Apple Loses Trademark Claim Against iFone in Mexico

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Loses Trademark Claim Against iFone in Mexico

Posted by Soulskill on Friday November 2, 2012 @01:27AM from the still-working-on-the-i-time-machine dept.

sfcrazy writes "Apple is having trouble in Mexico right before the holiday season. The company has lost rights to the name iPhone in the country, as it was already owned by a Mexican telecom company called iFone (Google translation of Spanish original). iFone registered its trademark in 2003, four years before Apple iPhone was launched. In 2009, Apple filed a complaint with the Mexican Industrial Property Institute demanding that iFone stop using is name because it could confuse users. That claim was since denied, and iFone is looking to turn the tables."

192 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Watch... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

...as Samsung quickly buys out iFone.
For "defensive IP," of course.
1. Re:Watch... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  I LOVE my Apple products. You couldn't pry my Air from my cold dead hands.
  That said, Apple's patent suits are complete and utter BULLSHIT.
  Can't you just stick to making really swell, extremely expensive products for me to drool over and buy? I remember a time when that was good enough. :/
2. Re:Watch... by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-11-03 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  So here's what really happened.
  
  Apple already owns two iPhone trademarks in Mexico in Class 9 and Class 28, which covers electronic game devices. But in 2009, Apple's lawyers decided iFone's Mexican Class 38 mark wasn't being actively used, and they filed a lawsuit to try and get it canceled so they could register their own pending Class 38 mark on "iPhone." iFone obviously disagreed and convinced the Mexican courts that they were still using the mark in commerce, which is where today's ruling comes from — Apple lost another round of appeals trying to cancel the iFone mark in Class 38. iFone attorney Eduardo Gallastegui was obviously happy about it, telling wire service Efe that "iFone is fully entitled to the use of its brand name."
  The confusion appears to come from what Gallastegui told El Universal, which details iFone's trademark infringement countersuit and demands against Apple. Garbled through Google Translate, it sounds like the court ordered Apple to pay substantial fines and perhaps even pull the iPhone from market — a big deal since the iPhone 5 just launched with Mexican carrier partners. But those are just the demands, and iFone's case doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. We'll obviously update if we learn otherwise, but I would guess Apple and iFone will eventually settle this one and we'll never hear about it again.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
3. Re:Watch... by Phoghat · 2012-11-03 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  +1, FTW !
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Didn't Do The Research by TheSpoom · 2012-11-02 01:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, or are arrogant to the point of being harmful to their interests.

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
1. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Given (or especially since) it's Apple, why not both?
2. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sd4f · 2012-11-02 01:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It's not arrogance, it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system, the lawyers will latch on to any small detail, or whatever in the hopes of making a successful case, no matter how compelling the oppositions evidence is.
3. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  When it comes to Apple, never attribute to incompetence what can be better explained by malice.
4. Re:Didn't Do The Research by ByOhTek · 2012-11-02 01:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Ahh, you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.
  You've obviously never met my ex-girlfriend...
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
5. Re:Didn't Do The Research by TheSpoom · 2012-11-02 01:51 · Score: 2
  
  Great. I have a question: Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case? I sincerely doubt it.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
6. Re:Didn't Do The Research by bhagwad · 2012-11-02 01:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Breathtakingly arrogant. I wonder what possible reasons they could have given to the judge to demand that a company which had previously registered a trademark should take it down because they graced the market by introducing a phone with a similar name.
  I'm not surprise that Apple lost. I'm stunned that they litigated in the first place. Looks like the tables turned on them since they have now lost the rights to "iPhone" entirely. I'm betting that this was not what they expected.
7. Re:Didn't Do The Research by TheRaven64 · 2012-11-02 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't the first time that this has happened. Cisco owned the trademarks on both iPhone and IOS when Apple launched the device. Apple now licenses these both from Cisco. The other high-profile example is Rendezvous, Apple's name for ZeroConf, which just so happened to be the name of someone else's product that did something similar. They had to rebrand all of their Rendezvous stuff as Bonjour. Apple and Google both have a tendency to skip trademark searches and just launch products, then deal with the fallout if anyone complains.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:Didn't Do The Research by bhagwad · 2012-11-02 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  I like Google. But if they sued someone over a trademark that was already in use before their own product, I would call them dicks as well. To my knowledge this hasn't happened - but I'm open to correction.
  Suing someone in this way takes evil to a whole new level.
9. Re:Didn't Do The Research by TheGratefulNet · 2012-11-02 02:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I worked at cisco in the early 90's and I remember a time when we had a corp lawyer come in and give us some guidance on what to do about patents and how this should affect us, the coders.
  their answer: don't look, just code! if you look and find, you are guilty if you continue along, but if you never knew about such and such, you were told to stop but not found guilty.
  we were surprised but this was the 'high powered lawyer' telling us the official cisco line, back then (back when it was all of 3 buildings up in menlo park.)
  maybe apple is doing the same; not fully researching and then hoping they can get a 'well, we TRIED but we might have missed a few; but we meant well' ruling.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
10. Re:Didn't Do The Research by EasyTarget · 2012-11-02 02:09 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case?
  I seem to recall that in the late 60's some 'popular beat combo' going by the strange name of 'The Beatles' had a music production company called 'Apple'.
  They tried to sue an upstart popular IT company of the same name and lost because that IT company was not in the music business... In fact, as part of the settlement they each signed an agreement that they would not use their trademarks in competing businesses.
  If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
  
  --
  "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
11. Re:Didn't Do The Research by gedeco · 2012-11-02 02:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I cannot wait until Apple claims the rights to the word iDIOT....
12. Re:Didn't Do The Research by SydShamino · 2012-11-02 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Patents are different than trademarks; for patents, damages increase if the infringement is deemed willful, so having deniability under oath is a good thing.
  What is supposed to happen of course, if you think something might be patented, is to call the company lawyer, and then do a patent search in his presence. That ought to be covered by attorney-client privileges and you could deny it ever happened while under oath.
  I'm not a lawyer, of course; that's just a rough summary of what I was told by one of our lawyers.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
13. Re:Didn't Do The Research by poetmatt · 2012-11-02 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not the first or the last time such a situation has happened for them. Woz was about the only thing at apple preventing shit like this from happening regularly. What astounds me is people seem to forget apple, microsoft, cisco and oracle have always been this way. It's funny when people act like these companies change from time to time - they don't.
14. Re:Didn't Do The Research by StripedCow · 2012-11-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system
  If every person on Earth would walk as close to the line of what is legally acceptable as Apple, what a world we would live in.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
15. Re:Didn't Do The Research by beltsbear · 2012-11-02 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that the trademark was 4 years before Apple I would say it was just arrogance. Apple seems to behave as if courts will automatically award them rights because of their size and the fact that everyone knows who they are. In many cases this is exactly what happens. This time it did not.
16. Re:Didn't Do The Research by NatasRevol · 2012-11-02 02:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  As a follow on, Apple now owns the Beatles Apple Corps logo.
  http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/10/the-beatles-apple-corps-logo-is-now-a-registered-tm-of-apple.html
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
17. Re:Didn't Do The Research by DragonWriter · 2012-11-02 02:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case?
  I seem to recall that in the late 60's some 'popular beat combo' going by the strange name of 'The Beatles' had a music production company called 'Apple'.
  True.
  
