Apple Loses Aussie Trademark Complaint Over "i" Name 177
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.)"
iFirst (Score:5, Funny)
This post has been taken to court by Apple due to violations regarding the iFirst.
Re:iFirst (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:iFirst (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
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:iFirst (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Market capitaization. ie, it's stock price multiplied by the number of share on issue.
There's no "one" way to measure a company's size. The Forbes article is horrendously out of date on market cap. Apple is the clear #2 tech stock now behind microsoft. I think at the moment, the order goes Exxon, Microsoft, PetroChina, then Apple.
It's really big, and the fact that its price to earnings ratio is much higher than any other really huge company means the market thinks its profits are fairly safe, with more upsi
Re: (Score:2)
That probably means that there is not much more upside for Apple shares. For the most part, they are selling expensive consumer toys that people can live without. Look at the products associated with the other companies on the list. If the consumer should ever lose discretionary spending power which company's products do you think they'd stop buying first?
Apparently not Apple, which reported their best quarters ever during the last year. This despite massive unemployment and loss of discretionary spending power due to the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression (so we keep hearing, anyway).
Re:iFirst (Score:5, Informative)
the beatles saga was another case of Apples douchiness actually. The Beatles record label was called apple records a subsidiary or Apple Corps, they had a trademark and everything. Along comes apple computers and they struck a deal, signed and everything, as long as apple computers stays out of the music game its all good. This is pretty much standard for trademarks, the idea is that if anyone hears the name apple associated with music they will think of The Beatles. for pretty much any trademark the rules are stay out of the same market and you can use the same name. All good so far. Then apple computers starts selling ipods and itunes, hey wait a sec they said they weren't going to do that. This is why the beatles sued, and rightfully so.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
US companies by Market Cap:
Exxon Mobil 315.38B
Microsoft 256.45B
Apple 205.57B
Wal-Mart 205.37B
Berkshire Hathaway 203.20B
Google 184.28B
Procter & Gamble 183.92B
General Electric 181.81B
Johnson & Johnson 176.62B
Re: (Score:2)
But then, so do the Beatles (for some, purveyors of simililary overrated products) for suing Apple way back when.
I thought it was Apple Music, which held the rights to most of the Beatles music, that sued Apple Computer. Not they're any less dicks, but I don't know if the Beatles themselves were behind that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago, a Mac Pro was cheaper than an equivalent Dell. That was a sweet time.
Now they seem to be lagging.
It doesn't help that they refuse to build an "XMac" - an expandable tower with desktop price / quality parts, and consumer (not server) CPUs.
Re:iFirst (Score:5, Funny)
If Apple were a person he would be a total douche
He'd also be wearing a turtleneck, have a starbucks double half-calf-frappa-moccha-chino, goatee, and thick black-rimmed glasses.
Oh yeah, and a liberal arts degree.
Re: (Score:2)
He'd also be wearing a turtleneck, have a starbucks double half-calf-frappa-moccha-chino, goatee, and thick black-rimmed glasses.
Oh yeah, and a liberal arts degree.
I imagine this particular brand of trademark iDouchebaggery comes from the business school graduates hired by Apple's king-of-mock-turtlenecks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Half CALF??? (Score:2)
If Apple were a person he would be a total douche
He'd also be wearing a turtleneck, have a starbucks double half-calf-frappa-moccha-chino, goatee, and thick black-rimmed glasses.
Oh yeah, and a liberal arts degree.
I hope you mean half CAF or CAFE. Whether he's a douche maybe up for debate but whether he takes half a cow (even a small one) in his coffee isn't!
Re: (Score:2)
have a starbucks double half-calf-frappa-moccha-chino
Is that the one made with calf's milk or veal?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's trademark law, they're supposed to. You're trying to attribute hypocrisy to a situation that's actually created by the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't care about other peoples names but then cries over some company
I don't think Apple is crying, it's cold, hard business action. They know the rules of the game, and they are willing to stretch them to the limits of what they can. Sometimes they lose, and that's ok, it's part of the game. But there's no crying.
