Apple Loses the iPad Mini Trademark 144
An anonymous reader writes in with bad news for Apple. "It would appear that Apple has lost an attempt to trademark the 'iPad Mini.' This time it's not nefarious foreigners subverting the just order of things simply by trademarking something several years before Apple did. No, that was what happened in Brazil with the IFone. Nor is it people nefariously selling the rights to everywhere but China but Apple's lawyers didn’t notice, as happened with iPad in China. No, this time it's the U.S. Patents and Trademarks Office saying that Apple simply cannot have a trademark on 'iPad Mini.' For the simple reason that the law doesn't allow them to trademark something which is just a description of the product."
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? Why post this, further, why post it with such dramatic leading text?
Nobody gives a rats ass that Apple can't get a trademark on something they technically already have a trademark on.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole day, and right now, this story is in the top 10 most read articles on BBC News [bbc.co.uk]
So clearly, someone does give a rat's ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Well - Apple is worth billions. For that reason alone, there are tons of zealots, on each side. Yeah, the stories get a lot of hits, but that doesn't really indicate any relevance in any particular field of interest. Money always attracts attention.
Personally, I'm happy to see USPTO make another decision that makes sense. They seem to make so few of those. If iPad Mini were approved, we might see Baby Chevy and Cadillac Extra on the market next year, along with Hoover Sucker - the possibilities are end
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm happy to see USPTO make another decision that makes sense.
I agree, but am worried that it may be just a fluke.
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically"?
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Technically"?
I assume Apple still has the trademark on "iPad", so lacking the "iPad Mini" trademark doesn't exactly allow competetors to go out and release their own products called "iPad Mini"
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically"?
I assume Apple still has the trademark on "iPad", so lacking the "iPad Mini" trademark doesn't exactly allow competetors to go out and release their own products called "iPad Mini"
Although I think this give competetors free license to make say an Slate "mini" or Nexus "mini" whilst Apple can only fume on the sidelines...
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. It's a non-story. They aren't saying Apple doesn't have trademark over iPad Mini, but that 'iPad Mini' is already considered a trademark because iPad is already thus trademarked.
Re: (Score:2)
It's far from a non-story.
Remember, it's Apple we're talking about here, the company that thinks they have a Royal Patent to exclusively use the phrase App Store for their application store.
Now that we're seeing a modicum of sanity from the USPTO, I guess we can look forward to a more humble Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
How ever one loses something that they never had in the first place is beyond me, but Apple accompished it.
This is all handled by **AA math, where 1 download=1 lost sale.
That doesn't make it any less BS, but it's a well established technique in PR....
Re: (Score:2)
... that would have netted them $150,000.00.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaningless (Score:1)
Protection of the "iPad" will have to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet. However, they also say that Apple can file an amended application claiming "acquired distinctiveness". Apple will have no trouble doing that, so basically, they can trademark it if they try again.
If they do that, they have to disclaim "mini" as being descriptive.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet.
No, it does not say that. It says that they can't trademark "iPad mini" because because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet and "mini" is descriptive.
1) The analysis only applies to the current application, not to any other hypothetical application.
2) They already have the trademark on iPad (registered 3 years ago).
Re: (Score:2)
This just seems bizarre to me. I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you? That sounds like a bizarre ruling. Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple; there's e-commerce but not i-commerce, no one says "do you have an i-connection?", etc.
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:3)
This just seems bizarre to me.
Yes, for the reasons you mention the ruling does seem bizarre to me. However, I suspect that the descriptiveness of "mini" is still enough to reject the application, even if the other reasoning is fallacious, so I didn't want to focus on arguing those points.
- The fact that there are no trademarks for "Mac mini" or "iPod mini" is strong evidence that "iPad mini" cannot be trademarked...
- The fact that there is a trademark for "iPad" is strong evidence that, well, you know, "iPad" can be trademarked ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for the reasons you mention the ruling does seem bizarre to me. However, I suspect that the descriptiveness of "mini" is still enough to reject the application, even if the other reasoning is fallacious, so I didn't want to focus on arguing those points.
