Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Loses Exclusive Rights To 'iPhone' Trademark For Non-Smartphone Products In China (appleinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the overpriced-leather-products dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from AppleInsider: Adding to the company's problems in the region, Apple has lost exclusivity on the use of the "iPhone" trademark in China, and must now share it with Beijing-based leather products maker Xintong Tiandi Technology, reports said on Tuesday. On March 31, the Beijing Municipal High People's Court rejected an Apple appeal of an earlier ruling, according to Quartz. Xintong Tiandi is already selling a number of "IPHONE" products, including purses, passport cases, and most notably phone cases. The company registered its trademark in China in 2007, the same year as the Apple iPhone launched in the United States. That was, however, still five years after Apple registered the iPhone name in China for computer products, something which formed the basis of a 2012 complaint to the country's trademark authorities. In 2013 the government ruled that because Apple couldn't prove the name "IPHONE" was well-known prior to Xintong Tiandi's registration, the public wouldn't link its use in a way that would harm Apple interests. In rejecting Apple's appeal, the High People's Court further noted that the company didn't sell the iPhone in mainland China until 2009. This comes after Apple reported its first earnings decline in more than a decade.

43 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. iPhone vibrators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They have such a phony name...

  2. perils of having brands instead of substance by sittingnut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    when you are, more or less, a marketing company that manage brands, and through media hype can command a premium price for your branded products, over similar products with same quality and features, then, when lose your name, you end up empty.

  3. Re:Usa, Japan by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    No it didn't. This is a stupid internet legend with no basis in fact.

  4. Re:Usa, Japan by Gussington · · Score: 1

    They didn't have Snopes back then obviously: http://www.snopes.com/business...

  5. Re:Usa, Japan by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Snopes, you say. That must've been some mind-bending research.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  6. This is why. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you don't do business with or in China. If you think Apple is the only one who will get this treatment, dream on.

    China, as we know, has little concept of rights whether human or otherwise. I once read that in China if you get taken advantage of it's your fault, not the person stealing or whatever from you.

    Don't buy products made in China. It's the single most effective means to give them the middle finger.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:This is why. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Personally I would guess that a user by the name of smooth wombat is from Australia, not USA...

      Though admittedly the "I once read that in China" comment smacks of typical USA ignorance and paranoia rather than the usually better educated and experienced antipodes.

    2. Re:This is why. . . by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Don't buy products made in China. It's the single most effective means to give them the middle finger.

      Don't buy iPhones.

      Is that the lesson you got from this story?

    3. Re:This is why. . . by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      The article is a bit misleading.

      In 2007, Apple didn't even own the trademark "iPhone". Cisco even filed for an injunction against Apple right after the iPhone launched in 2007.

      At least, the Chinese company registered the trademark before it used the name, which is a lot more than can be said of Apple. Should the Chinese company be penalized because Apple chose to completely ignore trademark law when it suited them. I sure hope not.

    4. Re:This is why. . . by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      One makes electronic devices, other makes leather products. I simply don't see how there can even be a dispute given that trademark applies only to particular product category.

    5. Re:This is why. . . by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work. Apple had the trademark on electronics. These guys took out a trademark on leather goods. Different domains, so no conflict.

      Kinda like how there is an Apple record label, and Apple computers were only able to keep their trademark on the condition that they didn't go into the music business. Then they did and had to do a deal.

      It's only in the corrupt US where corporations run the place that people think a trademark should cover every use of a common word in every area of business.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:This is why. . . by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      The article is a bit misleading.

      In 2007, Apple didn't even own the trademark "iPhone". Cisco even filed for an injunction against Apple right after the iPhone launched in 2007.

      At least, the Chinese company registered the trademark before it used the name, which is a lot more than can be said of Apple. Should the Chinese company be penalized because Apple chose to completely ignore trademark law when it suited them. I sure hope not.

      It sounded to me like the court said that there is very little chance that this purse manufacturer's use of the trademark iPhone would harm Apple's mobile phone sales in any way. Rulings like this are pretty common in cases where two companys in radically different lines of business like, say, a agricultural machinery manufacturer and a computer manufacturer, are using the same trademark. It is the equivalent to the judge having the folliwing co versation with the computer company's lawyer:

      Judge: "So, let me get this straight. You have come here to complain that Tractors Inc. marketing this line of combine harvesters under the trademark "LigthninFast" is wrecking the sales of your line of laptop computers being marketed under the same name?"

      Lawyer: Gives a long winded speech that boils dow to a single word, yes

      Judge: "So exactly how many people fell prey to trademark confusion and bought a combine harvester by mistake instead of a laptop?"

      Laeyer: "Uhhhhh...."

      Judge: "Would it help if I introduced you to the full spectrum of things I can do to people who waste the court's time?"