  They tried to sue an upstart popular IT company of the same name and lost because that IT company was not in the music business...
  False, they didn't lose. The case was settled. As you allude to in the next sentence. Settling a case means that no one has "won" or "lost", because it was never decided.
  
  In fact, as part of the settlement they each signed an agreement that they would not use their trademarks in competing businesses.
  That's a popular characterization of the agreement, though the actual details were (as is usually the case with legal agreements) considerably more complicated.
  
  If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
  The Beatles' Music company (Apple Corp., not Apple music inc.) didn't lose (at trial) based on the trademark itself, they lost based on the specific terms of the settlement agreement of the earlier suit, in which Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc.) was granted specific rights to use and control the use of the Apple Computer trademarks in the area of music-as-content on "goods and services ... (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content ... (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music)." So its not really an example of the phenomenon at issue.
18. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Hoi+Polloi · 2012-11-02 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit.
  They could've sat down with them and come to an agreement like reasonable adults but they instead reached for their guns. Too bad.
  
  --
  It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
19. Re:Didn't Do The Research by omnichad · 2012-11-02 02:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And then gets sued by the Illinois Department of Transportation because of brand confusion. I mean, half the state may be mispronouncing their abbreviation already, and introducing a product with that actual name will be confusing to consumers.
20. Re:Didn't Do The Research by TWX · 2012-11-02 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  OT, but right after a horrible relationship my freshman year in college, I ran into another guy who had dated the same girl, and he and others had formed a support group. This gal was so poisonous that her ex-boyfriends sought out her fresh victims.
  
  I can look back and laugh about it now, but at the time it really wasn't funny...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
21. Re:Didn't Do The Research by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-11-02 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.
  You've obviously never met my ex-girlfriend...
  I'm pretty sure I dated her too...
  Or one of her devil spawn sisters.
22. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, [...].
  Obviously they didn't. They must have paid off the wrong people.
23. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sribe · 2012-11-02 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
  IIRC, Apple Corps did not lose to Apple Computer; rather they reached a settlement involving Apple Computer paying lots of money to amend their agreement over the use of the trademark.
24. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Baloroth · 2012-11-02 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's one thing to do that. It's totally another to try to file a trademark suit against someone who already existed and has been using the mark for years before you. That isn't just intentional ignorance, that's deliberate dickishness. The correct practice is to use a different name in that region. Other very major companies do exactly that (I forget which, but at least one major chain store goes by a different name in one state due to this exact issue), but Apple doesn't want to follow the rules.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
25. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  If you mean Apple will sue the State of Illinois over it, then yes.
26. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Shotgun · 2012-11-02 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  There are multiple ways of handling this. The grandparent's lawyer accepted the position the a patent search is pointless. There are so many patents covering so many things that are so broad, if you're doing anything at all interesting it is most likely covered, (or worse, can be construed to be covered) by someone else's patent that a search is bound to uncover something. You'll never be able to ship anything. If you don't look, then you won't feel any ramifications until the patent holder identifies the infringement and brings a case. The lawyers will either be able to play courtroom games until the patent holder runs out of money and settles for a pittance, or licenses the patent, buy the holder out, or play patent-portfolio with the holder.
  The parents lawyer advises to do the naive but proper thing. His methodology will insure the company never ships a line of code, and in the end he is no better protected than the grand-parent's company.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
27. Re:Didn't Do The Research by icebraining · 2012-11-02 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Since the communication happened only so that the client could commit a tort, I don't think attorney-client privileges apply, since they would fall under the crime/tort/fraud exception: http://www.taxlitigator.com/articles/168364.htm
  IANAL, though.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
28. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous+Cowled · 2012-11-02 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Great. I have a question: Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case? I sincerely doubt it.
  "GAIM" changed their name first to "gaim", then to "Pidgin IM" after pressure from AOL, even though GAIM was named long before AOL Instant Messenger was shortened to AIM. Linky. OK, wasn't trademarked, but still.
29. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Settling a case means that no one has "won" or "lost", because it was never decided.
  Sure. And the little shit screaming uncle didn't "lose" because I didn't finish dislocating his shoulder.
30. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, or are arrogant to the point of being harmful to their interests."
  Sociopaths almost always hurt themselves in the end. However, they will kick and scream and try to drag everyone down with them, which is a sure sign.
31. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sribe · 2012-11-02 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Great. I have a question: Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case? I sincerely doubt it.
  The answer to your question almost must be no, because the law is so very clear. So the question would become, what the hell is Apple thinking?
  I actually waded through the article, and it turns out that iFone sells software to call centers. So, perhaps, Apple is thinking that is a sufficiently different line of business that consumers will not be confused. (I know that in the US, cell phones and call center software are certainly different categories for trademark.)
  The article mentions nothing about Apple trying to stop iFone from using the name. I wonder if iFone registered the mark for multiple categories which they never used? Sigh. Sure would be nice to read an article by someone who knows jackshit about trademark law and would make an effort to include the important info ;-)
32. Re:Didn't Do The Research by mrstrano · 2012-11-02 03:07 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  I think you can safely assume that most people on the Internet have, in fact, not met your ex-girlfriend. Unless you broke up because of some egregious case of cheating.
33. Re:Didn't Do The Research by EasyTarget · 2012-11-02 03:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Ooh ok, they didn't lose, they just failed to win.
  - My bad, here was I thinking that the purpose of the competition was to win. Shoulda read my own .sig really.
  As to your last paragraph; I'll simply ask if you read what the GtGrandparent post said:
  
  it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system, the lawyers will latch on to any small detail, or whatever in the hopes of making a successful case, no matter how compelling the oppositions evidence is
  ?
  
