×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Loses Trademark Claim Against iFone in Mexico

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the still-working-on-the-i-time-machine dept.

Iphone 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

Watch... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852165)

...as Samsung quickly buys out iFone.

For "defensive IP," of course.

Yes !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852489)

Fukc Apple !!

Didn't Do The Research (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852169)

Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, or are arrogant to the point of being harmful to their interests.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852263)

Given (or especially since) it's Apple, why not both?

Re:Didn't Do The Research (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852369)

When it comes to Apple, never attribute to incompetence what can be better explained by malice.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (5, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852387)

Ahh, you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.

You've obviously never met my ex-girlfriend...

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852917)

OT, but right after a horrible relationship my freshman year in college, I ran into another guy who had dated the same girl, and he and others had formed a support group. This gal was so poisonous that her ex-boyfriends sought out her fresh victims.

I can look back and laugh about it now, but at the time it really wasn't funny...

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853277)

Wow. Some more and you may file a class action lawsuit. Unless her EULA explicitly dropped your rights for it.
Now for the serious part: yeah, girls like that may drive us crazy. I had a similar experience, and it was really hard to put an end to it.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852937)

Ahh, you seem to think they are mutually exclusive.

You've obviously never met my ex-girlfriend...

I'm pretty sure I dated her too...

Or one of her devil spawn sisters.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1, Funny)

mrstrano (1381875) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853245)

I think you can safely assume that most people on the Internet have, in fact, not met your ex-girlfriend. Unless you broke up because of some egregious case of cheating.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (4, Informative)

sd4f (1891894) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852349)

It's not arrogance, 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.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852389)

Great. I have a question: 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 sincerely doubt it.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (5, Interesting)

EasyTarget (43516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852561)

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 (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852793)

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'.

True.

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...

False, they didn't lose. The case was settled. As you allude to in the next sentence. Settling a case means that no one has "won" or "lost", because it was never decided.

In fact, as part of the settlement they each signed an agreement that they would not use their trademarks in competing businesses.

That's a popular characterization of the agreement, though the actual details were (as is usually the case with legal agreements) considerably more complicated.

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.

The Beatles' Music company (Apple Corp., not Apple music inc.) didn't lose (at trial) based on the trademark itself, they lost based on the specific terms of the settlement agreement of the earlier suit, in which Apple Computer (now Apple, Inc.) was granted specific rights to use and control the use of the Apple Computer trademarks in the area of music-as-content on "goods and services ... (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content ... (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music)." So its not really an example of the phenomenon at issue.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41853135)

Settling a case means that no one has "won" or "lost", because it was never decided.

Sure. And the little shit screaming uncle didn't "lose" because I didn't finish dislocating his shoulder.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (2, Interesting)

EasyTarget (43516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853275)

Ooh ok, they didn't lose, they just failed to win.
- My bad, here was I thinking that the purpose of the competition was to win. Shoulda read my own .sig really.

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

?

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852955)

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.

IIRC, Apple Corps did not lose to Apple Computer; rather they reached a settlement involving Apple Computer paying lots of money to amend their agreement over the use of the trademark.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

Anonymous Cowled (917825) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853115)

Great. I have a question: 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 sincerely doubt it.

"GAIM" changed their name first to "gaim", then to "Pidgin IM" after pressure from AOL, even though GAIM was named long before AOL Instant Messenger was shortened to AIM. Linky [wikipedia.org]. OK, wasn't trademarked, but still.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853187)

Great. I have a question: 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 sincerely doubt it.

The answer to your question almost must be no, because the law is so very clear. So the question would become, what the hell is Apple thinking?

I actually waded through the article, and it turns out that iFone sells software to call centers. So, perhaps, Apple is thinking that is a sufficiently different line of business that consumers will not be confused. (I know that in the US, cell phones and call center software are certainly different categories for trademark.)

The article mentions nothing about Apple trying to stop iFone from using the name. I wonder if iFone registered the mark for multiple categories which they never used? Sigh. Sure would be nice to read an article by someone who knows jackshit about trademark law and would make an effort to include the important info ;-)

Re:Didn't Do The Research (2, Funny)

gedeco (696368) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852597)

I cannot wait until Apple claims the rights to the word iDIOT....

