Brazilian Electronics Company Revives Long-Running iPhone Trademark Dispute

[NickName99]

So many experts in Brazilian law in here! You all are wasting your talents in this comment thread. If you’re good at something, never do it for free, right?

 

[H2SO4]

Fighting a trillion dollar company for 13 years is not actually as serious as you might think. 13 years is nothing if the end result is a $100 million or whatever payout. Depending on the content of the original trademark, you can make your point, however, looking at the given context, this does seem like a cash grab. What did this company lose out on exactly? The only reason they ended up making phones in 2012 was to legitimise this trademark lawsuit. Without Apple, their trademark would be rotting away in some Brazilian government database. Nothing more, nothing less.

Can you verify that statement with any facts or links? Or......is it just you postulating?

 

[826317]

Can you verify that statement with any facts or links? Or......is it just you postulating?

This is generally referred to as an educated guess. I am not here to convince anybody. I am voicing my own opinion. I am not in a courtroom.

There are things in life that don't require peer reviewed journals in order to make sense of. What you seem to insinuate here is that if you don't have tangible evidence to support your claim, evidence which can quite literally never be found, because what would such evidence look like? An internal document that states, "ah guys, to strengthen our chances of securing this trademark lawsuit/ruling, we're going to start producing cheap, useless android devices"? No, such evidence does not exist in all likelihood and you know that and that's exactly why you're responding to me and others the way that you are.

So yeah, the government of Brazil had already ruled that both companies could use the trademark in the country. Which is completely fine. It was the IGB Electronica who are trying to now get exclusive rights. Nice cash grab.

 

[nylonsteel]

must be causing health issues for some people still holding a 20yo grudge
maybe agree for $250k settlement
get it over with

 

[4jasontv]

Fighting a trillion dollar company for 13 years is not actually as serious as you might think. 13 years is nothing if the end result is a $100 million or whatever payout. Depending on the content of the original trademark, you can make your point, however, looking at the given context, this does seem like a cash grab. What did this company lose out on exactly? The only reason they ended up making phones in 2012 was to legitimise this trademark lawsuit. Without Apple, their trademark would be rotting away in some Brazilian government database. Nothing more, nothing less.

They made phones in 2004. IGB Electronica have been making smartphones longer than Apple. They were the first Brazilian phone manufacturer. They lost out on sales and market share.

Except this company only had whatever rights they did in Brazil, not any place the iPhone is designed or manufactured, which is why Apple was allowed to continue to sell iPhones to Brazilians. This argument makes no sense. This company didn't have a U.S. copyright or trademark rights to "iPhone". This company didn't "get miffed" seven years later, they didn't care until they decided to put out a phone in 2012, because only then did they have a "competing" product. I would put money on them loving the association with Apple because I'm sure it boosted their bottom line. (EDIT: assuming they actually tried selling phones, instead of, as others conjectured, just "releasing" a competing product as ammo for a legal settlement)
[automerge]1589927408[/automerge]

*in Brazil

They own the trademark... IN BRAZIL. Even then, because of that very important circumstance, Apple is still allowed to sell their internationally designed and built phones to Brazilians. I'm sure we care more about this lawsuit than Apple, as it has almost no effect on their operations or sales.

What does US trademark law have to do with Brazil? They were making phones in 2004...
No. LOL. The point is that don't get to sell iPhones to Brazilians.
[automerge]1589980893[/automerge]

So many experts in Brazilian law in here! You all are wasting your talents in this comment thread. If you’re good at something, never do it for free, right?

A lot of this is just obvious stuff. You know, looking at dates and than pointing out the oldest ones.
[automerge]1589980966[/automerge]

Can you verify that statement with any facts or links? Or......is it just you postulating?

They made it up. That sentence 'The only reason they ended up making phones in 2012 was to legitimise this trademark lawsuit. '

Fails when you realize the were making phones for 8 years prior.
[automerge]1589981087[/automerge]

Yep, this is the cutthroat world of business. It makes more sense to just pay a fee than pay for royalties in some cases. Last year’s court battle with Qualcomm was reminiscent of that. We can argue all day what’s ethical or who deserves what, but in the end they’ll get what they want.

What’s interesting is that Apple still wasn’t as big as they are now in 2007, and Jobs had the stones to do that.

Sure. Nothing you said was wrong. My point was that we are discussing trademark law in Brazil and Apple hadn't even secured the rights to the name in the US. One really doesn't have much to do with the other, but it does put things in perspective.
[automerge]1589981358[/automerge]

Because they didn’t produce an actual product that used the name “IPHONE” until 5 years after the original Apple iPhone was announced. So why pay out a substantial amount of money for a name of a phone that didn’t exist until 12 years later?