  --
  "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
34. Re:Didn't Do The Research by dmbasso · 2012-11-02 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Some more and you may file a class action lawsuit. Unless her EULA explicitly dropped your rights for it.
  Now for the serious part: yeah, girls like that may drive us crazy. I had a similar experience, and it was really hard to put an end to it.
  
  --
  `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
35. Re:Didn't Do The Research by nedlohs · 2012-11-02 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  If there was a settlement then clearly they didn't lose.
36. Re:Didn't Do The Research by jazman_777 · 2012-11-02 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, in the run-up to the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, the Atlanta Committe for the Olympic Games (ACOG) attacked a Greek restaurant called "The Olympic" which had been there forever, forcing a name change.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
37. Re:Didn't Do The Research by xaxa · 2012-11-02 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  GMail was called GoogleMail for a while in the EU, as a German company had a trademark for GMail. I can't remember any details, except that a few people I know still have @googlemail.com addresses (if they signed up before Google bought the trademark). (You can change to @gmail.com, and both work anyway. It's just what other people see, I think.)
38. Re:Didn't Do The Research by bhagwad · 2012-11-02 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Just checked out the history. It seems that Google negotiated a settlement with the German company after a while. It looked as if the local company had sued Google rather than the other way around as in this story!
39. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Ooh ok, they didn't lose, they just failed to win.
  No, they called the suit and proceeded to another resolution. In other words, they failed to finish.
40. Re:Didn't Do The Research by interkin3tic · 2012-11-02 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're stunned that they litigated? Which part? Some higher up at Apple signed off on pursuing a ridiculous, abusive lawsuit that defies all logic? Surely you aren't stunned that the lawyers suggested such a stupid waste of billable time in the first place.
41. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is slashdot, there are only a limited number of women in the world that would date registered posters here.
42. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-11-02 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, because ACOG did that under the auspices of the IOC, which has had the trademark on "Olympic" in the U.S. since at least 1950 (according to the USOC, any use of Olympic that dates to before September 21, 1950 is not in violation of U.S. trademark law).
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
43. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sjames · 2012-11-02 04:15 · Score: 2
  
  It can't be that, because Apple sued first claiming that the older trademark infringed upon theirs.
44. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sjames · 2012-11-02 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Did the IOC hold that trademark in the area of food service?
45. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  If every person on Earth paid as much more attention to the letter of the law than the spirit as Apple does, we would very shortly have a rewritten, more explicit law code.
  (And perhaps the English Language would get a less stilted way to compare degrees of comparison)
46. Re:Didn't Do The Research by tlhIngan · 2012-11-02 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Breathtakingly arrogant. I wonder what possible reasons they could have given to the judge to demand that a company which had previously registered a trademark should take it down because they graced the market by introducing a phone with a similar name.
  I'm not surprise that Apple lost. I'm stunned that they litigated in the first place. Looks like the tables turned on them since they have now lost the rights to "iPhone" entirely. I'm betting that this was not what they expected.
  Yeah, like Intel not expecting "Netbook" to be a trademarked term as well, and basically ending up on the wrong end of the lawsuit for selling Netbooks.
  Sure, it's not a phone, but a portable computer, and it was owned by a little-known company, but it does happen. I think Intel also fought the trademark case vigourously but also lost in the end as the other company was still selling computers, though to a very niche market.
  And no, they didn't lose the rights to iPhone. Just they just can't sell it as iPhone in Mexico (possibly - they could license after all if the other company wasn't making mobile phones and wanted some extra income). Like how Google couldn't call their webmail GMail in Europe for a time (until they purchased the trademark) (It went by GoogleMail then).
  Heck, Linksys/Cisco had a very questionable claim on iPhone way back in 2007 (I think the only thing were a couple of marketing mockups of VoIP phones). Apple in the end licensed several trademarks.
  And it's likely it'll be licensed - iFone is apparently some call center management software. Or perhaps Mexico would just get ApplePhones instead (like GoogleMail).
47. Re:Didn't Do The Research by hairyfeet · 2012-11-02 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  Sadly I would probably vote for the later, Apple has been sticking the letter "i" in front of common words since the iPod and yes I know iMac came first but outside of networking geeks Mac is an Apple word, not a common everyday noun like pod and pad and phone, so I'm sure their argument came down to "Hey sticking the "i" on front of common words is OUR thing!" while ignoring that just because you are the current 800 pound gorilla doesn't mean you can co-op any copyright anywhere that has the letter "i" in front of a common term.
  But then again this is the same company that tried to sue not one but two companies for daring to have an Apple for a logo even though their Apple logos were nothing like Apple's nor was their businesses in any way comparable to Apple, so why am I not surprised?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
48. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Good point, but how much of that was because it was an OSS project vs. a major corporation? No matter how much (or how little) the legal fees were, it would likely be too much.
49. Re:Didn't Do The Research by TheSpoom · 2012-11-02 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Don't get me started on the IOC.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
50. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-11-02 04:59 · Score: 1
  My understanding is that they got a law passed in Sept of 1950 giving them that trademark in just about everything. The exceptions are listed in the following:
  
  The word Olympic may be used, without sanction, to identify a business or goods or services if:
  
