Apple Loses Exclusive Rights To 'iPhone' Trademark For Non-Smartphone Products In China (appleinsider.com) 89
An anonymous reader quotes a report from AppleInsider: Adding to the company's problems in the region, Apple has lost exclusivity on the use of the "iPhone" trademark in China, and must now share it with Beijing-based leather products maker Xintong Tiandi Technology, reports said on Tuesday. On March 31, the Beijing Municipal High People's Court rejected an Apple appeal of an earlier ruling, according to Quartz. Xintong Tiandi is already selling a number of "IPHONE" products, including purses, passport cases, and most notably phone cases. The company registered its trademark in China in 2007, the same year as the Apple iPhone launched in the United States. That was, however, still five years after Apple registered the iPhone name in China for computer products, something which formed the basis of a 2012 complaint to the country's trademark authorities. In 2013 the government ruled that because Apple couldn't prove the name "IPHONE" was well-known prior to Xintong Tiandi's registration, the public wouldn't link its use in a way that would harm Apple interests. In rejecting Apple's appeal, the High People's Court further noted that the company didn't sell the iPhone in mainland China until 2009. This comes after Apple reported its first earnings decline in more than a decade.
iPhone vibrators (Score:2, Funny)
They have such a phony name...
Re: (Score:2)
The China is supposed to 'save' Apple...
Poor beleaguered Apple... Obviously a company in trouble when they are making billions of dollars a year in profit.
You know you're in trouble when you didn't make quite as an obscene amount as you did last year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then we would see how well those "iPhone" cases and purses will sell.
Yes, that'll end well. Apple pulls out of the Chinese market, many states in the USA ban Apple products because of encryption. India and Pakistan and many other developing countries follow suit for same reasons. I guess Apple can just dig into their war chest and keep being a company for a few hundred years even without any sales but thats just trololol
Re: (Score:2)
Question. You named India and Pakistan as developing countries (Pakistan? Seriously?) anyway, but, do you consider China also a developing country?
I wonder because so many americans have no clue about these things.
I guess India and Pakistan count as developing, I guess progress is being made and that counts as 'development'.
China is an odd case, I don't know how to classify it in terms of first, second or third world. Probably more second world these days, especially the coastal cities.
I'm not American. I'm European and have lived in a very diverse collection of countries.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
As far as I can tell, it is firmly second world, but what does that have to do with development?
First world doesn't mean what you think it means.
Xintong anal leakage plugs (Score:2)
Apple should start selling Xintong brand anal leakage plugs and Tiandi penis perforators. I doubt that company has trademarked their name for those products in china.
Re: Xintong anal leakage plugs (Score:2)
I'm just imagining the horrifying product launch with Tim doing his best to channel his inner Steve Jobs ("We've crafted these but plugs with love with technologies that will delight you") and Johnny I've talking about how they carefully crafted them with precision Unibody aluminium to ensure maximum pluggage whilst retaining stylish lines and long lived durability
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Usa Japan has existed with that name since at least the 8th century and is not and has not ever been a manufacturing city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it didn't. This is a stupid internet legend with no basis in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I'm pretty sure this "internet" thing is also an urban legend.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as Apple Music that was sued out of its name by Apple (after already winning a case against Apple that they would not enter the music industry)?
perils of having brands instead of substance (Score:2, Insightful)
when you are, more or less, a marketing company that manage brands, and through media hype can command a premium price for your branded products, over similar products with same quality and features, then, when lose your name, you end up empty.
This is why. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
you don't do business with or in China. If you think Apple is the only one who will get this treatment, dream on.
China, as we know, has little concept of rights whether human or otherwise. I once read that in China if you get taken advantage of it's your fault, not the person stealing or whatever from you.
Don't buy products made in China. It's the single most effective means to give them the middle finger.
Re: (Score:1)
Personally I would guess that a user by the name of smooth wombat is from Australia, not USA...
Though admittedly the "I once read that in China" comment smacks of typical USA ignorance and paranoia rather than the usually better educated and experienced antipodes.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't buy products made in China. It's the single most effective means to give them the middle finger.
Don't buy iPhones.
Is that the lesson you got from this story?
Re: (Score:2)
The article is a bit misleading.
In 2007, Apple didn't even own the trademark "iPhone". Cisco even filed for an injunction against Apple right after the iPhone launched in 2007.
At least, the Chinese company registered the trademark before it used the name, which is a lot more than can be said of Apple. Should the Chinese company be penalized because Apple chose to completely ignore trademark law when it suited them. I sure hope not.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is a bit misleading.
In 2007, Apple didn't even own the trademark "iPhone". Cisco even filed for an injunction against Apple right after the iPhone launched in 2007.
At least, the Chinese company registered the trademark before it used the name, which is a lot more than can be said of Apple. Should the Chinese company be penalized because Apple chose to completely ignore trademark law when it suited them. I sure hope not.
It sounded to me like the court said that there is very little chance that this purse manufacturer's use of the trademark iPhone would harm Apple's mobile phone sales in any way. Rulings like this are pretty common in cases where two companys in radically different lines of business like, say, a agricultural machinery manufacturer and a computer manufacturer, are using the same trademark. It is the equivalent to the judge having the folliwing co versation with the computer company's lawyer:
Judge: "So, le
Good luck selling a Coca-Cola TV (Score:2)
It sounded to me like the court said that there is very little chance that this purse manufacturer's use of the trademark iPhone would harm Apple's mobile phone sales in any way. Rulings like this are pretty common in cases where two companys in radically different lines of business like, say, a agricultural machinery manufacturer and a computer manufacturer, are using the same trademark.