- The fact that there are no trademarks for "Mac mini" or "iPod mini" is strong evidence that "iPad mini" cannot be trademarked...
- The fact that there is a trademark for "iPad" is strong evidence that, well, you know, "iPad" can be trademarked ;-)
Well, it IS possible for a trademark to slip into the public domain and be lost, maybe even in the time between the iPad trademark and this application. I'm wondering if that's what the patent reviewer had in mind?
I'm not even sure about the problem with mini, since I wouldn't say "I have a tablet mini!" but "I have a mini tablet!" But ok I guess. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it IS possible for a trademark to slip into the public domain and be lost, maybe even in the time between the iPad trademark and this application. I'm wondering if that's what the patent reviewer had in mind?
I don't think so, because I certainly don't see "iPad" being used to refer to tables generically. I think your first reading was accurate, you were correct in finding it puzzling, and the reviewer's reasoning was just incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple
Weren't around in the 1999-2000 era then huh? Compaq had the iPaq running WinCE / WinMobile about the same time as Apple had come out with the iMac, and the HP / Compaq device is a lot closer to what a modern tablet is than the iMac could ever be considered.
I actually miss my iPaqs, it was nice having a built in stylus + holder - a decent small tipped stylus no less, not like the crap you an get today that is as big as your thumb - and a processor the literally could rival a desktop( my last iPaq was a 633M
Re: (Score:3)
This just seems bizarre to me. I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you? That sounds like a bizarre ruling. Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple; there's e-commerce but not i-commerce, no one says "do you have an i-connection?", etc.
Am I missing something?
Circa 1964. The movie 2001, A Space Odyssey. The Astronauts aboard Discovery got their news and telephone (videophone) on a tablet device called the NewsPad. I'm not sure that it actually was supposed to have general tablet computing features, since it wasn't a major component of the story, just another prop to set the story "in the Future". Actually, for all we know, it was only intended to echo the main video network of the ship and have no native intelligence at all but still, for what it's worth, it wa
Re: (Score:3)
ue everyone and anyone who used the word "Mini", up to and including the Mini Cooper.
Reminds me of the time McDonalds sued "McDonald's Restaurant" for trademark infringement. The golden arches almost had to rename all their restaurants when it came out that the McDonalds family had been running a restaurant there since before the USA become a country...
Re: (Score:3)
Circa 1993, Apple introduced the Newton MessagePad, which was Apple's first Pad product.
Re: (Score:2)
This just seems bizarre to me. I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you? That sounds like a bizarre ruling. Nor have I seen anyone attach i- to anything and not have it be a reference to Apple; there's e-commerce but not i-commerce, no one says "do you have an i-connection?", etc.
Am I missing something?
There are inodes, ibus, imdb for starters and of course, at least in the states, there is iHop. None of those have anything to do with Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never heard anyone refer to a tablet as a "pad", outside of Star Trek's PADDs, have you?
You just need to look at the Wikipedia article on tablet computing [wikipedia.org] and do a find on the word pad to realise that it was a common word for the format before the use of the word tablet overtook it.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, it says that they can't trademark iPad right now either, because "I" means internet and "pad" is a generic term for a tablet. However, they also say that Apple can file an amended application claiming "acquired distinctiveness". Apple will have no trouble doing that, so basically, they can trademark it if they try again.
If they do that, they have to disclaim "mini" as being descriptive.
Cast your mind back to the 1998 Apple Back on Track Keynote. While introducing the iMac, The Steve stated that the 'i' stood for: internet, individual, instruct, inform, inspire (see here [youtube.com], 16 min 35 seconds into the clip). These days it probably does not stand for anything in particular other than that a product named iSomething is automatically associated with Apple in the mind of the consumer. Companies get turned down for trademarks all the time simply because they try to trademark obvious crap, for ex
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose this also means (Score:5, Funny)
... our hopes of seeing an iPad Maxi are dashed, then?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
... our hopes of seeing an iPad Maxi are dashed, then?
Probably... But the good news is that the USPTO did grant them a trademark on "Light Day iPad Liners".
