PDA

View Full Version : Apple Officially Loses 'iPhone' Trademark Dispute in Brazil, Appeals and Lawsuits Coming




MacRumors
Feb 13, 2013, 11:32 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/13/apple-officially-loses-iphone-trademark-dispute-in-brazil-appeals-and-lawsuits-coming/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/02/gradiente_iphone_white-250x214.jpgBBC News reports (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21449890) that Apple has officially lost a trademark ruling in Brazil over the "iPhone" name, with officials declaring that a company now selling Android phones (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/firm-launches-iphone-brand-of-android-phones-touts-trademark-ownership-in-brazil/) under the name is the rightful owner of the term based on its trademark application from 2000.

The impact on Apple appears to be limited for the time being, however, as Apple is reportedly pursuing an appeal and can continue selling the iPhone under its present name in the country.The INPI added that its decision only applied to handsets, and that the California-based company continued to have exclusive rights to use the iPhone name elsewhere including on clothing, in software and across publications.

Apple can also continue to sell iPhone-branded handsets in what is Latin America's biggest market - however, Gradiente has an option of suing for exclusivity.Apple's case hinged on the fact that Gradiente had not launched a product with the "iPhone" name until late last year, despite having applied for the trademark over a decade earlier. Trademark officials did not, however, agree that IGB/Gradiente should be stripped of the rights to the mark.

Gradiente noted last week (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/05/firm-owning-iphone-trademark-in-brazil-open-to-selling-mark-to-apple/) that it was open to selling the rights to the iPhone trademark to Apple, but it appears that the dispute may continue through appeals and lawsuits for some time before a settlement might be reached.

Article Link: Apple Officially Loses 'iPhone' Trademark Dispute in Brazil, Appeals and Lawsuits Coming (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/13/apple-officially-loses-iphone-trademark-dispute-in-brazil-appeals-and-lawsuits-coming/)



frayne182
Feb 13, 2013, 11:33 AM
lol

*grabs popcorn*

AdeFowler
Feb 13, 2013, 11:34 AM
Amazed that Apple didn't make an offer for the name in 2006 or earlier.

I WAS the one
Feb 13, 2013, 11:37 AM
What is that?
- an iPhone
That's not an iPhone that's an iCrap!
-look at the box man, this is an original iPhone... I'm not crazy!
True, you are not crazy boy, you are screwed!
-FU!

spyguy10709
Feb 13, 2013, 11:37 AM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

mabhatter
Feb 13, 2013, 11:50 AM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

Now moving jobs shouldn't trump the law.... (Wink, wink)

CIA hasn't toppled any Latin American governments lately... If they wait too long, more leaders will grow a spine like Chavez. Maybe Apple would make a donation.... That's out of line and mean too...

It's a good thing Apple's execs have a considerably better moral compass than say Oil or Steel barons in the past.

turtlez
Feb 13, 2013, 11:52 AM
was Apple the one to set the trend for small letter capital letter? eg. eMac iMac. I remember playing online games and everyone was always iSomething. even the movie I, Robot kind of seems like it got the idea from there. Whoever set this trend should have right to use the term since it reflects upon themselves/company

OllyW
Feb 13, 2013, 11:54 AM
was Apple the one to set the trend for small letter capital letter? eg. eMac iMac. I remember playing online games and everyone was always iSomething. even the movie I, Robot kind of seems like it got the idea from there. Whoever set this trend should have right to use the term since it reflects upon themselves/company

They sell their phone using the IPHONE (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/firm-launches-iphone-brand-of-android-phones-touts-trademark-ownership-in-brazil/) brand-name.

moxxey
Feb 13, 2013, 11:59 AM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

You mean unlike the iPhone's that are currently being manufactured in Brazil?

If a company owns a valid trademark, a company from another country cannot simply come in and take it over, simply because they 'forgot' or couldn't get their trademark in that particular country.

If I register a trademark here in the UK, today, then the mighty Apple chooses the same trademark everywhere else in the world, in five years time, it doesn't mean they have a legal right to *my* trademark, registered first.

OllyW
Feb 13, 2013, 12:01 PM
If I register a trademark here in the UK, today, then the mighty Apple chooses the same trademark everywhere else in the world, in five years time, it doesn't mean they have a legal right to *my* trademark, registered first.

As they will probably find out if they try to launch an "iTV". :)

ArtOfWarfare
Feb 13, 2013, 12:10 PM
was Apple the one to set the trend for small letter capital letter? eg. eMac iMac. I remember playing online games and everyone was always iSomething. even the movie I, Robot kind of seems like it got the idea from there. Whoever set this trend should have right to use the term since it reflects upon themselves/company

I, Robot was a book written in 1950.

winston1236
Feb 13, 2013, 12:16 PM
Now moving jobs shouldn't trump the law.... (Wink, wink)

CIA hasn't toppled any Latin American governments lately... If they wait too long, more leaders will grow a spine like Chavez. Maybe Apple would make a donation.... That's out of line and mean too...

