Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Loses Aussie Trademark Complaint Over "i" Name

Posted by timothy on 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.)"

3 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Way to stick it to the man! by hellop2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple didn't invent the 'i' concept anyways. The 'i' comes from "Internet" because we called it the "iNet" back in the BBS days.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  2. Re:iFirst by daath93 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In what universe is apple the fourth largest publicly traded American company? The Forbes Global 2000 has them ranked at 113 (behind many many American companies) with about 4.86 billion in profits and a total market value of 79.54 billion. Even Microsoft is only ranked 49th with 3 times the profits and market value.

  3. Re:iFirst by hanabal · · 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.