Re:Didn't Do The Research (4, Funny)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852909)

And then gets sued by the Illinois Department of Transportation because of brand confusion. I mean, half the state may be mispronouncing their abbreviation already, and introducing a product with that actual name will be confusing to consumers.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41853031)

If you mean Apple will sue the State of Illinois over it, then yes.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852675)

it's just the modus operandi of the adversarial legal system

If every person on Earth would walk as close to the line of what is legally acceptable as Apple, what a world we would live in.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (4, Insightful)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852415)

Breathtakingly arrogant. I wonder what possible reasons they could have given to the judge to demand that a company which had previously registered a trademark should take it down because they graced the market by introducing a phone with a similar name.

I'm not surprise that Apple lost. I'm stunned that they litigated in the first place. Looks like the tables turned on them since they have now lost the rights to "iPhone" entirely. I'm betting that this was not what they expected.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852649)

It's not the first or the last time such a situation has happened for them. Woz was about the only thing at apple preventing shit like this from happening regularly. What astounds me is people seem to forget apple, microsoft, cisco and oracle have always been this way. It's funny when people act like these companies change from time to time - they don't.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852491)

This isn't the first time that this has happened. Cisco owned the trademarks on both iPhone and IOS when Apple launched the device. Apple now licenses these both from Cisco. The other high-profile example is Rendezvous, Apple's name for ZeroConf, which just so happened to be the name of someone else's product that did something similar. They had to rebrand all of their Rendezvous stuff as Bonjour. Apple and Google both have a tendency to skip trademark searches and just launch products, then deal with the fallout if anyone complains.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (2)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852545)

I like Google. But if they sued someone over a trademark that was already in use before their own product, I would call them dicks as well. To my knowledge this hasn't happened - but I'm open to correction.

Suing someone in this way takes evil to a whole new level.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852547)

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 (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852637)

Patents are different than trademarks; for patents, damages increase if the infringement is deemed willful, so having deniability under oath is a good thing.

What is supposed to happen of course, if you think something might be patented, is to call the company lawyer, and then do a patent search in his presence. That ought to be covered by attorney-client privileges and you could deny it ever happened while under oath.

I'm not a lawyer, of course; that's just a rough summary of what I was told by one of our lawyers.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

Shotgun (30919) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853037)

There are multiple ways of handling this. The grandparent's lawyer accepted the position the a patent search is pointless. There are so many patents covering so many things that are so broad, if you're doing anything at all interesting it is most likely covered, (or worse, can be construed to be covered) by someone else's patent that a search is bound to uncover something. You'll never be able to ship anything. If you don't look, then you won't feel any ramifications until the patent holder identifies the infringement and brings a case. The lawyers will either be able to play courtroom games until the patent holder runs out of money and settles for a pittance, or licenses the patent, buy the holder out, or play patent-portfolio with the holder.

The parents lawyer advises to do the naive but proper thing. His methodology will insure the company never ships a line of code, and in the end he is no better protected than the grand-parent's company.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853011)

It's one thing to do that. It's totally another to try to file a trademark suit against someone who already existed and has been using the mark for years before you. That isn't just intentional ignorance, that's deliberate dickishness. The correct practice is to use a different name in that region. Other very major companies do exactly that (I forget which, but at least one major chain store goes by a different name in one state due to this exact issue), but Apple doesn't want to follow the rules.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

beltsbear (2489652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852679)

Considering that the trademark was 4 years before Apple I would say it was just arrogance. Apple seems to behave as if courts will automatically award them rights because of their size and the fact that everyone knows who they are. In many cases this is exactly what happens. This time it did not.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852817)

Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit.

They could've sat down with them and come to an agreement like reasonable adults but they instead reached for their guns. Too bad.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852939)

Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, [...].

Obviously they didn't. They must have paid off the wrong people.

Re:Didn't Do The Research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41853163)

"Apple's lawyers either didn't do the research here, or are arrogant to the point of being harmful to their interests."

Sociopaths almost always hurt themselves in the end. However, they will kick and scream and try to drag everyone down with them, which is a sure sign.