1. That's not how trademark law works. You register for the name before you release a product.
2. They have been fighting to use their name for years. This isn't new.
3. Apple messed up by not checking for name rights in countries they wanted to sell their product.
[automerge]1589981454[/automerge]

iMac, iBook as well.
The ‘i’ had already become synonymous with ‘cool’ and Apple.
I think it’s obvious where the trademark idea had come from.
I don’t blame them either. Could turn out to be one of the easiest and largest returning 20 year investments.

Apple doesn't get to claim ownership over a vowel.

 

[826317]

They made phones in 2004. IGB Electronica have been making smartphones longer than Apple. They were the first Brazilian phone manufacturer. They lost out on sales and market share.

The fact that they made phones since 2004 really has nothing to do with any of this at all. The Brazilian government gave the full trademark for "iphone" to Gradiente now IGB Electronica, they didn't start to sell a product with this name until 2012, 5 years after the release of the iconic iPhone. I think it's also important to note the nuance in the letter case of the two product names: iphone and iPhone, with a capital 'P'. This nuance is important to note because it goes in line with Apple's other line of product as mentioned by another use above.

There is nothing to say that they lost money because of a product name. Either way, because of the existence of the internet, I think it's fair to say that "iphone" will ring a lot more bells in Brazilian heads with regards to Apple's products compared to IGB Electronica's....

To conclude, the Brazilian government had already settled that both companies could use the names "iphone" and "iPhone" respectively. No reasonable person can say that, allowing Apple to use the product name "iPhone" in Brazil will hurt the sales of IGB Electronica 1) because their products simply do not have the same target audience and 2) Apple is so well known that consumers will know exactly what they are buying.

So again, for IGB Electronica to come out now and try to pull this stunt is a simple cash grab.

 

[4jasontv]

The fact that they made phones since 2004 really has nothing to do with any of this at all.

It shows they were not just using the name because of Apple. They were in the market and the trademarked the name before Apple even suggested they were interested in it.

The Brazilian government gave the full trademark for "iphone" to Gradiente now IGB Electronica, they didn't start to sell a product with this name until 2012, 5 years after the release of the iconic iPhone. I think it's also important to note the nuance in the letter case of the two product names: iphone and iPhone, with a capital 'P'. This nuance is important to note because it goes in line with Apple's other line of product as mentioned by another use above.

Right, and since the difference doesn't change pronunciation it would interfere with IGB's rights. The fact that Apple was able to muscle into a 'compromise' where they get to use property owned by someone else doesn't change the fact that IGB is the rightful owner of it. And that is what they are trying to argue by going back to court.

There is nothing to say that they lost money because of a product name. Either way, because of the existence of the internet, I think it's fair to say that "iphone" will ring a lot more bells in Brazilian heads with regards to Apple's products compared to IGB Electronica's....

Opportunity cost. They lost market share because people confused the rightful owner of the name with that of the product selling as their name. Just because Apple's iPhone is more popular today doesn't mean they still would be as popular in Brazil had they not violated trademark law.

To conclude, the Brazilian government had already settled that both companies could use the names "iphone" and "iPhone" respectively. No reasonable person can say that, allowing Apple to use the product name "iPhone" in Brazil will hurt the sales of IGB Electronica 1) because their products simply do not have the same target audience and 2) Apple is so well known that consumers will know exactly what they are buying.

They bullied their way into a settlement. Let's not forget that. The iPhone brand is well known because Apple has a larger marketing budget. The whole point of trademarks is to protect your brand from 3000 lbs gorilla's who want to use your property for their gain.

So again, for IGB Electronica to come out now and try to pull this stunt is a simple cash grab.

IGB should be paid infringement for every single device sold in Brazil with their name, including any accessories sold as 'made for iPhone'.

 

[SDJim]

The random company in this case is Apple. They come to a foreign market, try to use an already registered trademark (registered 20 years ago, long before the iPhone was announced) and think it’s cool to get away with it.

I’m sorry to break it to you but the United States, including Apple, are not the centre of the world. “Y’all“ are always complaining about immigrants foreigners coming to your country and not following your rules and think it’s okay to go to another country and not follow their rules.

