look even far worse than it does now.

  • Re:iFirst (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:07AM (#31461966) Journal

    It's weird Apple even cries over such, especially when other companies have been using similar names for years. Adding an i before a word in name, what an invention. iPad [wikipedia.org] has the same story too, and then Apple just came along and took it. There's even a hand-held device Fujitsu iPAD [wikipedia.org] from 2002.

    Apple doesn't care about other peoples names but then cries over some company that has been using Macpro name for over 25 years before Apple. Just like they didn't care about Nokia's patents but instantly cries when someone even considers anything close to Apple's patents. If Apple were a person he would be a total douche, but of course we again see some Apple fanboys coming to defend this douchebag.

  • Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by curmi (205804) on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:07AM (#31461968)

    It seems clear, avoiding the anti-Apple stance of the article and the summary, that Apple went after someone for infringing on "iPod", which is "DOPi" backwards. They didn't go after them for using iSomething. This looked like an infringement of their existing trademark, but they didn't win.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  • Assholes (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:08AM (#31461972)

    Any chance these fuckers can be declared vexatious litigants?

    Most of these are ridiculous and meritless, and Apple is only hoping to crush their opponents under a torrent of legal fees.

  • by mjwx (966435) on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:11AM (#31461988)
    First AFACT (Australia's RIAA) lose and courts clearly state that ISP's are not responsible for policing their users now they have the audacity to claim Apple has no right to destroy other companies over vague allusions to product names or names they have been using for 20 years.

    Preposterous I say, this simply cannot stand, as an Australian I demand that our legal system be fixed so that innocent mega-corporations can no longer be inconvenienced by our clearly erroneous laws.
  • by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:27AM (#31462066)

    If I had an international trademark and $35 billion in cash and short term investments, I would sue people even if I knew I would lose.

    And I would call you an asshole who's abusing the system, and costing other people the money that they take home to feed their families and pay rent.

  • Re:iFirst (Score:4, Insightful)

    by value_added (719364) on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:31AM (#31462074)

    If Apple were a person he would be a total douche, but of course we again see some Apple fanboys coming to defend this douchebag.

    What I didn't know and was surprised to learn was the following:

    Apple [has a] market capitalisation of close to $US200 billion, making it the fourth largest publicly traded American company

    If Apple's a douchebag, then it's a Really Big Douchebag. On the other hand, with only a handful of consumer products from which they seem to make most of their money, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they'd be so aggressive at protecting their names and associations in the mind of consumers. Or from a pure business sense, faulted for doing so.

    Good business sense or not, I'd agree they qualify as a douchebag. But then, so do the Beatles (for some, purveyors of simililary overrated products) for suing Apple way back when.

  • Re:Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource (238333) on Saturday March 13, 2010 @02:36AM (#31462098)

    Yes, I'm sure consumers were fooled into thinking that a DOPi was really an iPod because of the similar size and shape and the fact that they both start out empty.

  • by tgv (254536) on Saturday March 13, 2010 @03:25AM (#31462294) Journal

    IF anyone has a right to complain, it's the Zulus. In kwaZulu (their language), an i- is prefixed to any loan word, and the following word is then capitalized. So radio in kwaZulu would be: iRadio. Looks familiar?

  • by PietjeJantje (917584) on Saturday March 13, 2010 @07:50AM (#31463092)
    The problem with AAPL is, if Steve Jobs drops dead tomorrow, it will implode in catastrophic ways. But if a piano falls out of the sky and takes out Balmer, MSFT will go up.

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it. -- E. Hubbard

Working...