Brief story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852171)

I think it was around January 2008 I purchased a Linksys CIT400 iPhone for Skype. They shared a trademark with Apple. Technically, I can say I have an iPhone.

End of brief story.

I thought... (3, Interesting)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852173)

... Steve Jobs was supposed to be a "driven", "detail oriented" guy. Whoops! How do you NOT handle a basic trademark situation in a country as large as Mexico for EIGHT YEARS since you began developing the iPhone? Did he ever hear of one of the richest guys in the world - Carlos Slim - who made his fortune SELLING PHONE SERVICE IN MEXICO???

Wouldn't have been a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852433)

if Apple hadn't been an arsehole on this and tried to sue an iFone because "it is confusingly similar to iPhone". Because that means that, according to Apple, iPhone is confusingly similar to iFone. Ergo, LAWSUIT!

If they'd not been complete pricks, then there would have been no problem, just like there's been no problem with the "confusing" iFone/iPhone for the past three years.

Maybe (5, Funny)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852175)

Ay Phone!

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852445)

Why is it called the eyePhone?

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852533)

Why is it called the eyePhone?

Because of the possible lawsuits from users who poked their eyes out while trying to use their phones.

Re:Maybe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41853055)

That's why they have rounded corners.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41853271)

That would be a PIRATED Chinese phone. ;)

Wait a second. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852179)

Are you telling me that Apple stole the entire concept and design of the iPhone from a bunch of Mexicans???

Re:Wait a second. (2)

jasper160 (2642717) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852215)

I would love to see apple in a Mexican court.

Re:Wait a second. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852285)

Mexican court.

Wait, they actually have those?

Re:Wait a second. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852431)

Well sure! The major difference from US courts being, in Mexico a massive international corporation* apparently gets the same treatment as your average dirt farmer.



* assuming said corporation isn't owned by Carlos Slim, or a front for one of the cartels... something tells me that would make a difference.

Wow, just wow (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852187)

Microsoft sure is ballsy... wait, this is Apple?

I guess what various folks said here are correct, Apple IS the new Microsoft! Suing someone over trademark when thy were using the mark first? That's more MS-like than MS!

Re:Wow, just wow (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852425)

Apple had it coming. Couldn't happen to a better bunch of folks.

I hope iFone socks it to them (and it looks like they plan to).

Re:Wow, just wow (2, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852483)

Microsoft sure is ballsy... wait, this is Apple?

I guess what various folks said here are correct, Apple IS the new Microsoft! Suing someone over trademark when thy were using the mark first? That's more MS-like than MS!

No Microsoft is more bully; bribe; lie; outlast, and still do! Look at how they act in the mobile arena, the new Microsoft is..well Microsoft, Its why they are incredibly weak against the New Giants Apple and Google these tactics are simply ineffective.

Apple being Apple which is simply a reflection of its CEO like Microsoft is a reflection of its; Companies are like dogs it seems. It is "Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome" and the result is as always a long prolonged lawsuit over anything Steve Jobs Pissed on, ignoring any real sense of Justice. It has been pretty successful from a legal point of view...not so much from a practical...they haven't destroyed Android, where they have lost all their market share, sown from 23.1% to 14.9% as Android hits 75%.

Seriously its nothing new ask "Apple Records" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org] or hell look at the whole wikipedia entry on its literation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation [wikipedia.org].

Re:Wow, just wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852617)

Yes, but after 8 year and iFone didn't sue Apple they were obviously not protecting their trademark and are therefore no longer entitled to it.

Re:Wow, just wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852795)

They didn't offer a big enough bribe.

Confusing much? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852225)

"(...) Apple filed a complaint with the Mexican Industrial Property Institute demanding that iFone stop using is name because it could confuse users."

Confuse users? If they're worried about users getting confused, they should start with refining iOS 6 Maps...

Re:Confusing much? (5, Funny)

spyke252 (2679761) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853045)

How do you think Apple's lawyers got to Mexico in the first place? "Siri, get me directions from Cupertino to Mountain View..."