Re: (Score:2)
Conan O'Brian beat you to that joke ;-) [mashable.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I only steal from the best!
Re:I suppose this also means (Score:5, Funny)
A shame, really, because it would be on the bleeding edge...
Re: (Score:2)
Their advertising slogan will be "It's got wings!"
Who else? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are incorrect.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it does not mean that. At all.
It means that Samsung can name a product Galaxy Mini.
Re:Who else? (Score:4, Informative)
...The term “IPAD” is descriptive when applied to applicant’s goods because the prefix “I” denotes“internet.” According to the attached evidence, the letter “i” or “I” used as a prefix and would beunderstood by the purchasing public to refer to the Internet when used in relation to Internet-relatedproducts or services. Applicant’s goods are identified as “capable of providing access to the Internet”. When a mark consists of this prefix coupled with a descriptive word or term for Internet-related goodsand/or services, then the entire mark may be considered merely descriptive...
...The term “PAD” is also descriptive of the applied for goods. The term “pad” refers to a “pad computer”or “internet pad device”, terms used synonymously to refer to tablet computers, or “a complete computercontained in a touch screen.” Please see the attached dictionary definition. In addition, the attachedexcerpts from third party websites show descriptive use of the term “pad” in connection with tabletcomputers. This marketplace evidence shows that the term “pad” would be perceived by consumers asdescriptive of “pad computers” with internet and interactive capability. Applicant’s goods are identifiedas “a handheld digital mobile electronic device comprising tablet computer”...
and the kicker...
...In this case, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and do not create a unique, incongruous, or non-descriptive meaning in relation to the goods being small handheld mobile devices comprising tablet computers capable of providing internet access. Therefore, the mark is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the goods and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
The rationale specifically points out that "i" and "Pad" (not just "Mini") are descriptive and NOT unique. At best, it's a poorly worded ruling. At worst, the USPTO didn't bother to check the previous valid trademarking of "iPad".
Re: (Score:2)
At worst, the USPTO didn't bother to check the previous valid trademarking of "iPad".
Just because they allowed something to be trademarked before, it doesn't mean it can't be nullified later. See trademark genericization for an example- when something that might have started as a unique trademark for a company passes into common language as a synonym for all products of that type (examples- "hoovering" as a synonym for vacuum cleaning, or aspirin as a synonym for all brands of acetylsalicylic acid).
I'm not going to bother reading the judgement in TFA (I don't care that much really), but it'
Re: (Score:3)
Apple might try to sue Samsung over trying to sell a Galaxy Mini or Google over selling a Nexus Mini or Dell over selling a Dell Mini.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple might try to sue Samsung over trying to sell a Galaxy Mini or Google over selling a Nexus Mini or Dell over selling a Dell Mini.
Funny that Samsung actually does sell all kinds of (some existing product) minis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who else? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was probably trying to trademark a name they feared some other entity would trademark and then cause them grief. If it couldn't be trademarked, Apple doesn't care since then no one else will be able to either.
iPad(tm) Mini (Score:2)
iPad(tm) Mini. Simple as that.
They already have a trademark on iPad, so it makes sense and would have saved them the filing fee, as miniscule as it probably was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They rejected the entire mark, not just "mini". (Score:4, Interesting)
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
Re:They rejected the entire mark, not just "mini". (Score:4, Funny)
Come on, most of Microsoft's software products have merely descriptive names: Windows, Word, Internet Explorer...
Re:They rejected the entire mark, not just "mini". (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Surface????
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why products like AbiWord don't have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not because it's a common word, it's because it describes the product, or in this case a main part of it, its GUI.
And Windows is still trademarked, the court just "raised questions" over its validity, but it was never struck down.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But, but, but they put their "i" in front of it. Everyone knows that they own the lowercase "i".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive.
I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.
A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has acquired secondary meaning, and that consumers use that mark to distinguish between wares made by Apple and those made by others.
A mark being "merely descriptive" is a prohibition against registration unless that mark has acquired secondary meaning via extensive use in the marketplace.