  1. such use is not combined with any of the Olympic trademarks
  2. it is evident from the circumstances that such use of the name "Olympic" refers to the naturally occurring mountains or geographical region of the same name, and that it does not refer to the Corporation or to any Olympic activity
  3. such business, goods or services are operated, sold and marketed in the state of Washington, west of the Cascade Mountain range, and marketing outside this area is not substantial
  Also, any use of Olympic commencing before September 21, 1950, may continue.
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
51. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  When it comes to Apple, never attribute to incompetence what can be better explained by malice.
  Or just a serious case of testosterone poisoning. Somewhat ironic given the stereotype of its effeminate fanbois base
52. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2012-11-02 05:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  On a weird defense of Apple's lawyers, I must say than here in Mexico you can get legally get away with the murder of your own daughter* if you know the right people, so is not a stretch that they expected that the judge would have behaved accordingly to the customs, not the law. My mom's house was legally stolen by an ex-judge, so I know first hand what kind of scumbags are in our judiciary. I would rater deal with the "justice" of the Sinaloa drug cartel than any cop or judge any given day. Our impunity rate nationwide in murder is 99%
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
53. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sribe · 2012-11-02 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  It can't be that, because Apple sued first claiming that the older trademark infringed upon theirs.
  Apple sued first, that much I can believe. But why is not something I trust the media to report accurately. Do you actually believe that reporters would know the difference between Apple suing to take the trademark away from iFone completely vs Apple suing to take the trademark away for a particular field of use for which it was never actually used? I don't believe that for a second.
  I have no way of knowing whether or not this is the case; I'm just pointing out the possibility because I know how sloppy reporting of IP issues tends to be, and that Apple legal is not irrational.
54. Re:Didn't Do The Research by dowens81625 · 2012-11-02 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  But not before I patent the iNept and sell air the cult members, as life giving thing you can't live without.
55. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sjames · 2012-11-02 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Either the trademark was in use in their particular business and they sued to take it away in spite of being the interloper OR it was not and a suit would be entirely unnecessary. In order to be the plaintiff, Apple had to claim to have been wronged.
56. Re:Didn't Do The Research by NoSleepDemon · 2012-11-02 06:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Consider yourself lucky that you're even still alive, I heard she convinced some poor geek from Toronto to take out seven of those ex's!
57. Re:Didn't Do The Research by rosciol · 2012-11-02 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  It's the latter. We haven't forgotten that the iPhone trademark was in use in the US when the iPhone was released, have we? Apple released the product anyway with limited attempt at discussion with the trademark holder, Cisco, who subsequently sued (then settled). See Linksys iPhone.
58. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  I'm honestly surprised that Apple lost. What court was this in, where money wasn't able to sway the ruling?
59. Re:Didn't Do The Research by hguorbray · 2012-11-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  this is one reason why Apple calls their store iTunes instead of The Apple Music Store -they got sued over it anyway -but they prevailed
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer#2003.E2.80.932006
  
  -I'm jsut sayin
60. Re:Didn't Do The Research by iamhassi · 2012-11-02 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, or are arrogant to the point of being harmful to their interests.
  Didn't apple use iDevice long before 2003? iMac? iPod? iBook? Its clear this iFone company was ripping off apple's iDevice naming convention, I don't understand why apple lost. If I had registered iEverything before 2009, would I be the rightful owner or a troll?
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
61. Re:Didn't Do The Research by iamhassi · 2012-11-02 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly I would probably vote for the later, Apple has been sticking the letter "i" in front of common words since the iPod and yes I know iMac came first but outside of networking geeks Mac is an Apple word, not a common everyday noun like pod and pad and phone, so I'm sure their argument came down to "Hey sticking the "i" on front of common words is OUR thing!" while ignoring that just because you are the current 800 pound gorilla doesn't mean you can co-op any copyright anywhere that has the letter "i" in front of a common term.
  But then again this is the same company that tried to sue not one but two companies for daring to have an Apple for a logo even though their Apple logos were nothing like Apple's nor was their businesses in any way comparable to Apple, so why am I not surprised?
  You forgot iBook from 1999, which is a common noun, and im sure there are more from beforw 2003 when these trolls registered iFone. Apple came out with a line of products with a common naming structure and did tons of marketing so everyone knows iName means Apple. Then others tried to copy that naming. Most lost, but somehow these trolls fooled "mexico's legal system"
  
  --
  my karma will be here long after I'm gone
62. Re:Didn't Do The Research by cusco · 2012-11-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of. There have been a number of cases where the defendant couldn't afford the lawyers to continue defending themselves and gave up. IIRC, the ETOY artists' collective (one of the first organizations to sell stuff on the Internet) got sued by Toys.com (owned by Toys R Us) in the late '90s and eventually just handed over their domain name.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
63. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sribe · 2012-11-02 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Either the trademark was in use in their particular business and they sued to take it away in spite of being the interloper OR it was not and a suit would be entirely unnecessary. In order to be the plaintiff, Apple had to claim to have been wronged.
  That seems reasonable, although I don't know about the Mexican legal system, and it brings up another point: your typical reporter wouldn't have a clue about the difference between filing a law suit and filing an administrative challenge to a trademark.
64. Re:Didn't Do The Research by chrismcb · 2012-11-02 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
  It looks to me like Apple (the tech company) ended up settling for a bucket full of money. Which is how things like this end up.
65. Re:Didn't Do The Research by chrismcb · 2012-11-02 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  That would be fine as a defensive position. But if your offensive position is "we didn't research before we sued..."
66. Re:Didn't Do The Research by chrismcb · 2012-11-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  yes I know iMac came first but outside of networking geeks Mac is an Apple word,
  
  I think McDonald's might take offense at the suggestion.
67. Re:Didn't Do The Research by petermgreen · 2012-11-02 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  According to wikipedia in the second case apple corps lost at trial court, claimed they would appeal but never actually did and in the end the issue was settled (apple corps got a big chunk of cash, apple computer got the trademarks and the companies put their differences behind them and started cooperating).
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
68. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sd4f · 2012-11-03 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  I think the more pertinent question here is, do you know any lawyers who wouldn't argue the case if they thought they could win with it?
  But to answer your question, in criminal cases, it's quite common in situations to present the same story, to create uncertainty or doubt, one example is here in australia, court proceedings are rarely ever filmed, there was one series called "on trial" which was permitted access, and in the first episode, you had a person on trial with criminal charges for threatening someone with a firearm in a toilet of a RSL club (big pokie machine haven community club), this defendants angle was that he actually was the victim and the witness the crown presented actually threatened him. So, who's telling the truth, they're both using the same story! So while no, i haven't heard about trademark cases like that, but i believe that similar events do happen in non-criminal courts, and the reason is simple, if one party says something untrue, the other party has to demonstrate it untrue, and that can be a major advantage in some cases.
  All i'm saying is, because the legal system is a fight, it's not directly associated with determining the truth, it doesn't really matter what one party says, the other party has to then rebut that "evidence", if they can't then it's considered true. Couple this with a completely unscrupulous legal "profession" and the mouthpieces will just say whatever needs to be said to win. Apple isn't interested in justice here, it wants the other organisation to stop using iFone; Apple doesn't care in the slightest with what the other company suffers as a result, apple is only interested for its own result.
69. Re:Didn't Do The Research by sribe · 2012-11-03 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  According to wikipedia in the second case apple corps lost at trial court, claimed they would appeal but never actually did and in the end the issue was settled (apple corps got a big chunk of cash, apple computer got the trademarks and the companies put their differences behind them and started cooperating).
  I suppose I had forgotten the trial. So I guess either Apple Computer's use was still arguably a distinct field from what Apple Corps had registered for (and used), *or* there was ambiguity in the original contract, or both.
70. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Drathos · 2012-11-03 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Once or twice, I'd be willing to go with the former. But this is at least the 4th time that they've done this, 2nd just with "iPhone." The others I know about are "iOS" and "iPad." They even butted up against the same company (Cisco) twice. First for iPhone, then for iOS.
  It's pure arrogance on their part, just like all the patent BS. They only care about their own, questionable IP and routinely ignore that of others.
  