I wonder why that didn't work (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852235)

I guess that "cuz we're way bigger and awesomer" doesn't really fly in Mexican courts either. First one in gets it!

Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (4, Informative)

rabun_bike (905430) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852311)

Let us not forget. Cisco (Linksys) then sued and accepted a settlement from Apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone [wikipedia.org]

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (2)

AZURERAZOR (472031) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852459)

Step 1 Defend in court
Step 2 Win defensive case
Step 3 Profit by selling the name back to Apple for $5B

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852537)

I find it interesting that iFone starting adapting solutions in 1998 the same time as the first release of iPhone by InfoGear. Wasn't this about the same time that anything that normally would not but now could access the internet was getting an "i" before the name just to denote that it was internet capable?

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (2)

fuzznutz (789413) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852809)

Internet has nothing to do with it, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Apple started all their "i" shit when they migrated from PowerPC to Intel. Intel used to prefix the lower case "i" on their CPU chip designations prior to the (trademarked) Pentium and Apple adopted the practice to distinguish between PowerPC computers like the holdover MacMini, which was late to transition to intel, and the newer iMacs. (See "Power Mac" for differentiation)

The marketing ploy seemed to stick and next thing you know Apple is selling "i"Pods with ARM chips.

The i386 was released in 1985. The first iMac came in 1998. Intel's logo is still in all lower case.

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852949)

You said "correct me if I'm wrong".

You are wrong.

iMac was released in 1998. It shipped with a PowerPC processor in it (a G3).

Apple didn't announce the Intel transition until 2005.

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (2)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853081)

Internet has nothing to do with it, Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Apple started all their "i" shit when they migrated from PowerPC to Intel.

OK, you're wrong. The first iMac shipped in 1998, iPod and iTunes were released in 2001, the first Intel Mac shipped in 2006.

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853125)

Intel used to? I have an Intel Core i7 right now. I don't think there's any correlation at all.

Re:Apple initally stole the iPhone name from Cisco (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853003)

Let us not forget. Cisco (Linksys) then sued and accepted a settlement from Apple.

Cisco would have lost that case, because they had abandoned the mark. (You have to actively use a trademark in commerce in order to maintain it. If you discontinue the product, do not release another product under the name, and otherwise do not use the name, you have abandoned the mark. Cisco had done that, and then tried to file a faked renewal--had they gone to trial, not only would they have lost on preliminary judgment, some employee *might*, depending on the judge's mood, have wound up in very hot water.)

So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? (2)

anarkhos (209172) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852327)

It's a minor dilemma as Apple will sell the iPhone in every hispanic country except Mexico, where it will be called the, um, telefono de la manzana?

But seriously, what will it be called?

Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? (2)

robi5 (1261542) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852553)

Why should it be called *anything*? Branding is cool and all, but it's not like there is a law that your product be named. Apple does not "make" phones other than the iPhone so there should be no confusion.

- Sir, would you check our selection of Android phones?
- No, I'd like to buy an Apple phone / I'm interested in iOS devices / I want *one of these* here.
- Which one?
- 4S please / the shorter / less expensive / less magnificent one.
- Here you are, ... pesos please.
- Good bye.

Then leave it to the population how they call it :-)

Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852557)

But seriously, what will it be called?

It will be cheaper for Apple to pay money to iFone and keep the current iPhone name, than risk losing sales due to name change.

Re:So what is the iPhone going to be called, then? (4, Funny)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853127)

But seriously, what will it be called?

Since it's an Apple product, call it the aPhone.

The docking port? That's the aHole...

May I be the first ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852333)

... to say BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Apple went about it the wrong way (2, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852347)

Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...

Re:Apple went about it the wrong way (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852421)

Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...

Copyright cannot be created by request but by creating a copyrighted work. But I think there is prior art of people using the letter i anyways.

Re:Apple went about it the wrong way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852465)

It wasn't even a creative or good name in 1998 when the iMac launched. Even then it was tired after years of "i-way" hype.

Re:Apple went about it the wrong way (2)

ikaruga (2725453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852481)

Not copyright but trademark. Copyright is for content and can only be granted upon the creation and publication of content. Trademark is for branding and can be registered at any moment, however defending them can be a bitch some times but if you don't do so you lose it.

