Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Brazilian Supreme Court to Determine If Apple Can Continue to Use 'iPhone' Trademark in Brazil

ISprainedMyUvula said:
Having lived in Brazil, the problem is that Apple hasn’t greased the right palms. This specific claim has come up multiple times at this point, which goes to show that Apple isn’t playing by the Brazilian political rules.

Otherwise, it would’ve been quashed for good by now.
Click to expand...
If Apple dont win in courts, they will win otherwise. Apple is sitting on a pile of cash so big that it could destroy them fairly easy (e.g. cutting of their suppliers and commercial network, recruit their key emplyees, etc). What Apple is trying to do is just play by the rules (for now) and wait for the final court's verdic. If it is not in their favor, the situation would become very nasty for this company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachodorito
abhibeckert said:
It's based on general background knowledge of how trademarks work everywhere in the world, with broad details enforced by international treaties. Specific details vary from country to country and sometimes from state to state or city to city (fun fact - trademarks were originally created for bakers, and they only applied within reasonable walking distance of the baker... because without preservatives people generally ate their bread shortly after buying it).

Nobody ever "owns" a trademark. All you're granted is official recognition and registration as a method of dealing with (and preventing) confusion when two competitors use a similar name or logo or iconic design (think coke bottle shape). As long as *your* business is the one customers associate with your trademark, you can use it. If for any reason people stop associating the trademark with your business then the trademark is void.

Kleenex for example had their trademark stripped. And Google is in real danger of having the same happen to them.

Often two businesses will be allowed to use the same (or a similar) trademark, as is the case here. It actually happens all the time especially when a business starts small and grows to be larger. And while it may be allowed initially, that decision can be changed later.

Trademarks are fluid. And the fact that this Brazilian company doesn't seem to really use "iphone" much, while in Apple's case it's one of the most recognisable brands in the world, that means Apple is likely to win this case. It just might take forever to come to a decision.
Click to expand...
What happened to Kleenex, Aspirin or Xerox for example is that these became generic terms and these companies failed to defend their trademark while these were used by other companies without any objection by the trademark owner. The trademarks were then deemed abandoned and voided. I dont see how a Google could be in a danger if they dont allow any other company to commercialize a search engine or other service or product with the Google name on it.
 
abhibeckert said:
It's based on general background knowledge of how trademarks work everywhere in the world, with broad details enforced by international treaties. Specific details vary from country to country and sometimes from state to state or city to city (fun fact - trademarks were originally created for bakers, and they only applied within reasonable walking distance of the baker... because without preservatives people generally ate their bread shortly after buying it).

Nobody ever "owns" a trademark. All you're granted is official recognition and registration as a method of dealing with (and preventing) confusion when two competitors use a similar name or logo or iconic design (think coke bottle shape). As long as *your* business is the one customers associate with your trademark, you can use it. If for any reason people stop associating the trademark with your business then the trademark is void.

Kleenex for example had their trademark stripped. And Google is in real danger of having the same happen to them.

Often two businesses will be allowed to use the same (or a similar) trademark, as is the case here. It actually happens all the time especially when a business starts small and grows to be larger. And while it may be allowed initially, that decision can be changed later.

Trademarks are fluid. And the fact that this Brazilian company doesn't seem to really use "iphone" much, while in Apple's case it's one of the most recognisable brands in the world, that means Apple is likely to win this case. It just might take forever to come to a decision.
Click to expand...

You’ve got a whole lot of misinformation here.
First, Trademarks are not fluid, just the opposite. And no, Kimberly Clark did not have its trademark for Kleenex stripped. Nor, is Alphabet in any danger of losing its trademark.

Next, Trademarks are in fact “owned.” They are intellectual property that is bought, sold, or traded like any other asset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachodorito
"punishes creativity"

Use that creativity to come up with a another name.
 
jayducharme said:
I'd love to see Apple ditch the "i" in their product names. It was clever with the first iMac, but it's getting a bit long-in-the-tooth now. I think  Phone makes a lot more sense (along with  Pad).
Click to expand...

Image everyone either trying to type out  Pad, or Apple Pad, compared to just iPad.
 
Just buy the usage rights, apple. I am probably in the minority, but I don’t think Apple should do this to companies. Just like they shouldn’t sue other companies using a pear as their logo. WTH
 
  • Like
Reactions: insomniac86
So, they got the trademark in 2000 and didn't start fighting Apple until well after the iPhone first came out in 2007? Um.. ok.
 
drewyboy said:
Or maybe the same reason Apple is trying to get a trademark denied from a company that has a pear for a logo? Brand protection? Rightful ownership to something? I mean, this company was the first to file, and 7 years before the iPhone even was announced... so yeah, they kind of have a case. The only reason Apple is allowed to share the name is because they probably threw gobs of money at Brazil in some shape or form.
Click to expand...

No, I disagree as this company doesn't appear to have ever had a product named iPhone or ever even used the trademark on anything.
How can you claim to own something you have never used?

alien3dx said:
it's all about trademark, branding not the product phone.Two diff segment
Click to expand...