It's cute of you to default to a straw man argument about big, bad American hubris. "Ya'll" should maybe tone down your generalizations. Apple designed, manufactured, and trademarked the iPhone completely independent of Brazil, and seems to have done no wrong, according to the Brazilian courts, so you can shove your nationalistic comments somewhere other than my face.
[automerge]1589994582[/automerge]

They registered the brand name "iPhone" SEVEN YEARS BEFORE Apple's iPhone existed. I do think they have some grounds here. And they also sold products with that branding before the 2012 one this article references.
[automerge]1589930552[/automerge]


They started the lawsuit years ago, what are you talking about.

*IN BRAZIL

 

[techwhiz]

Fighting a trillion dollar company for 13 years is not actually as serious as you might think. 13 years is nothing if the end result is a $100 million or whatever payout. Depending on the content of the original trademark, you can make your point, however, looking at the given context, this does seem like a cash grab. What did this company lose out on exactly? The only reason they ended up making phones in 2012 was to legitimise this trademark lawsuit. Without Apple, their trademark would be rotting away in some Brazilian government database. Nothing more, nothing less.

It doesn't matter what you think.
They owned the trademark in 2000. Seven years before the iPhone introduction.
Apple is the bad guy here.

 

[SDJim]

What does US trademark law have to do with Brazil? They were making phones in 2004...
No. LOL. The point is that don't get to sell iPhones to Brazilians.

The point is, that according to multiple rulings by Brazilian courts, they do, in fact get to sell iPhones to Brazilians. You are straying to the side of saying Apple shouldn't have ground to sue, but that's just it, they're not, this other company is trying... again.

 

[techwhiz]

Ok, so I'll register the trademarks "iCar" and "Apple Car" and hold onto them for years. Then, when Apple tries to sell a product under that name, I'll sue them. And I'll have your support I assume?

But your context is incorrect.
Apple wasn't the "I" brand in 2000.
Cisco even owned the iPhone name in the US.
Apple violated their trademark too.

 

[4jasontv]

The point is, that according to multiple rulings by Brazilian courts, they do, in fact get to sell iPhones to Brazilians. You are straying to the side of saying Apple shouldn't have ground to sue, but that's just it, they're not, this other company is trying... again.

I am not saying Apple shouldn't have grounds to sue... of course they don't have grounds to sue. Apple is 100% in the wrong. They are used their size and resources to bully a government into giving them someone else's property. Governments don't dictate the ruling in the court of public opinion, and you should be hoping the small guy wins this. For everyone's sake.
[automerge]1589995410[/automerge]

But your context is incorrect.
Apple wasn't the "I" brand in 2000.
Cisco even owned the iPhone name in the US.
Apple violated their trademark too.

Right, and while Cisco wasn't planning to make a mobile smartphone they did plan to use it. And people here keep forgetting that it doesn't matter if you have something for sale with the name. All that matters is that you were first to register it as a trademark.

 

[H2SO4]

This is generally referred to as an educated guess. I am not here to convince anybody. I am voicing my own opinion. I am not in a courtroom.

There are things in life that don't require peer reviewed journals in order to make sense of. What you seem to insinuate here is that if you don't have tangible evidence to support your claim, evidence which can quite literally never be found, because what would such evidence look like? An internal document that states, "ah guys, to strengthen our chances of securing this trademark lawsuit/ruling, we're going to start producing cheap, useless android devices"? No, such evidence does not exist in all likelihood and you know that and that's exactly why you're responding to me and others the way that you are.

So yeah, the government of Brazil had already ruled that both companies could use the trademark in the country. Which is completely fine. It was the IGB Electronica who are trying to now get exclusive rights. Nice cash grab.

So with ZERO evidence you came to that conclusion? Right.
You posted nothing about the company background, workings or finances. Just - Oh they must have done it because. Apple. Nice.

 

[dannyyankou]

But your context is incorrect.
Apple wasn't the "I" brand in 2000.
Cisco even owned the iPhone name in the US.
Apple violated their trademark too.

iMac in 1998, iLife and iMovie in 1999.

But as others pointed out, Cisco was a different situation because it's an American trademark from an American company. The story here is about a Brazilian company having a trademark in Brazil. There's a company called Target in Australia, and they're able to use Target's logo and name because they're American trademarks, so they're not violating any trademarks by using them in Australia. There's also a Kmart Australia with no affiliation to the American one.

 

[826317]

So with ZERO evidence you came to that conclusion? Right.
You posted nothing about the company background, workings or finances. Just - Oh they must have done it because. Apple. Nice.

Me: "Grass is green"

You: "So with ZERO evidence you came to that conclusion? Right."


