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

U.S. Patent Office Withdraws Primary Objections to Apple's 'iPad Mini' Trademark Application

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,027
40,065



Last week, we noted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued an initial office action denying Apple's application for a trademark on the term "iPad mini".

The examiner's primary objection to Apple's application related to all of the elements of the "iPad mini" name having been judged as descriptive rather than contributing to a unique product name. A second objection related to Apple's use of the iPad mini overview page as its specimen proving that the named product was being offered for sale.

ipad_mini_promo.jpg
At the time, we noted that a resolution to the issue would likely be relatively straightforward, with Apple simply needing to show that the "iPad mini" term was an extension of its already distinctive "iPad" trademark and submit a new specimen satisfying the examiner's objection.

Based on a newly published office action from the USPTO, dated last Wednesday, the issue has in fact mostly been resolved without Apple having had to address the examiner's objections. Presumably responding to the publicity surrounding the initial decision, the USPTO has preemptively withdrawn its two main objections to Apple's objections.
This Office action supersedes any previous Office action issued in connection with this application.

Upon further review of the application, the examining attorney has determined that the following refusals issued in the initial Office action should be withdrawn. The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused.

REFUSALS WITHDRAWN:

The Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness refusal and the Sections 1 and 45 specimen refusal are both withdrawn.
Click to expand...
The new document continues to alert Apple to several other issues with the trademark application, including potential refusal should earlier pending applications from other companies seeking to protect the names of their electronics products with "mini" in them end up being granted. No action on this issue is, however, required by Apple at this time.

The document also holds firm on the requirement that Apple add a disclaimer to its application noting that it only seeks to protect the term "mini" when used as part of the "iPad mini" name. The disclaimer would allow other companies to use the "mini" term in their own product names.

Article Link: U.S. Patent Office Withdraws Primary Objections to Apple's 'iPad Mini' Trademark Application
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/08/u-s-patent-office-withdraws-primary-objections-to-apples-ipad-mini-trademark-application/
Darn, well I guess this means I can't name my next child "iPad Mini" after all. Had my hopes up.
 
The reviewer was stupid anyway, I can understand the whole mini thing but seriously complaining that the buy button on the site wasn't to his liking?.
 
Oletros said:
Ah, those objections were real and not an April's Fools prank?
Click to expand...

Seems they were both real and an April's fool prank at the same time, since the USPTO withdrew them without Apple doing anything. The "i = internet" was nonsense, as shown by 200 million iPods without internet access. "Small iPad" or "8" iPad" would be descriptive, "iPad Mini" which less so. And claiming that a whole page advert for an iPad Mini with a "Buy now" button doesn't show the iPad Mini is for sale, that's nonsense.

So I suppose someone pranked his collegues at the USPTO, and everyone else. Of course everything the USPTO does is by definition "real".
 
The sin objection is they don't wan Apple claiming "mini" was trademarked. Right now Apple clearly marks things "iPad mini" but we know how Apple loves to change its mind and start revoking names that accessory makers use to bend its trademark standing.

So when Samsung comes out with the Galaxy Tab mini.... (Smaller than the Tab but bigger than the Note) the PTO wants to lay down precedent they WEREN'T granting Apple exclusive use if "mini".
 
As someone who has had several trademark applications initially denied, and later approved, this comes as no surprise. The USPTO works in mysterious ways.
 
japanime said:
As someone who has had several trademark applications initially denied, and later approved, this comes as no surprise. The USPTO works in mysterious ways.
Click to expand...

It comes across as arbitrary, which is not how a government agency should act.
 
Typical Government bureaucracy. Government can't even deliver mail without going into billions of debt every year. :rolleyes: More and bigger Government is what we need. :rolleyes:
 
Doesn't Apple already have a trademark for "iPad"? If so, why would they not be granted a trademark for the full term "iPad Mini" but more importantly, why would they need it? Shouldn't the trademark for "iPad" already cover every conceivable derivative term that includes "iPad"?
Apple didn't try to trademark the term "mini", did they?
 
Lennholm said:
Doesn't Apple already have a trademark for "iPad"? If so, why would they not be granted a trademark for the full term "iPad Mini" but more importantly, why would they need it? Shouldn't the trademark for "iPad" already cover every conceivable derivative term that includes "iPad"?
Apple didn't try to trademark the term "mini", did they?
Click to expand...

i dont get it either. did they trademark the "pro" of the macbook pro too? its not like someone could use the term macbook or iPad in that case in the first place so why bother with the mini combo.
 
As of lately, it seems like Apple hits the headlines more because of legal/patent issues than because of their products :(
 
Last edited:
So maybe Apple should be playing loyalties to British Motor Corporation / British Leyland / Rover / BMW after all, they invented the word Mini with the Morris Mini-Minor back in 1959...
 
Lennholm said:
Doesn't Apple already have a trademark for "iPad"? If so, why would they not be granted a trademark for the full term "iPad Mini" but more importantly, why would they need it? Shouldn't the trademark for "iPad" already cover every conceivable derivative term that includes "iPad"?
Apple didn't try to trademark the term "mini", did they?
Click to expand...

I believe one of main issues here was that the trade mark was too wide and didn't specify that trademark registration only applied to "iPad Mini" and not to "Mini". Therefore, Apple needs to add disclaimer in their application so that only iPad Mini is registered and not just "Mini" without "iPad". IMHO, if Apple could get away with original registration they would probably be suing Samsung for every single "Mini" product they have released. Therefore, the additional disclaimer is truly needed since descriptive general term like "Mini" can't be registered. If it could then the trademark should be given to Morris Mini.
 
I still don't get the need to trademark "iPad mini" when you already have iPad... If I were to call something "iPad whatever", wouldn't I be infringing on the iPad trademark anyways?
 
GenesisST said:
I still don't get the need to trademark "iPad mini" when you already have iPad... If I were to call something "iPad whatever", wouldn't I be infringing on the iPad trademark anyways?
Click to expand...

Sure but it seems Apple wanted to have very wide trademark and wanted to also "protect" Mini without term "iPad" front of it. Hence, Apple needs to add disclaimer clarifying that this trademark doesn't include "Mini" without word iPad.
 
What? No one is going to accuse Apple of slipping the USPO an envelope of cash "to forget this whole thing" ? ;)
 
Doesn't Apple hold the trademark on iPad?
So trying to trademake iPad Mini would be useless.
iPad being the trademark, mini being the model.

Edit: *damn, someone already pointed that out*
 
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