I think that Apple would have a good counter-argument in that "iPad" has already been registered ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya that too :) I don't know what russotto talking about when he/she said:
It seems that if the examiner's reasoning were to be applied to an application for "iPad", then that application would be denied. That much is true, but where russotto errs is in thinking that anything in this action could actually be applied to the existing trademark--or in thinking that this reasoning is more correct than the reasoning of the examiner who originally accepted "iPad".
Re:They rejected the entire mark, not just "mini". (Score:4, Informative)
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
... except for the fact that Microsoft, Samsung, Asus, and LG would be infringing Apple's Trademark Reg. No. 3776575 for "IPAD" [uspto.gov].
Specifically, the rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive, but Apple can submit evidence to show that that term has acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness in the marketplace... and that other registered mark is conclusive evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive.
If that means the USPTO plan to withdraw the registration for iPad, then it's probably goodbye iPhone as well. The prospect of either of those happening would probably be sufficient to cause Apple Legal to spin up into fully-operational-battle-station mode; the prospect of both should bring galaxy-buster-scale weapons into play.
Re: (Score:2)
the prospect of both should bring galaxy-buster-scale weapons into play. :munch munch munch:
Re: (Score:2)
The rejection states that "iPad" itself is also merely descriptive. If this holds up (and I doubt it will), Microsoft could make a "Microsoft iPad", and LG, Samsung, Asus, would also be able to make "iPad" devices of their own. This would be a disaster for Apple, but I seriously doubt it is going to happen.
Wouldn't this be similar to Bandaid brand bandages, then?
what's up with Apple legal? (Score:3)
They don't have a trademark on Mac mini either, and I assume the reason is the same. So why even bother???
Re: (Score:1)
It is so they could start going after competitors that use "mini" in their name. For example Surface Mini, Tab Mini, Xoom Mini etc.
It was very sneaky and it's good that UPSTO caught on that.
Re: (Score:2)
It is so they could start going after competitors that use "mini" in their name.
This isn't true. The test for confusion looks at the entire mark.
A trademark on "iPad Mini" wouldn't prohibit others from using the word "Mini" as part of another mark, unless that causes confusion with the original. For example, I doubt that a court would find "Surface Mini" confusing with "iPad Mini".
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers like to look busy by photocopying loads of trademark application forms and putting down every possible product and brand name.
XL T-shirt (Score:2)
USPTO is correct on this, it's like someone getting a trademark on Extra LargeT-shirt.
Re:XL T-shirt (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I sell a beer called "Extra Large T-Shirt", and I'll have you know, the name is protected by trademark law. No other company can legally sell a beer called "Extra Large T-Shirt" in my geographical region. In fact, I sell a variety of beers with the "T-Shirt" mark, "Extra Large" just being one. "Large", "Medium" and "Small" are the others. The alcohol content goes from 12% for the XL, 9% for the L, 6% for the M and 3% for the S.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is perfectly acceptable in trademark law - "extra large t-shirt" (or any other t-shirt) would not be descriptive of beer. If the examiner was paying attention, they probably made you disclaim the size qualifiers as part of the mark, as these ARE descriptive for beverages.
Magic Hat Brewing can sell Magic Hat (Beer) and own that name in their market ("beverages", more or less). It would likely be considered "merely descriptive" of a top hat sold by a magic-trick shop, though.
Re:XL T-shirt (Score:5, Funny)
I guess things have changed. Back in my day, the guys supplying the beer usually had a really good shot at getting laid.
Re: (Score:1)
The interesting part about Budweiser was when it conflicted with a Budweiser in the now Czech Republic. Budweiser tried to gain rights in Europe but the real Budweiser was far older and proved it. A compromise was reached; Budweiser in North America is from Anheuser-Busch; Budweiser everywhere else is from the Czech Republic brewer.
Re: (Score:2)
Budweiser in the UK comes from both. - http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/#/Shopping/FindProducts.aspx?Query=budweiser [mysupermarket.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
as simple as possible, but no simpler (Score:2)
Apple's (i.e. Jobs') naming strategy was to make product names as simple and representative as possible to the product or function (e.g. iTunes, iMac, iPod). It is interesting that their nomenclature may be a
Re: (Score:2)
"Word" and "Illustrator" are descriptive and you can use them in your word proceesing and vector graphics applications. "Microsoft" and "Adobe" are not descriptive. They identify the word processing and vector graphics applications made by those respective companies, and are trademarked.