  --
  End of line..
71. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-11-03 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  And no, they didn't lose the rights to iPhone. Just they just can't sell it as iPhone in Mexico (possibly - they could license after all if the other company wasn't making mobile phones and wanted some extra income).
  And it's likely it'll be licensed - iFone is apparently some call center management software. Or perhaps Mexico would just get ApplePhones instead (like GoogleMail).
  Actually, nothing has changed for Apple, they can still sell the iPhone as iPhone in Mexico. The article is of course wrong - when Indians use Google translate to "understand" Mexican legalese, what could possibly go wrong?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
72. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-06 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  It's why Burger King is Hungry Jacks in Australia
73. Re:Didn't Do The Research by SydShamino · 2012-11-07 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think patent infringement is a crime, so I doubt that applies.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
74. Re:Didn't Do The Research by icebraining · 2012-11-07 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  According to the link I posted, torts (i.e. civil wrongs) are included, not just crimes.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
75. Re:Didn't Do The Research by SydShamino · 2012-11-12 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  That also presumes the patent is written in a way that it's obviously infringement. Usually there's plenty of vagueness that could be interpreted either way, hence the attorney and client aren't meeting to commit a tort, but to verify that they don't commit a tort. The fact that later someone else interprets it differently and sues them doesn't mean the protected nature of their original meeting has changed.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Brief story... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:32 · Score: 0

I think it was around January 2008 I purchased a Linksys CIT400 iPhone for Skype. They shared a trademark with Apple. Technically, I can say I have an iPhone.
End of brief story.
1. Re:Brief story... by Andy+Prough · 2012-11-02 01:47 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You are hipster royalty in a way, I guess.
I thought... by Andy+Prough · 2012-11-02 01:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

... Steve Jobs was supposed to be a "driven", "detail oriented" guy. Whoops! How do you NOT handle a basic trademark situation in a country as large as Mexico for EIGHT YEARS since you began developing the iPhone? Did he ever hear of one of the richest guys in the world - Carlos Slim - who made his fortune SELLING PHONE SERVICE IN MEXICO???
1. Re:I thought... by Kyusaku+Natsume · 2012-11-02 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Carlos Slim is the richest man in the world thanks that he bought the state's telephone monopoly business for less than 10% of its real value, and he kept that monopoly for more than 15 years. The key to understand Mexico's history of economic failures in the last 30 years instead of the enormous success of the south koreans that 30 years ago had the same level of development of Mexico is that here our crony capitalists are lazy beyond belief, and the concentration of wealth simply is killing our internal market. Think of us like what will happened to the USA if they never had the Glass-Steingall and antimonopoly laws ever enacted.
  
  --
  Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
2. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  Carlos Slim is also the richest person in the world thanks to his 3% investment in Apple early on Steve Jobs' return. Without that he would only be the second richest person.
Maybe by jasper160 · 2012-11-02 01:32 · Score: 5, Funny

Ay Phone!

--
No good deed goes unpunished.
1. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why is it called the eyePhone?
2. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  Why is it called the eyePhone?
  Because of the possible lawsuits from users who poked their eyes out while trying to use their phones.
3. Re:Maybe by antdude · 2012-11-02 02:19 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Or YoPhone. ;)
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
4. Re:Maybe by Kielistic · 2012-11-02 02:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  iDios mio
5. Re:Maybe by Guignol · 2012-11-02 02:50 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  iMisHijos
6. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they have rounded corners.
7. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  That would be a PIRATED Chinese phone. ;)
8. Re:Maybe by Fjandr · 2012-11-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that was the jPhone...
Wow, just wow by mcgrew · 2012-11-02 01:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft sure is ballsy... wait, this is Apple?
I guess what various folks said here are correct, Apple IS the new Microsoft! Suing someone over trademark when thy were using the mark first? That's more MS-like than MS!

--
Free Martian Whores!
1. Re:Wow, just wow by Compaqt · 2012-11-02 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Apple had it coming. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.
  I hope iFone socks it to them (and it looks like they plan to).
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
2. Re:Wow, just wow by tuppe666 · 2012-11-02 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Microsoft sure is ballsy... wait, this is Apple?
  I guess what various folks said here are correct, Apple IS the new Microsoft! Suing someone over trademark when thy were using the mark first? That's more MS-like than MS!
  No Microsoft is more bully; bribe; lie; outlast, and still do! Look at how they act in the mobile arena, the new Microsoft is..well Microsoft, Its why they are incredibly weak against the New Giants Apple and Google these tactics are simply ineffective.
  Apple being Apple which is simply a reflection of its CEO like Microsoft is a reflection of its; Companies are like dogs it seems. It is "Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome" and the result is as always a long prolonged lawsuit over anything Steve Jobs Pissed on, ignoring any real sense of Justice. It has been pretty successful from a legal point of view...not so much from a practical...they haven't destroyed Android, where they have lost all their market share, sown from 23.1% to 14.9% as Android hits 75%.
  Seriously its nothing new ask "Apple Records" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer or hell look at the whole wikipedia entry on its literation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation.
3. Re:Wow, just wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but after 8 year and iFone didn't sue Apple they were obviously not protecting their trademark and are therefore no longer entitled to it.
4. Re:Wow, just wow by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't offer a big enough bribe.
5. Re:Wow, just wow by nedlohs · 2012-11-02 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because you are an expert in Mexican trademark law and have all the details like whether an active lawsuit would put a pause on such actions (you would put one on hold while the other case ran in any sane (and yes I realise applying sane to a legal system is crazy) setup).
6. Re:Wow, just wow by mcgrew · 2012-11-02 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  Well, my point (which I very obviously failed at making) was that both companies are evil. I doubt there's a non-evil corporation in existance.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
7. Re:Wow, just wow by Bobfrankly1 · 2012-11-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  No Microsoft is more bully; bribe; lie; outlast, and still do!
  I think Apple meets all but one of these criteria as shown in their recent dealings with Google/Motorola (or Googlerola as I prefer), and it's likely that the bribery (not in the Googlerola instance) simply hasn't been reported yet. Perhaps their dealings with iFone will bring this to light.
Re:Wait a second. by jasper160 · 2012-11-02 01:35 · Score: 2

I would love to see apple in a Mexican court.