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Where is the surprise here? They want what's best for them whichever side of the argument they're on. People are generally like this, and corporations are known to be even less even-handed than people.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a person, according to the Supreme Court. And not just a person, but an aristocrat with rights and no responsibilites. And, just like every other company, Apple is a complete sociopath.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember back to 1980 and I still don't think you really know what you're talking about when you say that Apple came from the same mold as Microsoft.
Can you elaborate, or is this just the new faulty Slashdot meme (ie "Apple is the new Microsoft")?
Re: (Score:2)
It's your remark that's faulty. It's been 25 years since 1980. That's plenty of time for a good company to go bad.
On the other hand, Apple tried to sue Microsoft over basic GUI tech. So clearly they weren't the corporate version of Ghandi back in the day. Imagine what kind of damage that kind of nonsense could do to the industry. They're pretty much trying to repeat the same thing now. The current patent regime just might let them succeed this time.
Say what you want about Microsoft... (Score:4, Insightful)
...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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention in terms of market share MS completely dominates with greater then 90%.
on what fucking way is apple bigger then MS???
Re:Say what you want about Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's why Microsoft got bigger than Apple. Because they were actually less evil and more open than Apple were.
Not really. It's because Microsoft chose to market an operating system that would run on computers made by any company that was "PC Compatible" and then worked out deals with those manufacturers to only offer Microsoft OSes. And those backroom deals were sleazy and illegal and Microsoft got called out for them, so don't give Microsoft a free ride on the "evil" bit. Apple, on the other hand, insisted on owning the whole enchilada, lock stock and barrel, never seeing themselves as a pure software company. Ga
You mean Apple doesn't sell real apples... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you linked to a wikipedia article about skateboard. I hope we aren't that nerdy here on /. Some of you must have played Tony Hawk games, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, some of us did get a little confused when they talked about Woolworth's [wikipedia.org] selling apples, so I could easily see people thinking "get off my lawn" about the skateboard thing, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, they would do, since outside of New Zealand and Australia Woolworths refers to an entirely unrelated chain of stores that sells totally different things...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason to be surprised that they were selling apples. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
I think they lost it at the point where (Score:4, Funny)
They told the Australian court that the country would have to change its name to Australya.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bad summary (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bad summary (Score:4, Funny)
Still, buying a product pronounced "dopey" sums up Apple's customers aptly! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it is a good idea or not, or if people will be fooled is irrelevant. Trademark law is such that you must defend your trademarks lest they become generic.
If in some later iPod trademark case that it much more blatant (say someone releases a music player called the iP0d, with a 0 instead of an o) and they take that to court, the defence can look back at past situations and argue that Apple has not been defending the mark, thus it has a case for being generic.
See: kleenex, Xerox, Hoover, Zamboni.
They k
Re: (Score:2)
> ...if people will be fooled is irrelevant.
Perhaps in Australia, but in the USA it is the essence of trademark.
> They know that no one is going to confuse this with an actual Apple product,
> but they have to protect the trademark.
If no one is going to confuse this with an actual Apple product the trademark is not threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the word is iPod spelled backwards, very deliberately. Even if it is obvious that it can't be confused, it is something they have to take beyond a polite letter of annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article summary also said that Apple sells a "Macpro" computer. They don't. The computer's name is Mac Pro. I don't think the litigation regarding the store name is ethical tough.
Apple doesn't seem to go after iAnything unless it's more similar to one of their product names than that, for example. They didn't try stopping Cisco's iPhone before they had their own product, and later made a deal to use the name in the US. I wish Apple would give up the "i" naming system though, it's starting to wear t
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't try stopping Cisco's iPhone before they had their own product, and later made a deal to use the name in the US. I wish Apple would give up the "i" naming system though, it's starting to wear thin on me and strikes me as being unimaginative, lame and starting to feel stupid on an "Idiocracy" level.
