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
Oops
"The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused."
I wonder if this overzealous examiner has been "inconvenienced" out of job over this embarrassment.
"The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused."
I wonder if this overzealous examiner has been "inconvenienced" out of job over this embarrassment.
One of the few intelligent posts on this.
Lots of other posts imply the USPTO is stupid or something else but these people probably know exactly what they are doing 99% of the time. What we might think to be obvious doesn't matter sometimes and therefore the USPTO is charged with making sure these things are done right so they don't get tangled up in court some day. And no, I don't work for the government!
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.
----------
Sneakyyygot caught.
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.
That would really be awful. If Apple got a trademark for "Mini" when they applied for "iPad Mini", that would be more than bizarre. I would really, really, hope that the USPTO either accepts the trademark name that was applied for, or rejects it, but doesn't issue trademarks that were not applied for.
Never heard of that. There were stories that someone wanted to sue over "Tiger", and someone else over "MacOS 9", but I never heard anything about "Classic".
Apple is not trying to trademark the term "mini". It is trying to trademark the term iPad Mini. There is a world of difference between the two.
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?
"i" = Internet can certainly be correct for the iPad. Please read my previous post on this topic. With iPod, it means something different.
--
As I've also noted before, other companies (food, toys) who recently applied for a "mini" addon to their product, DID include the required "mini" disclaimer in their initial applications, and sailed right through the first time without objections. Apple could've done the same.
--
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. This trademark apparently dates back to a 2002 Fujitsu handheld used by salespeople for entering customer information (an "iPad" for PINs, etc).
This new Apple application was for "iPad mini" as a portable computer, which is a different US product category. I think that's why the application refusal notes that there are several other pending applications for "iPad", and if any go through, Apple might not get a trademark on "iPad mini" in the computer category.
This would explain why Apple felt the need to apply for "iPad mini".
However, don't quote me on this yet. I'm still trying to work through all the documents. It's slow going and I only have a few minutes here and there.
In trademark law, if you don't claim it and defend it, you lose it. Apple really doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's doing what it should, as a responsible corporation protecting its properties. Plenty of other companies have lost their trademarks because they didn't do what Apple is trying to do here, and now they've lost their branding to generics.
Okay, I just spent a couple of hours going over the documents and applications at the USPTO.
To be exact: Apple has the trademark for "IPAD" as a "hand-held computing device for wireless networking in a retail environment", but not as a tablet.
--
Someone else has been temporarily granted the trademark for "IPAD" as a "handheld mobile digital electronic devices comprising a tablet computer"... and has until Sept 2013 to file an extension or prove it's in use and gain the actual registration, or lose it.
The someone else with the temporary tablet mark is a Delaware entity named "IP Application Development LLC".
Sound familiar? It was an Apple shell company called "IP Application Development Ltd" that was used to cheaply buy the iPad trademark from Proview in China.
If the Delaware LLC is also secretly owned by Apple, then it's just strange that they haven't reassigned the trademark to the primary Apple company name, so they could complete the actual registration by declaring a real product.
--
Interesting side note: There are two non-computer registered trademarks for IPAD. One owned by a bra padding company, and one for electric motors owned by Siemens.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Edit: If Apple truly wanted to clearly differentiate the two products, Apple would have made them different, and called them different things, not file a copyright on the name, where consumers don't even care about.