Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Loses Trademark Claim Against iFone in Mexico

Posted by Soulskill on 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."

11 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Watch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...as Samsung quickly buys out iFone.

    For "defensive IP," of course.

  2. Didn't Do The Research by TheSpoom · · 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 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given (or especially since) it's Apple, why not both?

    2. Re:Didn't Do The Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When it comes to Apple, never attribute to incompetence what can be better explained by malice.

    3. Re:Didn't Do The Research by ByOhTek · · 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).
    4. Re:Didn't Do The Research by EasyTarget · · 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
    5. Re:Didn't Do The Research by DragonWriter · · 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.

  3. Maybe by jasper160 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ay Phone!

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  4. Confusing much? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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..."

  5. Re:Wait a second. by partyguerrilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes we maintain several judicial facilities powered by burros and corruption.