    7. Re:This is why. . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work.

      You think that a deliberately misleading brand is how trademark law is supposed to work?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:This is why. . . by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not deliberately misleading, it's generic. Multiple companies around the world were already selling "iPhones" before Apple came along. Before the iMac, even. And these guys started using the branding before the iPhone was even available in China.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:This is why. . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not deliberately misleading, it's generic. Multiple companies around the world were already selling "iPhones" before Apple came along.

      I do have issues with Apple basically trademarking the letter i. However...

      And these guys started using the branding before the iPhone was even available in China.

      That doesn't change their intent to mislead, at least, not logically. Probably it does legally, who knows? Not me. But it's still sleazy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:This is why. . . by Maow · · Score: 1

      Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work. Apple had the trademark on electronics. These guys took out a trademark on leather goods. Different domains, so no conflict.

      Absolutely correct.

      And to further rebut the GP, my "Better Half" was (is?) involved with a case where a Chinese business man registered the local trademark for the company she works for - who holds the trademark in the rest of the world, and has done business with that name for decades.

      He then went after the factories making the products for trademark infringement and had shipments to US, Canada, Europe all seized by China Customs until the dispute was resolved.

      Basically like domain squatting but for tangible goods.

      He got his ass handed to him by the Chinese courts.

      He clearly registered the trademark simply to extort this and other companies and their justice system frowns upon that - no surprise.

      Especially since, if allowed to continue, would be deleterious to the Chinese economy as well as causing them to "lose face".

      GP post is hysterical and uninformed.

  7. Re:Apple should pull out by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Then we would see how well those "iPhone" cases and purses will sell.

    Yes, that'll end well. Apple pulls out of the Chinese market, many states in the USA ban Apple products because of encryption. India and Pakistan and many other developing countries follow suit for same reasons. I guess Apple can just dig into their war chest and keep being a company for a few hundred years even without any sales but thats just trololol

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  8. Apple took the name Iphone anyhow. by Cito · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Those of us on internet in late 90's remember the most popular voice chat software that even worked over dialup. It was hugely popular among ham radio operators as being one of them, we got the ok to setup links to 2 meter and 70cm band repeaters, after not the greatest of verification but it wasn't a disaster.

    1995 article on the original iphone: http://www.wired.com/1995/10/i...

    it worked damn good over dialup for what it was, even allowed calls to landlines, and ham radio links, it was great for those days, and of course peer 2 peer

    1996 college paper on the specifics of Iphone: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~kell...

  9. Re:Usa, Japan by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    Usa Japan has existed with that name since at least the 8th century and is not and has not ever been a manufacturing city.

  10. Xintong anal leakage plugs by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Apple should start selling Xintong brand anal leakage plugs and Tiandi penis perforators. I doubt that company has trademarked their name for those products in china.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: Xintong anal leakage plugs by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      I'm just imagining the horrifying product launch with Tim doing his best to channel his inner Steve Jobs ("We've crafted these but plugs with love with technologies that will delight you") and Johnny I've talking about how they carefully crafted them with precision Unibody aluminium to ensure maximum pluggage whilst retaining stylish lines and long lived durability

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  11. Re:Usa, Japan by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    In fact, I'm pretty sure this "internet" thing is also an urban legend.

  12. Re:Usa, Japan by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Also, the country of origin must be listed, not the city or location of manufacture. So Usa (as a town) would be illegal to list as the only identifier of manufactured location.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  13. Re:Wow by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Company buys trademark in 2002, squats and doesn't sell a single item under that name until 2009, after someone else registers the name and starts using it. Seems like a reasonable result.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  14. Example Chinese negotiation by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China smiles to you and you sit down at the negotiations:

    China: "Here's our proposed deal. You'll give us everything that we want, and in return you'll get nothing and we won't even say thank you. I think you'll see that this is completely fair and equitable."

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Example Chinese negotiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So just like the unequal treaties that the west including the good ol' usa presented to the chinese, right?

    2. Re:Example Chinese negotiation by vakuona · · Score: 1

      China spent that money to try and avoid going down the hole with the US. The Chinese and the US economies are very intertwined. If China had not shored up the US dollar, US made products would have become cheaper and their own investments would have become worth less. They were acting in self interest, not out of any desire to help the US.

    3. Re:Example Chinese negotiation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think that is correct, and if it is you have to ask why the US is so weak? The EU pretty much killed TTIP by sticking to its principals and protecting its citizens from abuse, so why can't the US do the same with China?

      Of course the reality is that the US makes favourable deals for itself with China, only they are never one-sided.

      Did you even read TFA? The leather company with the trademark seems to have a good case. Different area of business. You wouldn't expect glaziers to stop using "windows" because Microsoft makes an OS with that name, presumably. The Pavlovian reaction whenever China is mentioned, the assumption that it must be corruption is quite distasteful.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Example Chinese negotiation by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      China: "Here's our proposed deal. You'll give us everything that we want, and in return you'll get nothing and we won't even say thank you. I think you'll see that this is completely fair and equitable."