--
No good deed goes unpunished.
Confusing much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:36 · Score: 5, Funny

"(...) Apple filed a complaint with the Mexican Industrial Property Institute demanding that iFone stop using is name because it could confuse users."
Confuse users? If they're worried about users getting confused, they should start with refining iOS 6 Maps...
1. Re:Confusing much? by spyke252 · 2012-11-02 02:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  How do you think Apple's lawyers got to Mexico in the first place? "Siri, get me directions from Cupertino to Mountain View..."
2. Re:Confusing much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Confuse users? If they're worried about users getting confused, they should start with refining iOS 6 Maps...
  Please, no. This is how we identify apple people. They're lost so creatively.
3. Re:Confusing much? by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-11-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  You laugh, but one day shortly after iOS 6's release I decided to follow Maps's turn-by-turn directions to the letter. En route from Alameda to Oakland, I ended up on Angel Island.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
4. Re:Confusing much? by Deus.1.01 · 2012-11-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying that Apple invented the improbability drive?
  
  --
  My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
5. Re:Confusing much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry. In the latest update to iOS 6 maps, there is no Mexico. Problem solved!
6. Re:Confusing much? by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-11-02 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  More like the Uncertainty Drive, as in "how did I end up here?"
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
7. Re:Confusing much? by Scowler · 2012-11-02 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  iOS 6 Maps work fine. It is the Fandroids who continue to have confused ideas about a product they don't use but continue to hate anyways.
8. Re:Confusing much? by dreamchaser · 2012-11-02 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. Just wow. I have an iPhone 4S. Post upgrade the maps outright suck. How much koolaid are you drinking?
  I think it's funny that you run around accusing people of being 'fandroids' when you are such a huge Apple fanboi. It's not a religion dude. They are tools. Stop being such a zealot.
Obligatory by Nidi62 · 2012-11-02 01:36 · Score: 2

Ha Ha /Nelson

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:Obligatory by CanHasDIY · 2012-11-02 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  You took the "Ha Ha!" right out of my mouth.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I wonder why that didn't work by slashmydots · 2012-11-02 01:37 · Score: 1

I guess that "cuz we're way bigger and awesomer" doesn't really fly in Mexican courts either. First one in gets it!
Might as well switch the name in Mexico to: by DikSeaCup · 2012-11-02 01:43 · Score: 2, Funny

yoPhone!

--
I talk about stuff.
1. Re:Might as well switch the name in Mexico to: by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  They should rename it to obamaPhone!
2. Re:Might as well switch the name in Mexico to: by TheGratefulNet · 2012-11-02 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  if its tetherable, its then a:
  (wait for it)
  yo-yo phone
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by rabun_bike · 2012-11-02 01:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Let us not forget. Cisco (Linksys) then sued and accepted a settlement from Apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
1. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by AZURERAZOR · 2012-11-02 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  Step 1 Defend in court
  Step 2 Win defensive case
  Step 3 Profit by selling the name back to Apple for $5B
2. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by pr0fessor · 2012-11-02 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  I find it interesting that iFone starting adapting solutions in 1998 the same time as the first release of iPhone by InfoGear. Wasn't this about the same time that anything that normally would not but now could access the internet was getting an "i" before the name just to denote that it was internet capable?
3. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by fuzznutz · 2012-11-02 02:33 · Score: 2
  
  Internet has nothing to do with it, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Apple started all their "i" shit when they migrated from PowerPC to Intel. Intel used to prefix the lower case "i" on their CPU chip designations prior to the (trademarked) Pentium and Apple adopted the practice to distinguish between PowerPC computers like the holdover MacMini, which was late to transition to intel, and the newer iMacs. (See "Power Mac" for differentiation)
  
  The marketing ploy seemed to stick and next thing you know Apple is selling "i"Pods with ARM chips.
  
  The i386 was released in 1985. The first iMac came in 1998. Intel's logo is still in all lower case.
4. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  You said "correct me if I'm wrong".
  You are wrong.
  iMac was released in 1998. It shipped with a PowerPC processor in it (a G3).
  Apple didn't announce the Intel transition until 2005.
5. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by sribe · 2012-11-02 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Let us not forget. Cisco (Linksys) then sued and accepted a settlement from Apple.
  Cisco would have lost that case, because they had abandoned the mark. (You have to actively use a trademark in commerce in order to maintain it. If you discontinue the product, do not release another product under the name, and otherwise do not use the name, you have abandoned the mark. Cisco had done that, and then tried to file a faked renewal--had they gone to trial, not only would they have lost on preliminary judgment, some employee *might*, depending on the judge's mood, have wound up in very hot water.)
6. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by sribe · 2012-11-02 02:54 · Score: 2
  
  Internet has nothing to do with it, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Apple started all their "i" shit when they migrated from PowerPC to Intel.
  OK, you're wrong. The first iMac shipped in 1998, iPod and iTunes were released in 2001, the first Intel Mac shipped in 2006.
7. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by omnichad · 2012-11-02 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Intel used to? I have an Intel Core i7 right now. I don't think there's any correlation at all.
8. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  And don't forget them calling their mobile OS, iOS. Another one Cisco owned for years.
9. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by lxs · 2012-11-02 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  No no no! 1998 was the time of e-mail and e-commerce. ICT was still called IT and gold was worth $200 an ounce. We all had onions tied to our belts as was the style of the time.
10. Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco by petermgreen · 2012-11-02 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  I believe Apple started all their "i" shit when they migrated from PowerPC to Intel.
  No, apple started using the i name long before they went intel.
  
