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.
... 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].
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet.
No, it does not say that. It says that they can't trademark "iPad mini" because because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet and "mini" is descriptive.
1) The analysis only applies to the current application, not to any other hypothetical application.
2) They already have the trademark on iPad (registered 3 years ago).
This just seems bizarre to me. I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you? That sounds like a bizarre ruling. Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple; there's e-commerce but not i-commerce, no one says "do you have an i-connection?", etc.
Am I missing something?
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
This just seems bizarre to me.
Yes, for the reasons you mention the ruling does seem bizarre to me. However, I suspect that the descriptiveness of "mini" is still enough to reject the application, even if the other reasoning is fallacious, so I didn't want to focus on arguing those points.
- The fact that there are no trademarks for "Mac mini" or "iPod mini" is strong evidence that "iPad mini" cannot be trademarked...
- The fact that there is a trademark for "iPad" is strong evidence that, well, you know, "iPad" can be trademarked ;-)
Do they lose the trademark for that? Or did they not have it in the first place?
Never had it in the first place. (Nor "iPad mini"--the summary, as usual on /., is worded imprecisely.)
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.
Yes, for the reasons you mention the ruling does seem bizarre to me. However, I suspect that the descriptiveness of "mini" is still enough to reject the application, even if the other reasoning is fallacious, so I didn't want to focus on arguing those points.
- The fact that there are no trademarks for "Mac mini" or "iPod mini" is strong evidence that "iPad mini" cannot be trademarked...
- The fact that there is a trademark for "iPad" is strong evidence that, well, you know, "iPad" can be trademarked ;-)
Well, it IS possible for a trademark to slip into the public domain and be lost, maybe even in the time between the iPad trademark and this application. I'm wondering if that's what the patent reviewer had in mind?
I'm not even sure about the problem with mini, since I wouldn't say "I have a tablet mini!" but "I have a mini tablet!" But ok I guess. :)
Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple
Weren't around in the 1999-2000 era then huh? Compaq had the iPaq running WinCE / WinMobile about the same time as Apple had come out with the iMac, and the HP / Compaq device is a lot closer to what a modern tablet is than the iMac could ever be considered.
I actually miss my iPaqs, it was nice having a built in stylus + holder - a decent small tipped stylus no less, not like the crap you an get today that is as big as your thumb - and a processor the literally could rival a desktop( my last iPaq was a 633Mhz with enough RAM to truly multitask + SD + CF card expansion with bluetooth, wifi and extra components that used the SD interface, back when desktops usually ran at ~1Ghz unless you dumped a ton of money into a 1.6-2.0Ghz system). Modern tablets had been getting close to the same usefulness again, at least before the Nexus 7/10 didn't ship with expansion....
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Well, it IS possible for a trademark to slip into the public domain and be lost, maybe even in the time between the iPad trademark and this application. I'm wondering if that's what the patent reviewer had in mind?
I don't think so, because I certainly don't see "iPad" being used to refer to tables generically. I think your first reading was accurate, you were correct in finding it puzzling, and the reviewer's reasoning was just incorrect.
But if Apple have not had the trademark, how can they have lost it? I think the OP title is misleading.
That was in Mexico, not Brazil!
This just seems bizarre to me. I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you? That sounds like a bizarre ruling. Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple; there's e-commerce but not i-commerce, no one says "do you have an i-connection?", etc.
Am I missing something?
Circa 1964. The movie 2001, A Space Odyssey. The Astronauts aboard Discovery got their news and telephone (videophone) on a tablet device called the NewsPad. I'm not sure that it actually was supposed to have general tablet computing features, since it wasn't a major component of the story, just another prop to set the story "in the Future". Actually, for all we know, it was only intended to echo the main video network of the ship and have no native intelligence at all but still, for what it's worth, it was a "Pad".
I don't weep for Apple, though. I would grant them a trademark on "iPad Mini", but they're of the stripe that would then turn around and sue everyone and anyone who used the word "Mini", up to and including the Mini Cooper.
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.
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet. However, they also say that Apple can file an amended application claiming "acquired distinctiveness". Apple will have no trouble doing that, so basically, they can trademark it if they try again.
If they do that, they have to disclaim "mini" as being descriptive.
Cast your mind back to the 1998 Apple Back on Track Keynote. While introducing the iMac, The Steve stated that the 'i' stood for: internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire (see here, 16 min 35 seconds into the clip). These days it probably does not stand for anything in particular other than that a product named iSomething is automatically associated with Apple in the mind of the consumer. Companies get turned down for trademarks all the time simply because they try to trademark obvious crap, for example, the all mighty "Don't be evil" Google got the finger when they tried to trademark "Nexus One" because it's not enough to add a descriptive term to a trademark already granted to somebody else.
This just seems bizarre to me. I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you? That sounds like a bizarre ruling. Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple; there's e-commerce but not i-commerce, no one says "do you have an i-connection?", etc.
Am I missing something?
There are inodes, ibus, imdb for starters and of course, at least in the states, there is iHop. None of those have anything to do with Apple.
ue everyone and anyone who used the word "Mini", up to and including the Mini Cooper.
Reminds me of the time McDonalds sued "McDonald's Restaurant" for trademark infringement. The golden arches almost had to rename all their restaurants when it came out that the McDonalds family had been running a restaurant there since before the USA become a country...
I don't read AC A human right
Circa 1993, Apple introduced the Newton MessagePad, which was Apple's first Pad product.
Disney had to rename Minnie Mouse to "Mouse 0.5".
Table-ized A.I.
I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you?
You just need to look at the Wikipedia article on tablet computing and do a find on the word pad to realise that it was a common word for the format before the use of the word tablet overtook it.
i think IMDB is the best example.
Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
Even so, they are pointing out a cooper is small. Is there a "regular" cooper? If not, than that might be more the reason.
Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events. - Albert Einstein
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.