It's a good thing Apple's execs have a considerably better moral compass than say Oil or Steel barons in the past.

Ah yes. Venezuela. The country that cant afford to import anything due to their worthless money thanks to hugo.

nagromme
Feb 13, 2013, 01:22 PM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

"Brazil" is not a single entity that can alter its own laws case-by-case over a matter that is much smaller to Apple than the manufacturing is.

The legal process is how these negotiations happen, it seems, but in the end, Apple should pay: this company had the iPhone trademark long before Apple had the iPhone.

Now, Apple DID have the iMac (not sure iBook, iPod, iTunes) first. Some companies did try to cash in on that by mimicking it, but I don't think it's a 100% certainty that that's what went on here.

Snookerman
Feb 13, 2013, 01:27 PM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

I'm sure all the Brazilians are glad that their legal system isn't guided by the market.

spyguy10709
Feb 13, 2013, 01:31 PM
You mean unlike the iPhone's that are currently being manufactured in Brazil?

If a company owns a valid trademark, a company from another country cannot simply come in and take it over, simply because they 'forgot' or couldn't get their trademark in that particular country.

If I register a trademark here in the UK, today, then the mighty Apple chooses the same trademark everywhere else in the world, in five years time, it doesn't mean they have a legal right to *my* trademark, registered first.
And? Apple isn't going to move more manufacturing to Brazil. That's all I'm saying.

Krazy Bill
Feb 13, 2013, 01:52 PM
Attention Apple: They beat you to the trademark by a few years - well before the iPhone was even conceived. That's why we have the ability to "trademark".


Addendum to Apple: Just buy Brazil.

tdtran1025
Feb 13, 2013, 02:02 PM
Here we go again.

50548
Feb 13, 2013, 02:33 PM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

The Brazilian government has zilt to do with that - this is called application of law as it is supposed to happen in any civilized nation out there.

In fact, Apple and its partners have already been manufacturing there and will continue to do so, for obvious reasons...Brazil is the 6th largest economy in the world and the natural leader of the Southern Hemisphere - in other words, a huge target market for Apple, as already confirmed by Cook and others.

And no, we do not speak Spanish nor are we part of the prejudiced and nonsensical US-invented "latino" community. So for those with some knowledge of Brazilian Portuguese, you may check this "explanatory" video by Gradiente - they say that the idea behind "IPHONE" came from "INTERNET PHONE" back then (whether one believes that or not is irrelevant now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRf6Gv4NtU&feature=player_embedded

Ultimately, the INPI has simply applied Law 9279 on IPR - Apple has stated that it will appeal on "removal for non use" grounds. However, this is a lost cause, as it is clear that IGB DID release something since the registration was finally granted to that company in 2008 (the five-year period counts from effective registration and NOT deposit of the request).

As I said before, Apple will have to shut up and pay; simple as that.

lolkthxbai
Feb 13, 2013, 05:14 PM
This Brazilian company is acting very typical and they have every LEGAL right to do so. I can't wait to hear how much they settle for...

shortcrust
Feb 13, 2013, 06:25 PM
I guarantee that Apple isn't going to bring manufacturing to Brazil now. Not smart, Brazil. Not smart.

Smart?! Do you really think it would be 'smart' of a Brazilian court to base a decision on the need to keep Apple happy rather that the need to uphold the laws of their country? I think it would be shameful, and I'm pretty sure Brazil isn't that desperate.

Some people on here have a really screwed up world view.

borneo76
Feb 13, 2013, 08:35 PM
move on apple, we want your innovation, instead of new lawsuit :rolleyes:

RedCroissant
Feb 13, 2013, 10:37 PM
The Brazilian government has zilt to do with that - this is called application of law as it is supposed to happen in any civilized nation out there.

In fact, Apple and its partners have already been manufacturing there and will continue to do so, for obvious reasons...Brazil is the 6th largest economy in the world and the natural leader of the Southern Hemisphere - in other words, a huge target market for Apple, as already confirmed by Cook and others.

And no, we do not speak Spanish nor are we part of the prejudiced and nonsensical US-invented "latino" community. So for those with some knowledge of Brazilian Portuguese, you may check this "explanatory" video by Gradiente - they say that the idea behind "IPHONE" came from "INTERNET PHONE" back then (whether one believes that or not is irrelevant now):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRf6Gv4NtU&feature=player_embedded

Ultimately, the INPI has simply applied Law 9279 on IPR - Apple has stated that it will appeal on "removal for non use" grounds. However, this is a lost cause, as it is clear that IGB DID release something since the registration was finally granted to that company in 2008 (the five-year period counts from effective registration and NOT deposit of the request).