      You forgot the part about having access to a market of 1/7th of the world's entire population. That's what you get in return, and that's why companies will happily accept those terms.

    5. Re:Example Chinese negotiation by gtall · · Score: 1

      The U.S,. has no trade deals with China. You've been listening to Trump, stop it.

  15. If Apple wants to play ball in China... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    ... then Apple will need to play by China's rules. Rules which, by the way, are strongly tilted in favor of the Chinese. Much like Microsoft had the whole PC market tilted towards Redmond.

    .
    Them are the rules.

  16. It proves what I've known for years. by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This has been known forever, though Apple probably just wanted to make their point although they knew they ultimately could not win.

    In a legal battle between a Chinese entity and a foreign entity, Chinese courts always rule on the side of the Chinese entity. Always. Even if they have to come up with the most convoluted legal logic possible to do so. This is one of the warnings we used to give clients when they were considering joint ventures with Chinese companies. "Do you trust them?" (The answer was inevitably "no".) "Can you survive when -- not if -- they screw you over? Because you'll have no recourse when it happens." The only hope of ever seeing legal ramifications is if a company can get another Chinese JV to do the suing.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  17. Re:I'm tired of "i" in all their shit anyway... by eWarz · · Score: 1

    Yeah...those damn marketers...building the most successful and profitable company in the world...how dare they?

  18. Re: Apple should pull out by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    The China is supposed to 'save' Apple...

    Poor beleaguered Apple... Obviously a company in trouble when they are making billions of dollars a year in profit.

    You know you're in trouble when you didn't make quite as an obscene amount as you did last year.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  19. Re:I'm tired of "i" in all their shit anyway... by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

    3GS, 4S, 6S... yeah, totally different :)

  20. Good luck selling a Coca-Cola TV by tepples · · Score: 1

    It sounded to me like the court said that there is very little chance that this purse manufacturer's use of the trademark iPhone would harm Apple's mobile phone sales in any way. Rulings like this are pretty common in cases where two companys in radically different lines of business like, say, a agricultural machinery manufacturer and a computer manufacturer, are using the same trademark.

    A claim of trademark infringement requires the registration and the allegedly infringing activity to be closely related fields of use. But a claim of dilution of a famous trademark, in those jurisdictions that recognize it, has no field of use restriction. Good luck selling a "Coca-Cola" brand television, even without the Spencerian logo.

  21. Re: Apple should pull out by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    When your revenue drops 25% year-over-year in the biggest market in the world, yeah - it's time to start worrying.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  22. Re:Never should have had it. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Cisco made a device called an iphone long before Apple made theirs. Apple has no right to an exclusive trademark.

    Actually, no they didn't. They bought Linksys who made a device called an iphone long before Apple made theirs. After they bought it, Cisco dropped the product. Then when the rumors around the Apple iPhone started to thicken, Cisco suddenly renamed another Product iPhone.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  23. Re:I'm tired of "i" in all their shit anyway... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    3GS, 4S, 6S... yeah, totally different :)

    Actually yes. Either of the phones you named is one phone model (okay, the 6S come in two sizes). The "Gx" was a name for several different models only sharing the CPU type. And even among those with the exact same name there were (more or less) different hardware. E.g. there were 3 different "iMac G5" generations with quite different hardware.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  24. The two graphics are TOTALLY different by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    It's not a SEMANTIC use, it's a GRAPHICAL use. Apple uses iPhone. The Chinese are using IPHONE. In English, we think that these are related, because we have a concept of upper and lower case letters. However, if you think of the graphical nature of Chinese writing, or of something utilitarian like circuit board traces, it becomes obvious that these two collections of shapes are TOTALLY different. If you had both of these on your keyring, the IPHONE probably wouldn't even go into the lock for the iPhone. If your circuit board had parts in the same places, but the traces underneath were that different, you might well be shorting power to ground.

  25. Re: Apple should pull out by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Question. You named India and Pakistan as developing countries (Pakistan? Seriously?) anyway, but, do you consider China also a developing country?
    I wonder because so many americans have no clue about these things.

    I guess India and Pakistan count as developing, I guess progress is being made and that counts as 'development'.

    China is an odd case, I don't know how to classify it in terms of first, second or third world. Probably more second world these days, especially the coastal cities.

    I'm not American. I'm European and have lived in a very diverse collection of countries.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  26. Re: Apple should pull out by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    As far as I can tell, it is firmly second world, but what does that have to do with development?

    First world doesn't mean what you think it means.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  27. Re:Wow by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Such as Apple Music that was sued out of its name by Apple (after already winning a case against Apple that they would not enter the music industry)?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?