  Apple adopted the practice to distinguish between PowerPC computers like the holdover MacMini, which was late to transition to intel, and the newer iMacs. (See "Power Mac" for differentiation)
  
  If anything the opposite is true when we look at the computers themselves.
  SFF boxes: Mac mini (powerPC) => Mac mini (intel)
  Towers: Powermac (powerPC) => Mac pro (intel)
  High end laptops: Powerbook (powerpc) => Macbook pro (intel)
  Lower end (though still expensive by PC standard) laptops: iBook (powerpc) -> Macbook (intel)
  All-in-one desktops: iMac (powerpc) => iMac (intel)
  Having said that the prominance of the i mark in product lines other than computers did rise at arround that time. The ipod (which had existed long before the switchover) grew considerablly in popularity and apple released a new office suite "iwork" at arround that time. Maybe some other software too that i'm not aware of.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Wait a second. by Quila · 2012-11-02 01:45 · Score: 1

Apple has more bribe money, so I'm surprised they lost.
So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by anarkhos · 2012-11-02 01:46 · Score: 2

It's a minor dilemma as Apple will sell the iPhone in every hispanic country except Mexico, where it will be called the, um, telefono de la manzana?
But seriously, what will it be called?

--
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
1. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by robi5 · 2012-11-02 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  Why should it be called *anything*? Branding is cool and all, but it's not like there is a law that your product be named. Apple does not "make" phones other than the iPhone so there should be no confusion.
  - Sir, would you check our selection of Android phones?
  - No, I'd like to buy an Apple phone / I'm interested in iOS devices / I want *one of these* here.
  - Which one?
  - 4S please / the shorter / less expensive / less magnificent one.
  - Here you are, ... pesos please.
  - Good bye.
  Then leave it to the population how they call it :-)
2. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  But seriously, what will it be called?
  It will be cheaper for Apple to pay money to iFone and keep the current iPhone name, than risk losing sales due to name change.
3. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by jenningsthecat · 2012-11-02 02:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But seriously, what will it be called?
  Since it's an Apple product, call it the aPhone.
  The docking port? That's the aHole...
  
  --
  'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
4. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by Tarlus · 2012-11-02 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  ManzanaPhone
  
  --
  /* No Comment */
5. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by someone1234 · 2012-11-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think they could use: iBobo
  
  --
  Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
6. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  I like the name homoPhone. It sounds the same.
7. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  hahaha that was fucking priceless!!
8. Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? by gatfirls · 2012-11-02 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm I thought that was the carrier.
May I be the first ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:47 · Score: 0

... to say BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Apple went about it the wrong way by sandytaru · 2012-11-02 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by NettiWelho · 2012-11-02 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...
  Copyright cannot be created by request but by creating a copyrighted work. But I think there is prior art of people using the letter i anyways.
2. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  It wasn't even a creative or good name in 1998 when the iMac launched. Even then it was tired after years of "i-way" hype.
3. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by ikaruga · 2012-11-02 01:57 · Score: 2
  
  Not copyright but trademark. Copyright is for content and can only be granted upon the creation and publication of content. Trademark is for branding and can be registered at any moment, however defending them can be a bitch some times but if you don't do so you lose it.
4. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by stiggle · 2012-11-02 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Except ITV was already in use before Apple even existed
5. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  retards that don't know the difference between copyright, trademarks, and patents should refrain from offering opinions on the subject.
6. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by StripedCow · 2012-11-02 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  paving the way in the future for the ... iCar ...
  I bet we'll see an Android car first.
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
7. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by Rogue+Haggis+Landing · 2012-11-02 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...
  Apple are totally going to sue Fu Xi for starting the iChing in 2850 BC. All I can say is that it's a good thing for Fu that he's dead. And fictional.
8. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Obiously, it will be called MariachiPhone.
9. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by alexo · 2012-11-02 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...
  Or, in Mexico, the iCaramba!
10. Re:Apple went about it the wrong way by CannonballHead · 2012-11-02 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I already have aCar.
Re:Wait a second. by partyguerrilla · 2012-11-02 01:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes we maintain several judicial facilities powered by burros and corruption.
Re:Wait a second. by CanHasDIY · 2012-11-02 01:53 · Score: 1

Well sure! The major difference from US courts being, in Mexico a massive international corporation* apparently gets the same treatment as your average dirt farmer.

* assuming said corporation isn't owned by Carlos Slim, or a front for one of the cartels... something tells me that would make a difference.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Wouldn't have been a problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:53 · Score: 0

if Apple hadn't been an arsehole on this and tried to sue an iFone because "it is confusingly similar to iPhone". Because that means that, according to Apple, iPhone is confusingly similar to iFone. Ergo, LAWSUIT!
If they'd not been complete pricks, then there would have been no problem, just like there's been no problem with the "confusing" iFone/iPhone for the past three years.
swords:lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 01:54 · Score: 0

Those who live by the:lawsuit, ....
Good for them by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2012-11-02 01:56 · Score: 1

Apple is awfully damned arrogant thinking that another company that had the name for years before they introduced the product should have to stop using it's name just because Apple came along.
Yessss! by Lucas123 · 2012-11-02 02:01 · Score: 1

This means I can move forward on my next project: The iFoam memory mattress.
1. Re:Yessss! by Shotgun · 2012-11-02 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Which reports to the internet whenever someone lays down so that you can know who's been sleeping in your bed? Are you a bear?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
2. Re:Yessss! by CannonballHead · 2012-11-02 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  iFoam sounds like a ... rabies vaccine or something.
Re:Wait a second. by Greyfox · 2012-11-02 02:10 · Score: 4, Funny

We're... we're not so different after all!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Vocaltec by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:18 · Score: 0

Back in the late 90s I remember a company called Vocaltec also had a software application called InternetPhone that used the IPhone name for short. I guess they didn't trademark enough either.
Due diligence by girlinatrainingbra · 2012-11-02 02:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, if Apple didn't do its due diligence when applying for trademark status for "iPhone", that is its own fault. And obviously, they did not even do a cursory review of trademark status for their due diligence because Cisco already had an iPhone trademark, which they sued Apple for. Now they're in a situation that's even stronger than Cisco's (Cisco was not actively using "iPhone" even though it already had the trademark on it). iFone appears to have been actively and continuously used in trade in Mexico prior to Apple using "iPhone". Court battles can be long, so who knows.
1. Re:Due diligence by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Cisco were using there iPhone trademark it was a voip phone. I had one.
2. Re:Due diligence by mu51c10rd · 2012-11-02 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  I can one-up you. I did tech support on the real original iPhone seen here. I sometimes wish I kept the demo model I had from back then for nostalgic purposes. Wonder if anyone still has one that works?
Nelson by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:26 · Score: 0

har har
Sucks when you don't own the trademark on the 'i' by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:27 · Score: 0

Sucks when you don't own the trademark on the 'i'.
(Intel does)
Yo quiero taco bell by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:30 · Score: 0

ring!
There's a Fox News Latino!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 02:42 · Score: 0

