Slashdot Mirror
Apple Loses the iPad Mini Trademark
An anonymous reader writes in with bad news for Apple. "It would appear that Apple has lost an attempt to trademark the 'iPad Mini.' This time it's not nefarious foreigners subverting the just order of things simply by trademarking something several years before Apple did. No, that was what happened in Brazil with the IFone. Nor is it people nefariously selling the rights to everywhere but China but Apple's lawyers didn’t notice, as happened with iPad in China. No, this time it's the U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office saying that Apple simply cannot have a trademark on 'iPad Mini.' For the simple reason that the law doesn't allow them to trademark something which is just a description of the product."
Who cares? Why post this, further, why post it with such dramatic leading text?
Nobody gives a rats ass that Apple can't get a trademark on something they technically already have a trademark on.
It's ok to comment the news in the summary, but this has gone too far. "Apple is bad, you must hate Apple." Come on.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Protection of the "iPad" will have to do.
Apple has a trademark on Ipad. They are saying you can't trademark Ipad mini, because mini says you have a smaller Ipad. Just like you can't trademark Large or Extra Large.
... our hopes of seeing an iPad Maxi are dashed, then?
#DeleteChrome
Who else is actually going to name their product iPad Mini hoping that it will confuse buyers looking for Apple's iPad Mini? Oh, I see you there Samsung...
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
iPad(tm) Mini. Simple as that.
They already have a trademark on iPad, so it makes sense and would have saved them the filing fee, as miniscule as it probably was.
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
They don't have a trademark on Mac mini either, and I assume the reason is the same. So why even bother???
USPTO is correct on this, it's like someone getting a trademark on Extra LargeT-shirt.
The patent information is more than just the 'mini' suffix; they state the "i" in iPad, as well as the "Pad" in iPad, are also merely descriptive. When they named the iMac in 1998, the 'i' prefix was more novel that it was now. i wonder what position that puts the next 'iPhone' in for trademarks.
Apple's (i.e. Jobs') naming strategy was to make product names as simple and representative as possible to the product or function (e.g. iTunes, iMac, iPod). It is interesting that their nomenclature may be a double edged sword in terms of how aggressively even apple could defend such generic trademarks, if one had been given. If this rejection criteria becomes presidence, maybe we'll see "MS Word" and "Adobe Illustrator" also lose trademark privilege.
Well what about the Mini Cooper, Mini M&Ms, Micro Machines? Or Apple's previous products: Mac Mini, iPod Mini, iPod Nano? I'm curious to know if these had been previously trademarked? If so then is IPTO inconsistent?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Copyright is completely fucked. Trademark law is more or less sensible, and does useful things to protect consumers. This is an example.
Applicant is advised that, if the application is amended to seek registration on the Principal Register underTrademark Act Section 2(f) in part, applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “MINI” apart fromthe mark as shown because it merely describes a characteristic or feature of applicant’s goods.
And then:
Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “MINI” apart from the mark as shown.
Essentially the problem is that the whole term "iPad Mini" is descriptive, because even if "iPad" were (and it is) a protected trademark, you can't say "small iPad" and make that whole mark trademark-able, which is what "iPad Mini" attempts to do. While the application deconstructs the "iPad" term as merely descriptive (which is unfortunate because it probably makes this ruling appealable, since I don't think the prior trademark applications relied on the secondary meaning exception to a descriptive mark), that's just salt in the wound. The real reason it was denied is because they tried to call their iPad "Mini" and trademark the whole term. It's still quite possible for Apple to use the "iPad(R) Mini" mark denotation.
Also, for those who don't know, (R) is a registered trademark that has been filed with and approved by the USPTO, whereas (TM) is an unfiled trademark that you nevertheless use in business that could stand up to another company using your trademark. (R) [federal] will always trump (TM) [state].
Trademark law says you cannot use a term that is 'merely descriptive'. You can however trademark descriptive trademarks that have become associated in the market place with the mark holder's products. What the PTO has directed Apple to do is show that the term 'iPad' has acquired 'secondary meaning' such that the public knows that iPads cme from Apple. Apple will follow the PTO's request.
I would expect Apple to be easily able (through some expense) to show through market surveys surveys and by documenting ad campaigns that iPad as acquired secondary meaning.
There must tons and tons of products and registered trademarks around the name Padmini in India. An actress Padmini (no lastname) is the top hit for Padmini in google. I know at least one car model was named Padmini. Every town will have a cafe or a grocery store or a hotel (lodge in local parlance) named Padmini. So I would not be surprised if some one there challenges iPad mini as "too similar to my registered brand name" there. Even if the case has no merit someone might sue just for the publicity or with some hope of reaching a settlement with a multinational company with deep pockets.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Do they lose the trademark for that? Or did they not have it in the first place?
Apple didn't lose the "iPad Mini" trademark. They applied for the iPad Mini trademark, and it wasn't granted on the very first attempt. Nothing unusual there.
But if Apple have not had the trademark, how can they have lost it? I think the OP title is misleading.
So it'll be an Apple(R) iPad(TM) Mini, but not an Apple(R) iPad Mini(TM). Wow.
Did they apply for a trademark on The New iPad at the same time?
... then it would have been granted.
That was in Mexico, not Brazil!
Disaster for Apple? I think a "Microsoft iPad" would be a disaster for Microsoft!
Change the names of the current ipad mini to ipad. Then call the original one, maxi ipad. That will take care of the issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Disney had to rename Minnie Mouse to "Mouse 0.5".
Table-ized A.I.
Microsoft couldn't stop things like AppleWorks/ClarisWorks and WordPerfect Works exactly because of this.
If they have a (R) on iPad, do they really need a (R) on anything /^iPad .*/ ? Wouldn't anybody calling their products /.*iPad.*/ get in trouble because of the first (R) anyway? Which boils down to: wouldn't that make a (TM) enough? Or "iPad(R) mini" for that matter.
After reading a few details of this initial rejection on the MacRumors site, I can only think that the examiner wanted to show himself as an ass.