Apple's 'iPad Mini' Trademark Application Initially Denied, but Resolution Should Be Simple

[iGrip]

I havent' read the article, but I am wondering: If iPad is trademarked (is it?), then why do you need to trademark "iPad whatever"?

The application did not disclaim a trademark in "Mini" used alone. That is one reason why it was denied. If it had been allowed, Apple would have been able to claim infringement for every product that used the word "Mini" in its name.

Apple will need to correct its "error" when it resubmits the application.

 

[MacFan782040]

Where's the annual "April Fools, Happy birthday, Apple - be cautious about what you read today" post?

 

[sesnir]

Well the i isnt. That's what it has always stood for. Whether it makes any sense or not. The iMac was the " Internet" Mac.

And the iPod was the "Internet" Pod? That makes no sense.

 

[jakebot]

Does the iPod Mini not have a trademark? Seems if that could have one (or any of the other iPods) then this would be straight forward.

When I clicked "buy now" I thought I was buying "tech specs". Naturally.

 

[realeric]

I would fire the examiner. I don't want my tax goes to the dumb.

 

[kas23]

I havent' read the article, but I am wondering: If iPad is trademarked (is it?), then why do you need to trademark "iPad whatever"?

I don't think Apple wants competitors tagging the word "mini" onto their smaller tablets.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Slow news day.

No, this is a correction to a previously run story. They should have ran this story even if Apple announced the iWatch, iTV, iRadio and Steve came back from the dead all in the same hour.

 

[kas23]

I would fire the examiner. I don't want my tax goes to the dumb.

Yeah, no tax to the dumb.

 

[macingman]

I don't think Apple wants competitors tagging the word "mini" onto their smaller tablets.

It's impossible for Apple to trademark the word "mini" by itself. "mini" is a common word used in the English language. They can only trademark the term "iPad mini", where "mini" is used with the term "iPad".

 

[iGrip]

Does the iPod Mini not have a trademark?

Yes. You are correct.

 

[macs4nw]

Is this examiner crazy or what ?
I'm baffled. The buy button isn't close enough and the consumer wouldn't know what they were buying ?

i have no idea what i just read
is he saying that the buy now button on its current location could imply that u r buying "iOS" "iCloud" or even "Tech Specs"? lololol

I understand the need to protect these services. But this as it were, is a crock of sheet. Maybe it's unclear in a third work country. Makes these guys look stupid.

April Fools ?!?!?!?!?!

I think we've been had!......Good one...... I almost fell for it too......

 

[Mackan]

It's impossible for Apple to trademark the word "mini" by itself. "mini" is a common word used in the English language. They can only trademark the term "iPad mini", where "mini" is used with the term "iPad".

Won't stop Apple from going after anyone using the word 'mini' in their product name, as soon as they get their whatever trademark approved. Just wait for it.

 

[iGrip]

It's impossible for Apple to trademark the word "mini" by itself. "mini" is a common word used in the English language. They can only trademark the term "iPad mini", where "mini" is used with the term "iPad".

That is incorrect. Many "common word used in the English language" are trademarks.

Amazon, for example.

And don't forget this famous trademark:

You really may want to learn some basics before citing your understanding as fact.

 

[uknowimright]

I don't want my tax goes to the dumb.

...que?

 

[gnasher729]

I suggest that Apple should print out a bill in triplicate for each iPad Mini that they sold. That would be about 10 million iPad Minis, with three pages per Mini. Then deliver these 30 million pages to the USPTO. Maybe that is enough prove that the iPad Mini is for sale.

----------

Won't stop Apple from going after anyone using the word 'mini' in their product name, as soon as they get their whatever trademark approved. Just wait for it.

I want the vote down button back.

 

[akbarali.ch]

Is this examiner crazy or what ?

I'm baffled. The buy button isn't close enough and the consumer wouldn't know what they were buying ?

at first i didn't get it, but i laughed when got it! i couldn't believe the silliness. The buy button is not in close !

 

[iGrip]

I don't think Apple wants competitors tagging the word "mini" onto their smaller tablets.

Likely true. Also likely true was that Apple didn't want its competitors tagging the word "computer" onto their electronic devices back in the day.

But, like a 5-year old, Apple doesn't always get everything it wants.

 

[JAT]

And the iPod was the "Internet" Pod? That makes no sense.

I don't think anyone claimed it made sense.

 

[jm001]

It is April 1st so... For realsies?

 

[kdarling]

For I and pad yes. Particularly since i=internet was an Apple 'invention'.

The "i" prefix was NOT an Apple invention. Apple's ad agency was simply following the popular trend of the time.

We've been over this many times before. Reference my post showing dozens of "i" device trademarks that predated Apple's usage:

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16795467/

As for "pad" computer, that's an old term just like "slate".

--

This application should be able to go through after Apple makes the changes that the examiner asked for, such as denying any claim to the word "mini" by itself.

It's basically the same sequence Apple went through when applying for "App Store". They were first denied because they used common descriptive words, same as in this case.

Then they came back and re-applied on the grounds of "Acquired Distinctiveness", and provisionally got it. (Microsoft filed an opposition, and it's all still pending.)

 

[feelgift]

realy?

 

[eyhk]

As If

As if the U.S. PTO needed any more proof that they were nothing but a bunch of bumbling idiots.

 

[RMo]

This not a joke. PatentlyApple reported it on March 30, as described in the original post.

I was kinda with the USPTO until they said, "The mark and picture of the goods on the specimen are not sufficiently proximate to the “buy now” tab, and it is thus unclear what consumers would be purchasing by clicking on this tab."

First, I'd call it a button, not a tab. But more importantly, it's clearly in line with the list of items directly to the right of "iPad mini"--you can look at the features, design, tech specs, etc., or you can but it now (to say nothing of the fact that it says "Buy Now" and "buy" in English is obligatorily transitive, with "iPad mini" being the only reasonable choice here).

 

[kdarling]

As if the U.S. PTO needed any more proof that they were nothing but a bunch of bumbling idiots.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

It was Apple's lawyers who failed to add the most commonly required items in their original application.

Instead, they let the USPTO tell them exactly what to do. It's the usual Apple method of trying to grab it all at first.

(I just looked. Other recent trademark applications by other companies (toy, food, etc) using the suffix "mini" went through the first time, because their first applications included things like denying any claim to the word "mini" by itself.)

 

[ericinboston]

there's not a single person on the planet that knows, thinks, or believes the "i" in iPad or iPhone or iPod or iTunes or iMac stands for "internet"....and supposedly this branding goes back to the iMac which was created LONG after other Macs and PCs were on the net.

Maybe a few hundred Apple employees...but nobody else knows what "i" supposedly stands for. For the longest time I thought the "i" simply stood for "I" as in me...mine...it's my phone or my tunes or my pad.

Bunch of bull if you ask me.