See, but this is what's wrong with this whole picture. You admit that Cisco had the "iPhone" product first, presumably had some sort of registered trademark on it, etc. Along comes Apple and tries to
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least one person read the summary before going into FROTH_AT_THE_MOUTH mode...
Now all we need is for some company to do something with lleD, utnubU, etc., etc. since those trademarks are obviously available and are OK to use by most of these posters' statements.
The first sign of trouble was... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps before the lawsuit... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when the ruling was headlined iDon'tThinkSo.
Hey! That's a good one! iGetIt.
Former Apple Trademark lawyer gets interviewed (Score:2, Funny)
and said "iTold you so".
Ugh, I just died a little inside (Pun Allergy).
Proof the Australian legal system is broken (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
combine that with peter garrett getting sacked from the environmental portfolio for his pink batts failure, and if we can get Rudd to reign in his spending, we might have a 1/2 sane government and legal system in the works.
Re: (Score:2)
the half of the government that's insane still wants the internet filter :(
Re: (Score:2)
The pink batts "failure" was actually a failure of the media and spin:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/did-the-insulation-program-actually-reduce-fire-risk/ [crikey.com.au]
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/risk-and-incompetence-in-an-insulated-media/ [crikey.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't confuse the man with facts and reason. It's not like sarcasm is invisible to him, surely.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. Further proof: no only did Woolworth's get away with stealing Apple's logo, they even stole their own name [woolworths.com.au]!
Way to stick it to the man! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is an article from 1995 from the ACM: http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds2-1/inet-history.html. [acm.org]
It's an article on Internet History. Notice the filename contains the word "inet" meaning "Internet".
Was Apple's first use of the "i" trademark before 1995?
Re: (Score:2)
And I remember when Ford made the Escort XR3i. That was in the 1980s, I believe, which clearly precedes Apple's use of the letter "i".
Anyway, what makes Apple think they own the right to use a letter of the alphabet? They gonna go after the Eskimos for branding their ice-houses as iGloos?
Re: (Score:2)
And I remember when Ford made the Escort XR3i. That was in the 1980s, I believe, which clearly precedes Apple's use of the letter "i".
The most obvious automotive example would be BMW, you has appended an "i" for "injected" after (almost) all of their models for a very long time. The first BMW to use a 3digit + i name was the 520i in 1972.
Re: (Score:2)
should be which has appended
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to win trademark fights? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an app for that.
iAsshole?
The world. (Score:5, Funny)
Powered by 26 letters, and therefore a maximum of 26 companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bummer to be the company that gets stuck with "R"
They'll go broke suing all the pirates.
Sci Fi to the Rescue...Again (Score:5, Funny)
Frank Herbert, the author of "Dune" wrote a couple of novels set in a universe where lawyers who chose to fight a case literally had to fight it...and die if they lost. "Whipping Star" was one of them.
I think he was onto something. I, for one, would pay big money to see lawyers die.
Re:Sci Fi to the Rescue...Again (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem being, of course, some people wouldn't get representation and would end up being steamrolled. A more fair approach would be that only the lawyer bringing the case would need to win it or die trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that would certainly get rid of lawyers; then who would defence the innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was onto something. I, for one, would pay big money to see lawyers die.
You lie. You would just download the video coverage with bit torrent. Piracy is hurting the legal system.
It's a kwaZulu prefix, get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Mother Nature looses her appeal (Score:2, Funny)
In a severe blow to food naming conventions Mother Nature has lost her bid to retain the name "Apple" for the fruit of the same name. In a compromise Apple is allowing Mother Nature to have their unused trademark iSlate for all apple type fruits. This is seen as a victory for the US and Mom's iSlate pie!
Oh the irony (Score:5, Interesting)
When talking of trademarks, the Australian Woothworths company actually had absolutely nothing to do with the FW Woolworth company and its famous US and UK stores (and apparently stores in other countries that are still trading under the Woolworths brand). One of the founders of the Australian company, Ernest Robert Williams, called the company Woolworths as part of a dare, only to find that FW Woolworth had not trademarked the name in Australia, therefore the trademark was deemed valid.
