Apple Loses Trademark Claim Against iFone in Mexico 192
sfcrazy writes "Apple is having trouble in Mexico right before the holiday season. The company has lost rights to the name iPhone in the country, as it was already owned by a Mexican telecom company called iFone (Google translation of Spanish original). iFone registered its trademark in 2003, four years before Apple iPhone was launched. In 2009, Apple filed a complaint with the Mexican Industrial Property Institute demanding that iFone stop using is name because it could confuse users. That claim was since denied, and iFone is looking to turn the tables."
Watch... (Score:5, Interesting)
...as Samsung quickly buys out iFone.
For "defensive IP," of course.
I thought... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple went about it the wrong way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Didn't Do The Research (Score:5, Interesting)
When it comes to Apple, never attribute to incompetence what can be better explained by malice.
Re:Didn't Do The Research (Score:5, Interesting)
I worked at cisco in the early 90's and I remember a time when we had a corp lawyer come in and give us some guidance on what to do about patents and how this should affect us, the coders.
their answer: don't look, just code! if you look and find, you are guilty if you continue along, but if you never knew about such and such, you were told to stop but not found guilty.
we were surprised but this was the 'high powered lawyer' telling us the official cisco line, back then (back when it was all of 3 buildings up in menlo park.)
maybe apple is doing the same; not fully researching and then hoping they can get a 'well, we TRIED but we might have missed a few; but we meant well' ruling.
Re:Didn't Do The Research (Score:5, Interesting)
Has there ever been a trademark infringement lawsuit, where the defendants had both been using the trademark in the market and had originated it before the plaintiffs, and where the plaintiffs won the case?
I seem to recall that in the late 60's some 'popular beat combo' going by the strange name of 'The Beatles' had a music production company called 'Apple'.
They tried to sue an upstart popular IT company of the same name and lost because that IT company was not in the music business... In fact, as part of the settlement they each signed an agreement that they would not use their trademarks in competing businesses.
If you research the followup on that, where Apple music inc. tried to enforce that agreement years later when iTunes launched, I think you will find your first example of how this can happen.
Re:Didn't Do The Research (Score:5, Interesting)
As a follow on, Apple now owns the Beatles Apple Corps logo.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/10/the-beatles-apple-corps-logo-is-now-a-registered-tm-of-apple.html [patentlyapple.com]
Re:Didn't Do The Research (Score:3, Interesting)
Ooh ok, they didn't lose, they just failed to win. .sig really.
- My bad, here was I thinking that the purpose of the competition was to win. Shoulda read my own
As to your last paragraph; I'll simply ask if you read what the GtGrandparent post said:
it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system, the lawyers will latch on to any small detail, or whatever in the hopes of making a successful case, no matter how compelling the oppositions evidence is
?