Apple will get the name rights one way or another. That's positive thinking.
Live and Let Die!
Last edited by a moderator:
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 Loses 'iPhone' Name Rights in Mexico over Phonetic Similarity [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple will get the name rights one way or another. That's positive thinking.
Live and Let Die!
So true!
Though these days I think the drug cartels are more in charge than the government.Apple is going to have to write a check just like they did to the Swiss company that had copyrights on the clock in iOS 6.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what I get for glossing over an article.
No worries, god knows I've done that! Nice that it wasn't just a blind fb comment!
you think Apple had any market penetration in Mexico in 2003? How can a Mexican company ride Apple's fame then? Think before you post.
The unfortunate thing is that by creating the iMac Apple started a trend of crappy companies just sticking a lowercase i in front of the name of whatever they produce or do. In this case the company even decided that spelling phone correctly just wasn't hip enough them as the cool cats in the hood for realz etc.
Unfortunately protecting the concept of sticking a lowercase i in front of a name isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world. I mean, personally I'd have anyone other than Apple that decides that sticking a lowercase i in front of a half-assed name is a good idea taken outside and shot, but that's likely why I'm not in any position of power (yet…), just the same as I would do for companies that use texting acronyms in their company names.
When you start seeing companies like "First4Lawyers" it hardly inspires confidence in their professional conduct; and what if I wanted a fifth lawyer? It's only a short hop to iRt3hLaw4U, the mostest street law firm on the block.
Unfortunately protecting the concept of sticking a lowercase i in front of a name isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world. I mean, personally I'd have anyone other than Apple that decides that sticking a lowercase i in front of a half-assed name is a good idea taken outside and shot, but that's likely why I'm not in any position of power (yet…), just the same as I would do for companies that use texting acronyms in their company names.
When you start seeing companies like "First4Lawyers" it hardly inspires confidence in their professional conduct; and what if I wanted a fifth lawyer? It's only a short hop to iRt3hLaw4U, the mostest street law firm on the block.
Yes, we all know Apple will throw money at the legal system until they get their way, because Apple doesn't know any other way to compete.
Please tell me you're joking. If you were next to me I would just punch you in the nose. And Apple on the side of the good and the right and the just? I didn't know everyone at Apple had become saints.
I hope you're trolling and don't actually believe that.
Sometimes I lose my faith in US americans and their ego, thanks for restoring my faith in most of you.
This makes sense. No trolling companies (either Apple or iFone), but just companies defending themselves.
I am from Mexico and I have NEVER, EVER heard the company or seen its logo. This is all BS.
Oh, come on. I have "never, ever" heard of them before, but I don't know every company in Mexico, nor have I been interested in services from telecommunication companies. It's not like they're an Oxxo that you can find them in every corner.
Not disagreeing with the leeching thing, but they still filed the patent first and are therefore legally entitled to the name.
Good thing in Mexico, everything is available for sale. Even the government...
Apple will get the name rights one way or another. That's positive thinking.
Live and Let Die!
So they're pretty much like the US o A? Enough money and eventually you'll win.
Gonna miss buying my groceries from there once Apple goes after them.
Here we go again. 3 times and Apple still can't win. Can't beat them, buy them.
Love MR. Get warned for double-posting but feel free to post as much racist and bigoted tripe as you like.
True... this site is beyond the joke. You can post as much small minded racism as you want, but if you call someone out for obvious trolling, your post will be removed quicker than you can say "heavy handed moderation".
but.. I would guess iFone picked their name because using "i" in the name was already "in" because of iPod?
Stay mad, ******
If you honestly think that Apple doesn't pay people off, you're legitimately stupid. And they shouldn't have had an easy victory because the iFone patent was filed first.
Mexico doesn't benefit from Apple being there. Try again.
Apple is no less dishonest than Google. And there are Android products out there that are faster and higher quality than the iPhone 5. Their OS is better than iOS 6, too.
Apple is corrupt for starting patent wars instead of actually competing because they know they would lose. All they do is put old hardware in shiny boxes and sell it as innovation. And they care as much for their consumers as you seem to care for logic.[/QUOTE]
Pick one.