Even when I point it out to you in the very comment you quoted and replied to, you either blissfully ignore it or you read it, but just feel like pretending that it wasn't there.

I'm all for evidence based debate, especially given the right setting and topic. However, when something is seemingly obvious, it is okay to mention that.

Without speculation there is no investigation and since this is simply not something that will get investigated, an educated guess is as close as we'll get. In addition, in court, terms such as "reasonableness" are actually used quite often, allowing the judge to determine what is and what isn't reasonable and this could very well be one of those scenarios.

 

[H2SO4]

Me: "Grass is green"

You: "So with ZERO evidence you came to that conclusion? Right."


Even when I point it out to you in the very comment you quoted and replied to, you either blissfully ignore it or you read it, but just feel like pretending that it wasn't there.

I'm all for evidence based debate, especially given the right setting and topic. However, when something is seemingly obvious, it is okay to mention that.

Without speculation there is no investigation and since this is simply not something that will get investigated, an educated guess is as close as we'll get. In addition, in court, terms such as "reasonableness" are actually used quite often, allowing the judge to determine what is and what isn't reasonable and this could very well be one of those scenarios.

Except that what you've done is made a crappy statement with nothing to back it up.
No, "Oh yeah I've looked in to this company and it was close to going bankrupt before this suit and in addition all they've made to date is cheese burgers".
Nowt. Zip. Nadda.
It's not an educated guess at all.

 

[junior]

Yeah, but not only Apple was using the "i", for example Honda was launching the i-VTEC engine in 2001.

Very different. It would be a worthwhile comparison had Honda named it iEngine.

 

[ikramerica]

This is one of many cases where a company trademarks an i-device name after the success of the iMac and iBook to piggyback on that success.

The only reason i-anything is a valuable name is due to willful brand confusion by the company that trademarked the name.

Edit: it’s not like they trademarked iFone or something like that. iPhone is not Portuguese. They anticipated iPhone might some day be valuable due to Apple.

 

[alien3dx]

But your context is incorrect.
Apple wasn't the "I" brand in 2000.
Cisco even owned the iPhone name in the US.
Apple violated their trademark too.

hp ipaq..

 

[cmaier]

It doesn't matter what you think.
They owned the trademark in 2000. Seven years before the iPhone introduction.
Apple is the bad guy here.

Were they actually using it in commerce? I don’t know Brazilian law, but in many countries if you don’t actually use a registered trademark, it can affect your right to keep it.

 

[PJL500]

Apple has been involved in a long-running iPhone trademark dispute in Brazil, which was revived today by IGB Electronica, a Brazilian consumer electronics company that originally registered the "iPhone" name in 2000.

IGB Electronica fought a multi-year battle with Apple in an attempt to get exclusive rights to the "iPhone" trademark, but ultimately lost, and now the case has been brought to the Supreme Federal Court in Brazil, according to Brazilian site Tecnoblog (via Reddit).

IGB Electronica under the name Gradiente produced a line of IPHONE-branded Android smartphones in Brazil in 2012, and there was a period of time where the Brazilian company was given exclusive rights to the iPhone trademark. That ruling didn't last, though, and Apple and IGB ultimately both wound up with rights to use the name in the country.

Apple has sought to prevent IGB from using the trademark, while IGB has been attempting to regain its exclusive access to the branding. A decision in 2018 upheld a 2013 ruling that gave both brands permission to use the trademark.

With the most recent lawsuit, IGB is aiming to reverse that 2018 decision, but the case could take years to get a ruling from the Supreme Federal Court in the country. IGB has been in judicial recovery since 2018 and has lost close to 1 billion Brazilian Reals, so the company may be hoping for a payout from Apple to end the dispute.

Article Link: Brazilian Electronics Company Revives Long-Running iPhone Trademark Dispute

Just settle and move on...

 

[thislsmadness]

So with ZERO evidence you came to that conclusion? Right.
You posted nothing about the company background, workings or finances. Just - Oh they must have done it because. Apple. Nice.

Its literally the same thing the Brazilian Judge said and why he ruled both can use the trademark. So whatever evidence was made available in the case led that Judge to the same conclusion...

In his ruling, the judge said that though IGB owned the trademark in the country first, they did nothing with it until after Apple's iPhone went on sale elsewhere in the world. He credited Apple with creating a brand under the "iPhone" name, noting its trademarks in other locations. IGB Electronica plans to appeal this decision.

They lost that appeal in 2018.. so presumably, a second judge agreed with that sentiment as well.