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."

5 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. So? by kiriath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Summary quality by aBaldrich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. I suppose this also means by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... our hopes of seeing an iPad Maxi are dashed, then?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  4. Re:Descriptions not trademarked? by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Mini Cooper" isn't merely descriptive -- there's no large Cooper that a Mini Cooper is a small version of.

    "M&M's Minis" indeed trademarked, but contains the disclaimer "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "MINIS" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN". The USPTO suggests that if Apple wants the mark, they should re-apply with a similar disclaimer (once they get past iPad itself being descriptive)

    "Mac Mini" is not a registered trademark, nor is "iPod Mini"

    "iPod Nano" is trademarked without the disclaimer.

    "Micro Machines" has a disclaimer on "Machines". It's probably considered other than descriptive because it refers specifically to toy vehicles, not "machines" in a general sense.

    And yes, the USPTO is inconsistent.

  5. Re:They rejected the entire mark, not just "mini". by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    OTOH, Microsoft Works was curiously non-descriptive.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.