This highlight the issue of trademarks. Even in a globalised society, a company cannot expect by implication that its trademark will automatically be protected across the world, without registering the trademark correctly. If it were, could Volkswagen sue Apple for the use of the "i" letter since the company first used the designation on the Golf GTi in 1975?
Perhaps somebody could trademark the word iDIOT, to prevent situations like this from occurring.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the distinctiveness of the mark. Even unregistered trademarks can be protected if they are fanciful. So if you want to ensure your trademarks are safe, the best thing to do is make them fanciful.
Adding an "i" on every word is neither original or destinctive so it's no wonder Apple has trouble defending iThings.
Re: (Score:2)
> If it were, could Volkswagen sue Apple for the use of the "i" letter since
> the company first used the designation on the Golf GTi in 1975?
Not in the USA. There would be no infringement.
Apple (Score:3, Funny)
iLitigiousBastards
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
all I can think of when reading this is : "iMe A River"....
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
iEvil (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had an international trademark and $35 billion in cash and short term investments, I would sue people even if I knew I would lose.
And I would call you an asshole who's abusing the system, and costing other people the money that they take home to feed their families and pay rent.
Re: (Score:2)
i hope your not a CEO of any company...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On that I have to disagree. The approach is short-sighted as there is at least one other cost you are not considering -- "good will." Apple is burning its public image with these sorts of abusive legal actions.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they learned that good will doesn't matter all that much when it comes to the bottom line. Microsoft has for years burned good will, buried it, danced on it's grave and then salted the earth where it used to grow and they are still the biggest software company around.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft has for years burned good will, buried it, danced on it's grave and then salted the earth where it used to grow and they are still the biggest software company around.
I totally agree with your statement, but IMHO the most important word here is STILL. One of these days, M$ will slip, and then they'll need all the good will they dilapidated. In the future, people will be making lists like this "Ashton Tate, WordPerfect, SCO... Microsoft...". They have been stretching the rubber band for 40 years, You don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's coming.
As for Apple, Google and the rest, yes, they'll probably end also being part of that list.
Re: (Score:2)
It has no choice. If they do not bring a suit (even one that may lose) later trademark cases that are more blatant have stronger grounds to argue that the term is now generic since Apple hasn't been protecting it.
No one said that trademark law was sensible.
The Woolworths one was about a blanket trademark - Woolworths wanted a blanket trademark for their new logo (ie, to cover every sector of business, including computing) and Apple sued to exclude them from that section due to infringement. It's highly unli
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if Apple will next go after Apple Records.
The Beatles used them near the end as their label
The label has an Apple on it
Things that make you go Hmmm
Re: (Score:2)
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org]
On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to "Apple" and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million U.S..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 'W' logo mentioned in the summary is used primarily for the supermarkets - the electrical / tech stores are branded differently eg: 'Dick Smiths' and 'Tandy', not 'Dick Smiths a subsidiary of Woolworths'.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are protecting their trademarks, which they are required to do, else they are in danger of becoming generic. Even if they lose the case, they have to bring the case in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
> Even if they lose the case, they have to bring the case in the first place.
No they don't. There is clearly no infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
iPod spelled backwards, with a small i, for a case designed to hold a portable music player (among other computer things).
How is that not infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever happened to Apple being the goodguys? They had this image of being friendly and having a great product, but ever since they released the iPod its like it was the catalyst that turned them to the darkside.
Trust me on this one, it was just image. I knew Apple from back in the Apple I days, and Jobs was a dick even then, a hopped up salesman at best. Wozniak I respected ... to have designed and prototyped the Apple ][, Monitor ROM and floppy disk controller at his age was remarkable. Close to genius-level work, I'd say.
For all its flaws and warts (and it has many) Microsoft has put forth more effort to support its customers over the years than Apple ever has. I agree with you, they've seemed like bigger dic