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.
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.
Sneakyyygot caught.
It would really be a facepalming moment if USPTO granted Apple an exclusive on "mini."
Wasn't there a lawsuit against Apple for using "Classic" for using it in the Macintosh Classic?
In what world is the word "mini" not descriptive? And isn't the iPad mini not a miniature version of the iPad? So they already own iPad mini by owning "iPad". And you really think that Apple's lawyers "forgot" to put the disclaimer to forgo claim on the word mini?Except that what you are saying is not true.
Apple applied for the trademark "iPad Mini". The USPTO believes that they should clearly state that they don't want to claim any rights on the word Mini, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple hasn't made any such a claim.
The USPTO has just stated that "Mini" is not descriptive, so your comment "like a kid ... they want to own a descriptive term ... . " is pure nonsense.
----------
Please explain what you mean. The article clearly says "USPTO admits to being wrong in most of its objections against the "iPad Mini" trademark application.
The "i = internet" was nonsense, as shown by 200 million iPods without internet access.
The far more interesting part of this is that I'm not sure Apple actually has a trademark on "iPad" as a tablet. Apple only owns the name "iPad" as a wireless device used in a retail environment.
Been watching Fox News ("lies for the gullible") again?
In what world is the word "mini" not descriptive? And isn't the iPad mini not a miniature version of the iPad? So they already own iPad mini by owning "iPad". And you really think that Apple's lawyers "forgot" to put the disclaimer to forgo claim on the word mini?
The fact that one is an iPad and the other is an iPad Mini already makes them different products. They are still in the same family, because they share the name iPad. The iPad Mini IS a smaller form factor iPad. It does everything the iPad does. In fact, besides the slightly different exterior look and smaller size, its exactly the iPad 2. I don't know why you're trying so hard to deny this. And your other examples are silly. All iPods are in the the iPod family, thats why they're called iPods. All Macbooks, whether Pro, Air, or just Macbook, are in the Macbook family, hence the common name.In the world where the iPad mini has a different screen resolution, different processor, etc. The iPad mini is not "just" a smaller iPad, just as an iPod nano is not just a smaller iPod. It's a different line of iPads and, I would think, Apple wants to be able to clearly differentiate it as such. Having a separate trademark for iPad mini is one way to show that it is not merely a smaller iPad, just as a MacBook Pro is not the same as a MacBook Air or (when they were still around) a plain old MacBook.