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.)"

5 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Say what you want about Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Say what you want about Microsoft... by PietjeJantje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:iFirst by sopssa · · 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 has the same story too, and then Apple just came along and took it. There's even a hand-held device Fujitsu iPAD 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.

  3. Proof the Australian legal system is broken by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Re:iFirst by value_added · · 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:

    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.