Re:Apple went about it the wrong way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852615)

retards that don't know the difference between copyright, trademarks, and patents should refrain from offering opinions on the subject.

Re:Apple went about it the wrong way (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852701)

paving the way in the future for the ... iCar ...

I bet we'll see an Android car first.

SOVIET NATURAL GAS COMPANY USES SATELITTES ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852405)

INSTEAD OF IPHONES.

SOURCE: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121101/177116360.html

ARTICLE TEXT:

Gazprom to Launch Two Satellites by Yearend
Proton-M carrier rocket

Proton-M carrier rocket
© RIA Novosti. Oleg Urusov
18:23 01/11/2012
Tags: Baikonur space center, Proton-M, satellite, Gazprom Space Systems (GSS), Gazprom, Nikolai Sevastyanov, Russia
Related News

        Russia to Develop Space Debris Removal System
        Russia Denies ‘Systemic Crisis’ in Space Industry
        Russia to Orbit Two Space Labs by 2016
        Russian Companies Design Space Tour Plane

Multimedia

        Proton Carrier Rocket
        Baikonur space center

MOSCOW, November 1 (RIA Novosti) – Gazprom Space Systems (GSS), a telecommunications arm of Russia’s energy giant Gazprom, is planning to launch two Yamal class satellites by the end of 2012, the company’s general designer Nikolai Sevastyanov said on Thursday.

GSS, formerly known as Gazcom, already operates a cluster of three Yamal telecoms satellites in orbit.

The Yamal-300K satellite, built by Russia’s Reshetnev space company, will be launched by Proton-M carrier rocket together with the Luch 5B satellite of another operator from the Baikonur Space Center in Kazakhstan on November 3.

The satellite is fitted with a combined payload including eight active 72 MHz transponders in C-band and eighteen active 72 MHz transponders in Ku-band.

Yamal-300K service zone covers 95% of the Russian territory.

“The next launch is scheduled for December 8,” Sevastyanov said on the sidelines of the Open Innovations forum in Moscow. “It will be the Yamal-402 satellite.”

A Yamal-402 satellite, built by Thales Alenia Space, will also be launched by Proton-M from Baikonur.

The satellite is equipped with 46 Ku-band transponders providing for the coverage zone over the most part of the territory of Russia, CIS, Europe, Middle East and Africa.

GSS is planning to have fully-fledged Yamal satellite network in orbit by 2020.

swords:lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852443)

Those who live by the:lawsuit, ....

Good for them (1)

SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852463)

Apple is awfully damned arrogant thinking that another company that had the name for years before they introduced the product should have to stop using it's name just because Apple came along.

Yessss! (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852515)

This means I can move forward on my next project: The iFoam memory mattress.

Re:Yessss! (1)

Shotgun (30919) | about a year and a half ago | (#41853095)

Which reports to the internet whenever someone lays down so that you can know who's been sleeping in your bed? Are you a bear?

Vocaltec (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852655)

Back in the late 90s I remember a company called Vocaltec also had a software application called InternetPhone that used the IPhone name for short. I guess they didn't trademark enough either.

Due diligence (4, Insightful)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year and a half ago | (#41852669)

Well, if Apple didn't do its due diligence when applying for trademark status for "iPhone", that is its own fault. And obviously, they did not even do a cursory review of trademark status for their due diligence because Cisco already had an iPhone trademark, which they sued Apple for. Now they're in a situation that's even stronger than Cisco's (Cisco was not actively using "iPhone" even though it already had the trademark on it). iFone appears to have been actively and continuously used in trade in Mexico prior to Apple using "iPhone". Court battles can be long, so who knows.

Nelson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852733)

har har

Sucks when you don't own the trademark on the 'i' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852749)

Sucks when you don't own the trademark on the 'i'.
(Intel does)

Yo quiero taco bell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852779)

ring!

There's a Fox News Latino!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41852915)

So surprised that every article on Fox News Latino isn't just "WE HATE YOU GO HOME WE HATE YOU GO HOME". Apparently they speak with forked tongue; who knew?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...