A claim of trademark infringement requires the registration and the allegedly infringing activity to be closely related fields of use. But a claim of dilution of a famous trademark [wikipedia.org], in those jurisdictions that recognize it, has no field of use restriction. Good luck selling a "Coca-Cola" brand television, even without the Spencerian logo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work. Apple had the trademark on electronics. These guys took out a trademark on leather goods. Different domains, so no conflict.
Kinda like how there is an Apple record label, and Apple computers were only able to keep their trademark on the condition that they didn't go into the music business. Then they did and had to do a deal.
It's only in the corrupt US where corporations run the place that people think a trademark should cover every use of a common word
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work.
You think that a deliberately misleading brand is how trademark law is supposed to work?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not deliberately misleading, it's generic. Multiple companies around the world were already selling "iPhones" before Apple came along. Before the iMac, even. And these guys started using the branding before the iPhone was even available in China.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not deliberately misleading, it's generic. Multiple companies around the world were already selling "iPhones" before Apple came along.
I do have issues with Apple basically trademarking the letter i. However...
And these guys started using the branding before the iPhone was even available in China.
That doesn't change their intent to mislead, at least, not logically. Probably it does legally, who knows? Not me. But it's still sleazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no, this is how trademark law is supposed to work. Apple had the trademark on electronics. These guys took out a trademark on leather goods. Different domains, so no conflict.
Absolutely correct.
And to further rebut the GP, my "Better Half" was (is?) involved with a case where a Chinese business man registered the local trademark for the company she works for - who holds the trademark in the rest of the world, and has done business with that name for decades.
He then went after the factories making the products for trademark infringement and had shipments to US, Canada, Europe all seized by China Customs until the dispute was resolved.
Basically like domain squatting but for tangib
Apple took the name Iphone anyhow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Those of us on internet in late 90's remember the most popular voice chat software that even worked over dialup. It was hugely popular among ham radio operators as being one of them, we got the ok to setup links to 2 meter and 70cm band repeaters, after not the greatest of verification but it wasn't a disaster.
1995 article on the original iphone: http://www.wired.com/1995/10/i... [wired.com]
it worked damn good over dialup for what it was, even allowed calls to landlines, and ham radio links, it was great for those days, and of course peer 2 peer
1996 college paper on the specifics of Iphone: http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~kell... [upenn.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco made a device called an iphone long before Apple made theirs. Apple has no right to an exclusive trademark.
Actually, no they didn't. They bought Linksys who made a device called an iphone long before Apple made theirs. After they bought it, Cisco dropped the product. Then when the rumors around the Apple iPhone started to thicken, Cisco suddenly renamed another Product iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
3GS, 4S, 6S... yeah, totally different :)
Re: (Score:2)
3GS, 4S, 6S... yeah, totally different :)
Actually yes. Either of the phones you named is one phone model (okay, the 6S come in two sizes). The "Gx" was a name for several different models only sharing the CPU type. And even among those with the exact same name there were (more or less) different hardware. E.g. there were 3 different "iMac G5" generations with quite different hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
So just like the unequal treaties that the west including the good ol' usa presented to the chinese, right?
Re: (Score:2)
China spent that money to try and avoid going down the hole with the US. The Chinese and the US economies are very intertwined. If China had not shored up the US dollar, US made products would have become cheaper and their own investments would have become worth less. They were acting in self interest, not out of any desire to help the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is correct, and if it is you have to ask why the US is so weak? The EU pretty much killed TTIP by sticking to its principals and protecting its citizens from abuse, so why can't the US do the same with China?
Of course the reality is that the US makes favourable deals for itself with China, only they are never one-sided.
Did you even read TFA? The leather company with the trademark seems to have a good case. Different area of business. You wouldn't expect glaziers to stop using "windows" be
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S,. has no trade deals with China. You've been listening to Trump, stop it.
Re: (Score:3)
China: "Here's our proposed deal. You'll give us everything that we want, and in return you'll get nothing and we won't even say thank you. I think you'll see that this is completely fair and equitable."
You forgot the part about having access to a market of 1/7th of the world's entire population. That's what you get in return, and that's why companies will happily accept those terms.
If Apple wants to play ball in China... (Score:2)
.
Them are the rules.
It proves what I've known for years. (Score:4, Informative)
This has been known forever, though Apple probably just wanted to make their point although they knew they ultimately could not win.
In a legal battle between a Chinese entity and a foreign entity, Chinese courts always rule on the side of the Chinese entity. Always. Even if they have to come up with the most convoluted legal logic possible to do so. This is one of the warnings we used to give clients when they were considering joint ventures with Chinese companies. "Do you trust them?" (The answer was inevitably "no".) "Can you survive when -- not if -- they screw you over? Because you'll have no recourse when it happens." The only hope of ever seeing legal ramifications is if a company can get another Chinese JV to do the suing.
The two graphics are TOTALLY different (Score:2)