Once again, they have never used the brand or trademark "iPhone". Does that mean I can brand any common word and then sue someone who later uses it regardless of any connection?
 
MacRumors said:
gradiente_iphone_white.jpg
Click to expand...

Where exactly is this product? I searched long and hard for this product and I could not even find that they even manufacture a phone let alone an iPhone. All mentions of this product are on Apple websites!
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachodorito
BaltimoreMediaBlog said:
No, I disagree as this company doesn't appear to have ever had a product named iPhone or ever even used the trademark on anything.
How can you claim to own something you have never used?



Once again, they have never used the brand or trademark "iPhone". Does that mean I can brand any common word and then sue someone who later uses it regardless of any connection?
Click to expand...
depend on your country, it's a long procedure. Yeah who got first and paid it.
 
BaltimoreMediaBlog said:
No, I disagree as this company doesn't appear to have ever had a product named iPhone or ever even used the trademark on anything.
How can you claim to own something you have never used?



Once again, they have never used the brand or trademark "iPhone". Does that mean I can brand any common word and then sue someone who later uses it regardless of any connection?
Click to expand...
oh forgot dont create a time machine and claim it all around the world ya..
 
"Allowing a company to claim a trademark submitted in good faith by another one punishes creativity..."

Huh? You didn't invent the iPhone, Apple created your industry of smart phones.
 
I believe that stuff like this is the reason all of Apple's new products don't have the 'i' designation and use 'Apple' instead, which is far more clunky to say. iTV, iWatch, iPencil, iSight, iPod, iBook (I wish they'd bring it back for their AS laptops), etc are easier to say than with 'Apple' in front.

That said, I highly doubt Apple will EVER let go of the three most iconic names in their lineup: iPhone, iPad, iMac.

I don't put it past Tim, but I doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachodorito
nikaru said:
I dont think that Apple will ever allow this happening. A small local company in Brazil wining through extorsion against the big Apple? Not a chance. Apple can approach all local carriers in the country and forbid them from selling this fake iPhone or they will never do business with Apple again. They can do the same with all external suppliers this company has so at the end of day, it will be out of business in less than a year and the trademark they have would be finally sold for a penny or deemed abandoned. Apple could destroy this company if the final court's decision is not in their favor.
Click to expand...

Everything you mentioned they should do is against the law. Governments are just salivating to get money from Apple and abusing their power will get them a nice fine. Threatening to pull out of the country costing carriers and government tax money along with angry iPhone lover protests would persuade the judges to keep things as they are. (allow both to use the iPhone name).
 
nikaru said:
What Apple is trying to do is just play by the rules (for now) and wait for the final court's verdic.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. There is no "playing by the rules" in Brazil. If you don't play dirty, nothing gets done. In fact, they resent you for it, and make your case more difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachodorito
HiRez said:
Yeah, I know the "iPhone" brand is iconic, but Apple is big enough now that they could change the name to Apple Phone (a better name anyway) and everyone would know that's it's the new name of the iPhone. They already have Apple TV, Apple Watch, Apple Pay, Apple Card, etc. so it makes sense. Even Apple Pad would be fine. Just need a new name for the iMac maybe. The "i" prefixes all feel like a 2000s anachronism to me, time for them to go.
Click to expand...
I love this and have been talking about changing the name to Apple Phone for years. I think they really missed the opportunity for the iPhone X to have been the one that got and carried the new name forward.
For the iMac I think it would be fine to just name it “Mac” or even “Macintosh” for a throwback. It is after all what Apple considers to be the standard desktop consumer choice. Mac mini, Mac Pro, MacBook are all appropriate variants (Although MacBook should arguably be Mac Book with a space). The only product not fitting the lineup is the iMac Pro, which I’m not convinced should be in the lineup anyway.

I don’t love Apple Pad as a name, but it will do. The only remaining product is the iPod touch... I’d be okay with Apple Pad nano or Apple Phone WiFi-only or Apple Watch Max or Apple Pod if they must - there’s options here for a rebranding strategy for the iPod touch.

It’s time for all of the “i” branding to go away. Even iTunes is gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nachodorito
nikaru said:
What happened to Kleenex, Aspirin or Xerox for example is that these became generic terms and these companies failed to defend their trademark while these were used by other companies without any objection by the trademark owner. The trademarks were then deemed abandoned and voided. I dont see how a Google could be in a danger if they dont allow any other company to commercialize a search engine or other service or product with the Google name on it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe either "Kleenex" or "Xerox" have been lost as trademarks. Bayer did indeed lose "Aspirin".
 
Altivec88 said:
Everything you mentioned they should do is against the law. Governments are just salivating to get money from Apple and abusing their power will get them a nice fine. Threatening to pull out of the country costing carriers and government tax money along with angry iPhone lover protests would persuade the judges to keep things as they are. (allow both to use the iPhone name).
Click to expand...

honey this is Brazil not Europe. If Apple wants to they can talk to the right politicians and the other company is gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back