As I said before, Apple will have to shut up and pay; simple as that.

If I were in charge of Apple, I would just simply not sell the phone in Brazil. Sure, make it available for sale online, but have the shipment of the phone come from some other country like: Colombia, Argentina..even Ecuador. Then that creates jobs in those other countries for shipment(not too many though) and then each government gets nice little tax incentives for the product all while Apple still makes money on the phone, keeps manufacturing facilities in Brazil, and doesn't infringe on the trademark. Done and done.

john pope.
Feb 14, 2013, 09:43 AM
If I were in charge of Apple, I would just simply not sell the phone in Brazil. Sure, make it available for sale online, but have the shipment of the phone come from some other country like: Colombia, Argentina..even Ecuador. Then that creates jobs in those other countries for shipment(not too many though) and then each government gets nice little tax incentives for the product all while Apple still makes money on the phone, keeps manufacturing facilities in Brazil, and doesn't infringe on the trademark. Done and done.


yeah, because it makes sense to sell only a unlocked, more expensive iPhone.
And it would be even cooler to pay triple taxes on it, since Apple is, right now, manufacturing iPhones in Brazil. According to your sugestion Apple should export all the iPhones being made in Brazil to a near country, to reimport then when they are sold.
Jeez. I'm really happy you're not the guy in charge of Apple. Don't even want to imagine what else would you do .

Rogifan
Feb 14, 2013, 10:39 AM
Is a trademark still valid if you never actually use it? Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations? My guess is Gradiente will happily take a big wad of cash from Apple in exchange for Apple having the rights to iPhone in Brazil. :)

----------

move on apple, we want your innovation, instead of new lawsuit :rolleyes:

Yeah I'm sure this takes up so much of Apple's time. Because we all know no one at Apple can walk and chew gum at the same time. :rolleyes:

RedCroissant
Feb 14, 2013, 10:45 AM
yeah, because it makes sense to sell only a unlocked, more expensive iPhone.
And it would be even cooler to pay triple taxes on it, since Apple is, right now, manufacturing iPhones in Brazil. According to your sugestion Apple should export all the iPhones being made in Brazil to a near country, to reimport then when they are sold.
Jeez. I'm really happy you're not the guy in charge of Apple. Don't even want to imagine what else would you do .

It does make sense because people will pay for them and I was unaware that cell phone companies in Brazil were subsidizing newer phones anyway. I am aware that the U.N. and the Brazilian government were giving low-income families less capable phones, but I thought that most major phones had to be purchased at full retail price.

Who said anything about shipping the iPhones made in Brazil to a nearby country for sale in Brazil? I guess that's the way it could be read, but as of right now, the phones in Brazil are being sent elsewhere and I'm sure Apple already has agreements with the Brazilian government regarding taxes that most likely benefit both parties.

I guess my idea of having the iPhones shipped from bordering countries was the major problem in articulating my position. The shipment would simply have to come from another country to avoid infringement of the trademark. This doesn't involve paying triple taxes. If they are also sold per unit, then the buyer will be responsible for the associated taxes and import fees. After all, iPhones were being manufactured in China before they were even available for sale there, and people in China were buying them online and having them shipped there. What's the difference? That "accidental" business model seems to have worked out just fine.

spyguy10709
Feb 14, 2013, 09:18 PM
Smart?! Do you really think it would be 'smart' of a Brazilian court to base a decision on the need to keep Apple happy rather that the need to uphold the laws of their country? I think it would be shameful, and I'm pretty sure Brazil isn't that desperate.

Some people on here have a really screwed up world view.

I actually don't. Brazil just pissed off Apple. I think it would, actually, because Brazil could have just risked 1000s of good jobs for their people, instead of a bogus trademark on an irrelevant, bankrupt, company.

shortcrust
Feb 14, 2013, 10:00 PM
I actually don't. Brazil just pissed off Apple. I think it would, actually, because Brazil could have just risked 1000s of good jobs for their people, instead of a bogus trademark on an irrelevant, bankrupt, company.

Wow. And you don't think that's a screwed up world view?! Words can't adequately express my contempt.

spyguy10709
Feb 15, 2013, 09:02 AM
Wow. And you don't think that's a screwed up world view?! Words can't adequately express my contempt.

Nope. It's screwed up but that's the way it is buddy.

Sometimes you have to make the choice between "right" and what's good for people.

RedCroissant
Feb 15, 2013, 09:50 AM
Nope. It's screwed up but that's the way it is buddy.

Sometimes you have to make the choice between "right" and what's good for people.

Ok. That's crazy talk. What's good for people is the recognition that an action is in fact right. A right action can make a greater impact than an improper action performed simply under the presumption that is in the best interest of the people. In this case, what is right and what is good for the people is that the Brazilian government is upholding the law that their citizens rely on.

