Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's 'iPad Mini' Trademark Application Initially Denied, but Resolution Should Be Simple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Internet" was only one of the things the i was said to stand for, they also said it stood for "individuality", "innovation", "intergrity" etc. Basically every buzz word they could come up with that starts with an i. It's nothing but a gimmick anyway.
Don't worry, your tax dollars aren't on the line here. Applicants pay fees to USPTO for the service provided. The agency is completely self-funded. If anyone has a complaint about the quality of service, it's those who pay the fees.
I'd consider this a typical CYA trademark application. If Apple doesn't apply for a trademark, it could come back to bite them, and then, inevitably, there'll be a shareholder lawsuit (and a chance to complain about lawyers and frivolous lawsuits).
The only news here is that it's a relatively inept application. I consider the examiner's response to be a nose-tweak. "Come on, guys, you can do better than this."
The meaning of the mythical "i"? I have absolutely nothing to back up my theory, but I like "i for 'integrated," to mark the then-new iMac's return to the all-in-one form factor (for a desktop computer). Apple's continued use of "Mac" for desktop products requiring a separate monitor is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence.
Since then, iPrefix has become strongly connected to Apple, as iConic as the bitten apple iTself. Someday, maybe the company will assert that the use of the 'i' prefix is iNextricably connected to Apple, so that any other use would lead to consumer confusion (protect the poor consumer from iMitation goods/defend Apple's achievement from predation). But that's a risky road; lose the case and who knows how that might affect existing and future Apple trademarks.
I'd consider this a typical CYA trademark application. If Apple doesn't apply for a trademark, it could come back to bite them, and then, inevitably, there'll be a shareholder lawsuit (and a chance to complain about lawyers and frivolous lawsuits).
The only news here is that it's a relatively inept application. I consider the examiner's response to be a nose-tweak. "Come on, guys, you can do better than this."
The meaning of the mythical "i"? I have absolutely nothing to back up my theory, but I like "i for 'integrated," to mark the then-new iMac's return to the all-in-one form factor (for a desktop computer). Apple's continued use of "Mac" for desktop products requiring a separate monitor is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence.
Since then, iPrefix has become strongly connected to Apple, as iConic as the bitten apple iTself. Someday, maybe the company will assert that the use of the 'i' prefix is iNextricably connected to Apple, so that any other use would lead to consumer confusion (protect the poor consumer from iMitation goods/defend Apple's achievement from predation). But that's a risky road; lose the case and who knows how that might affect existing and future Apple trademarks.
I completely agree. If competitors want to slap the word "mini" onto their product, more power to them. It's called competition.
If this is real, this is very bad.
His argument for "i" is nonsense. The original iPod never connected to the internet, thus Apple never meant for the i to insinuate internet.
Also "MINI" is not a feature, it's a property. People don't buy an iPad mini because it will do "MINI". They buy it because it is mini in size, a property.
Dumbest thing ever.
Either way I could care less if Apple received the patent or not, it won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
His argument for "i" is nonsense. The original iPod never connected to the internet, thus Apple never meant for the i to insinuate internet.
Also "MINI" is not a feature, it's a property. People don't buy an iPad mini because it will do "MINI". They buy it because it is mini in size, a property.
Dumbest thing ever.
Either way I could care less if Apple received the patent or not, it won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
You forget that Apple's own i-Naming started with the iMac, which DID connect to the internet.
At the time the iMac was named, "i" prefixes were in vogue due to the rise of the Internet and Interactive TV / applications. Heck, there were already trademarks by others on "iPod", "iPad", "iPhoto", "iBooks", etc.
According to the ad agency who invented the name, they sold the "i" to Jobs as being able to stand for: Internet, Imagination, or Individual.
(If you really don't know the MacMan -> iMac story, please read that link.)
Cheers!
Last edited:
Good info, thanks.
Still not sure if this whole story was an April Fool's thing or not.