Samsung should buy them and then sell the rights to Apple for $1Billion. Good to see people standing up to the mighty apple legal machine.
No it's not. iFone, would be pronounced as "ee-fo-ne", while iPhone would be pronounced "ee-po-ne". The "h" in iPhone is completely silent. The "ne" on both words do not end in "nay" like someone else mentioned either.
However, seeing how "iPhone" is a product name, it would just be pronounced to Spanish speaking people just like it sounds in English. Just because it's a product name. The same applies to the brand "Nike".
I have a feeling that "iFone" is just an alternate spelling for "iPhone" in spanish because of the "f" sound that the "ph" makes in the english language doesn't exist in Spanish.
Nontheless, the company name "iFone" should not sound the same as "iPhone".
Reading this reminds me of a Steve Martin line in one of his songs: "Criticize things you don't know about."
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.
Someone tried to explain this, but apparently most of you didn't understand it.
Apple has trademarks that are literally worth billions of dollars. There are reams of case law regarding what someone has to do to protect a trademark. For example, let's say I own trademark XYZ and a company creates a product called XYZ. After 10 years, XYZ product becomes hugely successful. I now sue for infringement. The courts will ask, "why didn't you sue when you first became aware of the infringement? It appears that it is only the fact that this trademark has become valuable that is motivating you. If you weren't concerned before, why are you concerned now?"
I would have to demonstrate all kinds of things including that I was being damaged by the infringement. But, the key fact here is that I didn't try to proactively protect my trademark. I hate all the suits, but you have to understand that if Apple lets even one of these go, it opens the door for someone to take control of an asset that they have spent billions creating. Now, you may say it's only a name, but trademarks can be extremely valuable.
This is not a case as many of you suggest that Apple is a bully or conceited, or whatever. Apple is a business that needs to protect its assets, and the way to protect a trademark is to actively pursue anyone who infringes. Yeah, it might seem crappy to go after a grocery store, but it's not because they are jerks, it's because they a cautious about a billion dollar asset.
The Mexican court made the right call, but so did Apple in bringing the suit. No one will be able to claim that Apple has not proactively protected the iPhone trademark. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple knew they would lose. But rather than paying off the iFone, sued first to establish that they are actively protecting this trademark. There are times when bringing a lawsuit isn't cost effective (at least in the short run), but gives you many other benefits.
Disclaimer: Not a lawyer.
Someone tried to explain this, but apparently most of you didn't understand it.
Apple has trademarks that are literally worth billions of dollars. There are reams of case law regarding what someone has to do to protect a trademark. For example, let's say I own trademark XYZ and a company creates a product called XYZ. After 10 years, XYZ product becomes hugely successful. I now sue for infringement. The courts will ask, "why didn't you sue when you first became aware of the infringement? It appears that it is only the fact that this trademark has become valuable that is motivating you. If you weren't concerned before, why are you concerned now?"
I would have to demonstrate all kinds of things including that I was being damaged by the infringement. But, the key fact here is that I didn't try to proactively protect my trademark. I hate all the suits, but you have to understand that if Apple lets even one of these go, it opens the door for someone to take control of an asset that they have spent billions creating. Now, you may say it's only a name, but trademarks can be extremely valuable.
This is not a case as many of you suggest that Apple is a bully or conceited, or whatever. Apple is a business that needs to protect its assets, and the way to protect a trademark is to actively pursue anyone who infringes. Yeah, it might seem crappy to go after a grocery store, but it's not because they are jerks, it's because they a cautious about a billion dollar asset.
The Mexican court made the right call, but so did Apple in bringing the suit. No one will be able to claim that Apple has not proactively protected the iPhone trademark. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Apple knew they would lose. But rather than paying off the iFone, sued first to establish that they are actively protecting this trademark. There are times when bringing a lawsuit isn't cost effective (at least in the short run), but gives you many other benefits.
Apple isn't fighting to protect their trademarks, they're fighting to remove the competition for trying to compete with them. Stop distorting reality. And there was no "original 'iPhone' trademark." iFone was there first.