So surprised that every article on Fox News Latino isn't just "WE HATE YOU GO HOME WE HATE YOU GO HOME". Apparently they speak with forked tongue; who knew?
YES! Victory for the tech sector! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:11 · Score: 0

I hope apple losses billions, or better yet the right to sell in Mexico all together. Imagine if Samsung released a product called ifone ... Apple would demand a global injunction and 100 billion billion dollars.
the H is silent in spanish by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 03:28 · Score: 0

this is ok both names can co-exist. The H is a silent letter in spanish so iphone sound like ip'one when your ead it in spanish.
All I can do in response to this is... by Jintsui · 2012-11-02 03:32 · Score: 1

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! Its a REAL shame that mexican company didn't register iPhone instead of iFone. I would probably keel over from so much laughter.
Phonetically similar in another language? by aristotle-dude · 2012-11-02 03:34 · Score: 0

Give me a break. Not only is iPhone and iFone spelled differently but in spanish, iPhone would be iPone. Ruling that they are similar phonetically in any language is ridiculous let alone using English as the language to make a case for trademark infringement in Mexico.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
1. Re:Phonetically similar in another language? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  [...] Ruling that they are similar phonetically in any language is ridiculous [...].
  Try launching a product called "iFone" in the US and see how far that argument would get you in court.
2. Re:Phonetically similar in another language? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-11-02 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  sometimes, if the other guy is much much bigger, they can shut you down or threaten to or just make your life difficult.
  CSB time: a company I worked for a long time ago was called 'pictel' (later renamed 'picture tel'). back when it was pictel, PacTell (the west coast phone company) said that the 2 names were too close and that pictel had to change theirs. they gave in and either fought and lost or chose not to fight. they were a small startup and even though east coast (mass) based pictel has nothing to do with west coast pacific telephone (ie, 'the phone company'), they still had to change their name.
  was this right? does not matter. in the US, the more dollars you have, the more 'right' you are.
  (later, decades later, I think polycom bought them. fwiw.)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
3. Re:Phonetically similar in another language? by Sique · 2012-11-02 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  This is plainly wrong. 'ph' just describes the greek letter Phi, which is pronounced f. So wherever you see a 'ph' in a single syllable, it's pronounced 'f', and you can be sure the word has greek roots. In fact, iFone and iPhone come from the same greek word 'phone' (sound, voice), and the actual word they are derived from, telephone, just means 'far voice' or 'far talk'. Some languages started just earlier with replacing 'ph's by 'f', turning graphics (graphein = draw) to grafics, photographs (photos = light, photograph = light drawing) to fotografs and phantasy (phantasia = ghost, appearance) to fantasy. iFone and iPhone are thus meaning the same thing, are pronounced the same way and have the same root. The only thing Apple got right in this lawsuit is that both trademarks are easily confused.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
4. Re:Phonetically similar in another language? by richardellisjr · 2012-11-02 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Even though phone as in iphone isn't written correctly in Spanish they still pronounce it the same way. My sister in law, who was born and lives outside Mexico City says IPhone the exact same way we Americans do. In fact the the word telephone pronounced in Spanish is exactly the same with the addition of an "o" at the end.
Re:Wait a second. by TheGratefulNet · 2012-11-02 04:25 · Score: 1

bit of advice to them: don't drink the iWater.
(alt: 'you're not drinking it right!')

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Wait a second. by TheGratefulNet · 2012-11-02 04:30 · Score: 1

"yo quiero iFone!"
(woof, woof)

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Have they done it before? by chilenexus · 2012-11-02 04:50 · Score: 1

I seem to remember that the trade name Macintosh was in use by someone else before Apple's computer to follow the Lisa came out, and that didn't really stop them from steamrollering him. My recollection is a little hazy, but I think the guy that owned it was not willing to sell out - not that Jobs would let something like that stop him.
Typical bully behavior ... by garry_g · 2012-11-02 04:56 · Score: 1

At a place I worked for we had a similar experience ... the company had a product (their central/main product) named "Telekon" (composite of "Telefonverkauf" - Sales by phone - and "Kontraktverwaltung" - Contract management) for which they even had a trademark. When the national, state-owned mail & phone company Deutsche Bundespost decided to split up in 1995 into separate companies, one of which was the phone part, they named themselves "Deutsche Telekom". Shortly after, they tried to bully the small company attempting to make them drop the product name "Telekon", as it might be misleading ... even though the company already had the trademark for many years ... of course (luckily), Telekom's attempt was turned down by the German Patent Office, as the name was already registered. Though they stated that had Telekom already existed, the brand Telekon would not have been registered ...
Goes to show that big players believe they can get through with any claims ...
THIS JUST IN by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 05:31 · Score: 0

Apple risks losing all 12 customers in Mexico that can afford an iPhone.
Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 06:08 · Score: 0

iFone is a Microsoft Gold Partner.
Easy to solve by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 06:21 · Score: 0

This is a nonissue. Easy to solve:
a) Bribe the owner to relent and hand over the goods.
b) Buy them outright. With Apple's warchest, drop in the bucket.
c) Buddy up to Peña Nieto so the incoming administration solves the problem for you.
d) Pay any of the drug cartels to "solve" it for you. They're always looking for new markets to expand to.
Re:Yes !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:10 · Score: 0

As Holden Caulfield taught us kill all Phonies!
bitches! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 07:50 · Score: 0

I posted this story on november first. and never made it up.
slashdot can kiss my furry ass.
Hey Apple... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-02 09:17 · Score: 0

Do ya like Apples?...
170 replies and nobody understands what's going on by rylin · 2012-11-02 11:57 · Score: 1

Seriously, fandroids?
Apple tried to claim a class 38 / "telecommunications service" trademark on iPhone, since they figured iFone weren't using theirs actively (remember, this is trademark law, nothing else).
They already have a class 9 and class 28 mark, which covers electronic gaming devices et.c.
Apple can still sell the iPhone in mexico, they just can't claim it's a telecommunication service.
Selling it as a phone/smartphone/gaming device is not a problem, and so there's nothing to see here.
But at least you got riled up about how they're scumbags, when they're just trying to follow generally accepted behaviour for copyright law, but I digress...
Re:170 replies and nobody understands what's going by petteyg359 · 2012-11-03 06:55 · Score: 1

Generally accepted behavior is to be a scumbag. I'm guessing you're too dumb to see the problem.