Which "people" were you referring to?

Undermining their own laws would also challenge their own authority and could also result in questions of national identity and security.

If Apple wants the trademark that badly(even though this company is definitely taking advantage of the popularity of the iDevice line) then they will end up paying for it. If not, there are other ways to get their products into Brazilian hands(just include one with every purchase of an Apple iFootball(soccer ball for Americans). :-)

Sue De Nimes
Feb 16, 2013, 03:12 PM
was Apple the one to set the trend for small letter capital letter? eg. eMac iMac. I remember playing online games and everyone was always iSomething. even the movie I, Robot kind of seems like it got the idea from there. Whoever set this trend should have right to use the term since it reflects upon themselves/company

LOL - I, Robot is based on the book I, Robot that was published in 1950

turtlez
Feb 16, 2013, 06:23 PM
LOL - I, Robot is based on the book I, Robot that was published in 1950

k well I don't know this. If I asked you what 1+1 was when you were first born and you did a poop instead i wouldn't say LOL. It's not like I am backing anyone here either. I am just saying whoever set the trend should have the right to use it whether it was Apple or someone else.

Sue De Nimes
Feb 18, 2013, 04:09 AM
k well I don't know this. If I asked you what 1+1 was when you were first born and you did a poop instead i wouldn't say LOL. It's not like I am backing anyone here either. I am just saying whoever set the trend should have the right to use it whether it was Apple or someone else.

A basic grasp of grammar would indicate that "I, Robot" means something very different to "iRobot"

thekev
Feb 18, 2013, 04:20 AM
If I were in charge of Apple, I would just simply not sell the phone in Brazil. Sure, make it available for sale online, but have the shipment of the phone come from some other country like: Colombia, Argentina..even Ecuador. Then that creates jobs in those other countries for shipment(not too many though) and then each government gets nice little tax incentives for the product all while Apple still makes money on the phone, keeps manufacturing facilities in Brazil, and doesn't infringe on the trademark. Done and done.

Spite would be a silly basis for business decisions.

I actually don't. Brazil just pissed off Apple. I think it would, actually, because Brazil could have just risked 1000s of good jobs for their people, instead of a bogus trademark on an irrelevant, bankrupt, company.

That's a bad policy. As for Apple you guys are are silly. There is no way to tell if this one factor makes business in Brazil less profitable to a point where they would alter manufacturing plans.

A basic grasp of grammar would indicate that "I, Robot" means something very different to "iRobot"

It's still important to consider that this looks different from a 2013 paradigm. Look at the size of Apple in 2000 when this trademark was filed compared to today. I'm not sure how many people would have believed that the lower case i would be carried on to so many products or that Apple would become this large. As far as trademarks are concerned, Apple had a short dispute with Cisco who also owned a trademark on "iphone" (and a working product) carried over from Linksys in however many countries.

raybackjoe
Feb 18, 2013, 10:08 AM
Taken aback which Apple didn't make an provide for title in 2006 or perhaps earlier.

RedCroissant
Feb 18, 2013, 11:15 AM
Spite would be a silly basis for business decisions.



It's not spite. It's simply a business plan that actually doesn't drastically alter the present situation. It simply utilizes existing avenues for sale of the iPhone in a country where it is not officially available; like China.

It's also similar in the way that iPads "magically" found their way into the hands of Chinese buyers before Apple even purchased the trademark. Yes, purchasing the TM made it more profitable to manufacture and sell the devices in the same country, but the type of approach before the TM was owned by Apple does not make the policy or actually lack of policy a spiteful one.

thekev
Feb 18, 2013, 05:35 PM
It's not spite. It's simply a business plan that actually doesn't drastically alter the present situation. It simply utilizes existing avenues for sale of the iPhone in a country where it is not officially available; like China.

It's also similar in the way that iPads "magically" found their way into the hands of Chinese buyers before Apple even purchased the trademark. Yes, purchasing the TM made it more profitable to manufacture and sell the devices in the same country, but the type of approach before the TM was owned by Apple does not make the policy or actually lack of policy a spiteful one.

It may or may not change the fundamentals to a level where it makes sense to alter plans to sell the iphone directly in Brazil. It doesn't mean they won't still find a way to sell directly in Brazil.

turtlez
Feb 18, 2013, 10:14 PM
A basic grasp of grammar would indicate that "I, Robot" means something very different to "iRobot"

Thanks Sue. A basic grasp of logic would mean you didn't need to say that.

Sue De Nimes
Feb 19, 2013, 04:40 AM
Thanks Sue. A basic grasp of logic would mean you didn't need to say that.

Your understanding of logic seems to be as strong as your grammar.

turtlez
Feb 19, 2013, 06:16 PM
Your understanding of logic seems to be as strong as your grammar.

k time to stop now