Descriptions not trademarked? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Apple's previous products: Mac Mini, iPod Mini, iPod Nano? I'm curious to know if these had been previously trademarked?
No, no, yes. (As 5 seconds at uspto.gov would have revealed.) So I guess "nano" is a less common work--or perhaps it's not a word in common usage, but a prefix. "Mini" means small, literally descriptive, while "nano" means 1 billionth, not exactly literal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Descriptions not trademarked? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Mini Cooper" isn't merely descriptive -- there's no large Cooper that a Mini Cooper is a small version of.
"M&M's Minis" indeed trademarked, but contains the disclaimer "NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "MINIS" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN". The USPTO suggests that if Apple wants the mark, they should re-apply with a similar disclaimer (once they get past iPad itself being descriptive)
"Mac Mini" is not a registered trademark, nor is "iPod Mini"
"iPod Nano" is trademarked without the disclaimer.
"Micro Machines" has a disclaimer on "Machines". It's probably considered other than descriptive because it refers specifically to toy vehicles, not "machines" in a general sense.
And yes, the USPTO is inconsistent.
Re: (Score:2)
The original Mini was designed by Sir Alec Issoginis in 1959 and sold as the Morris Mini Minor
The Cooper variant came out a couple of years later with an upgraded engine and was very successful in rallies and other motor sport
Trademark law is not copywrite law (Score:2)
Copyright is completely fucked. Trademark law is more or less sensible, and does useful things to protect consumers. This is an example.
The devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
Applicant is advised that, if the application is amended to seek registration on the Principal Register underTrademark Act Section 2(f) in part, applicant must disclaim the descriptive wording “MINI” apart fromthe mark as shown because it merely describes a characteristic or feature of applicant’s goods.
And then:
Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format: No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “MINI” apart from the mark as shown.
Essentially the problem is that the whole term "iPad Mini" is descriptive, because even if "iPad" were (and it is) a protected trademark, you can't say "small iPad" and make that whole mark trademark-able, which is what "iPad Mini" attempts to do. While the application deconstructs the "iPad" term as merely descriptive (which is unfortunate because it probably makes this ruling appealable, since I don't think the prior trademark applications relied on the secondary meaning exception to a descriptive mark), that's just salt in the wound. The real reason it was denied is because they tried to call their iPad "Mini" and trademark the whole term. It's still quite possible for Apple to use the "iPad(R) Mini" mark denotation.
Also, for those who don't know, (R) is a registered trademark that has been filed with and approved by the USPTO, whereas (TM) is an unfiled trademark that you nevertheless use in business that could stand up to another company using your trademark. (R) [federal] will always trump (TM) [state].
Padmini is a very common Indian name for girls (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There must tons and tons of products and registered trademarks around the name Padmini in India. An actress Padmini (no lastname) [google.com] is the top hit for Padmini in google. I know at least one car model was named Padmini. Every town will have a cafe or a grocery store or a hotel (lodge in local parlance) named Padmini. So I would not be surprised if some one there challenges iPad mini as "too similar to my registered brand name" there. Even if the case has no merit someone might sue just for the publicity or with some hope of reaching a settlement with a multinational company with deep pockets.
Doesn't matter unless a Padmini is making electronics & computers, then it might be a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong headline again... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I think it is unusual that they (USPTO) didn't rubber stamp it like everything else. They actually used a brain and made an informed decision. Most of these go through approved and are only invalidated on a challenge later down the road. Much like patents...
How can you loose what you don't have? (Score:1)
IFone (Score:1)
Trivial to fix (Score:2)
In other news: (Score:2, Funny)
Disney had to rename Minnie Mouse to "Mouse 0.5".
More details on MacRumors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they lose the trademark for that? Or did they not have it in the first place?
Never had it in the first place. (Nor "iPad mini"--the summary, as usual on /., is worded imprecisely.)