All government workers are in CYA mode. We'll likey see a lot of stuff like this for quite some time.
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.
U.S. Patent Office Withdraws Primary Objections to Apple's 'iPad Mini' Trademark Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All government workers are in CYA mode. We'll likey see a lot of stuff like this for quite some time.
Would've been nice way of getting your trademark disputed by Morris Mini or in current times by BMW Group.
So basically, anyone including you, me and Apple can attach the word "mini" to their products. Other than keeping a few lawyers busy along with killing more trees to support the paperwork flow... WTF is the purpose of this trademark?
This was the most important element and it still stands.
----------
Yes. That is the heart of the matter. The other stuff was relatively unimportant.
----------
Errrr........no. They did not try to not trademark "mini".
The effect of a grant of the original application would have been to give Apple a means to sue its competitors if the too used the descriptive term "mini" in their product names.
It prevents someone else from getting the trademark, for starters. You saw that the USPTO can make some rather stupid decisions. So if I applied for the "iPad Mini" trademark (I bought 100 Samsung tablets and intend to sell them with an "iPad Mini" sticker), do you think it is _impossible_ for me to get that trademark? Weirder things have happened. Now multiply by 160 countries. I might not get the trademark in the USA, but what are the bets you could get it _somewhere_?
Even if I didn't get the trademark, if Apple sued me for using the name "iPad Mini" I would say "well, your product is called iPad. But mine is called iPad Mini. Completely different, no confusion possible".
Apple claims a trademark in "Macbook Pro" and other names that incorporate pro, like ProDOS and Final Cut Pro.
It is not clear that they claim rights in the "Pro" part alone. IMO, they might get rights in that if they tried, given that it is a somewhat evocative and fanciful name, and does not really mean "for professionals".
If Dell were to release a "Dellbook Pro" for example, Apple could rightly object on a number of grounds. But if Dell came out with a "Pro Line" of products, I'm not so sure that such useage would infringe.
----------
It is common for the same or similar names to be used in different industries. For example, "Outback" is used both as a restaurant name and as a name for Subaru's vehicle.
This is pretty basic stuff.
----------
The model name is able to be patented as well. For example, the brand is Apple, the model is iPad.
The brand is Subaru, the model is Outback. Both are trademarks.
But if they tried to slap "car" or "4WD" on the end, it is unlikely that Subaru would get rights in the word "car" or the string "4WD".
Same with 'Mini". It is a generic and descriptive term used alone.
----------
Apple's purpose may be to gain a statutory monopoly on the word "mini". Then again, maybe they screwed up and "forgot" to disclaim that.
Nobody really knows the answer, but I would lean towards the former and not the latter.
Please explain? There is a ton of hardware (computer and otherwise) and software out there with the suffix "Pro" (not 'Professional,' just 'Pro'). And I'm sure there were just as many before Apple's MBPs.
The explanation is likely that Apple claims no trademark in the "Pro" suffix used alone.
In the current situation, the USPTO requires that Apple similarly disclaim any rights in the "mini" suffix used alone.
A Fandroid's day at the Patent Office: Apple wants to apply for what?! Apple didn't invent the alphabet!... Denied!!
Well, no you couldn't trademark that because the word "iPad" is already Apple's. Now... "gnasher's mini" would be completely acceptable. (Not intended to be a reflection of your manhood BTW
)That's what I don't understand. Apple didn't need to register anything and it just sounds like it's a cover-your-ass thing.
Well, no you couldn't trademark that because the word "iPad" is already Apple's. Now... "gnasher's mini" would be completely acceptable. (Not intended to be a reflection of your manhood BTW
That's what I don't understand. Apple didn't need to register anything and it just sounds like it's a cover-your-ass thing.
Well with all the patent/trademark trolls and samesungs out there Apple needs to make sure it's collective ass is very well covered.
this can only mean
one of 2 things. Either the guy Samsung bribed got fired or apple bribed him with more money.
one of 2 things. Either the guy Samsung bribed got fired or apple bribed him with more money.
got caught.Read the article guys. Apple wants to trademark "mini" and not just "iPad mini". They already own "iPad", so they already own anything with "iPad" in it including "iPad mini". But like a kid, they just want everything, even if it isn't reasonable. They want to own a descriptive term like "mini" because it's so innovative. Get out of here.
----------
----------
Trying to trademark a descriptive term like "mini".
They didn't actually try to do that. You can quote Judas and I will just look at what they actually did try to trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:id7n7k.2.1
Then what's the point of trademarking "iPad Mini", shouldn't that already be protected under their trademark for "iPad"?
It should be since it consists of a pre-existing trademark, but I get your point. If Apple applies for it and it gets denied they have at least safe-guarded against anyone else getting it.