5 ms·

I actually really hope that Apple loses this battle, partly because the name is horrible, but mostly because they're wrong. I see absolutely no reason that they

I actually really hope that Apple loses this battle, partly because the name is horrible, but mostly because they're wrong. I see absolutely no reason that they should be able to wrest away control of a name being actively used for another mobile technology product, especially when the other company has already filed for trademark protection.

arketyp 17y ago
In fairness, AFAIK, Apple invented the i* phenomenon. Other companies taking advantage of that catchy naming format feels so cheap to me that I could hardly care less about their actual rights on paper.
- brc 17y ago
  Not really. They popularised for devices it with the iPod and iMac, but sticking i and e in front of a name was wildly popular in the 1990's. (eBay anyone?) I would think Apple just followed that trend rather than coming up with it themselves. The iPhone mark was registered by infogear in 1996. Cisco acquired Infogear, which is how they ended up with it. The iMac didn't come out until 1998, the iPod in 2001.
  - moeffju 17y ago
    This is only tangentially related to the original post, but the name eBay is not a case of e-prefixing, it's a shortening of "echo bay", because echobay.com was already taken.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  The iware.com domain was registered in 1995, well prior to apples use of the 'i' prefix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-related_prefixes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-related_prefixes The danger here is to fall in to the trap of thinking that because one party made a lot of noise they must have been 'first' with something. Plenty of times - as in this one - that is not the case. Even though the noise can easily drown out other parties to the point where it becomes really hard to prove otherwise.
hristov 17y ago
It's not going to be that much of a battle. It will be more of a negotiation, as it was with the iPhone trademark. There will be a battle of sorts to determine how much Apple has to pay, but eventually they will pay it and move on. But it is surprising that even after the iPhone trademark fiasco they do not reserve their trademark names before the big announcements.
- robg 17y ago
  From what I've seen, they didn't pay anything for the iPhone name from Cisco. There was supposed to be a marketing alliance that never materialized. These kinds of naming conflicts have not stopped Apple before. In 2007, on the eve of the introduction of the iPhone, the technology giant Cisco Systems pointed out that it already sold an Internet handset called the iPhone. Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, led the negotiation for the name, peppering Cisco executives with calls at all hours, and telling them he was prepared to claim that Cisco was underutilizing the trademark. Mr. Jobs finally persuaded Cisco to surrender the trademark with a vague promise to market their products jointly - a partnership that never materialized. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/technology/29name.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/technology/29name.html?hp Even then, the iPhone use was exactly what Apple wanted. Fujitsu's is much more peripheral.
robg 17y ago
Fujitsu first trademarked the name in 2002 and for one very specific use case (retail sales - not mobile). If they wanted to do anything else with that product line they've had plenty of time. Keep in mind that TMs aren't some broad right. You have to specify each and every use.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Try using the name iMac for something close to but not quite an iMac and see how well that defense plays with apple on the receiving side. They even sued woolworths for this logo: http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworth...
  - robg 17y ago
    There's an Apple that's sells pickaxes without a problem. TM just isn't much protection unless someone is trying to address the same use with the same name (and/or similar image). From that article: Apple is spooked by the fact Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product. It's about uses not simple names or images. In my opinion, Fujitsu has no legal standing. Heck, if Cisco didn't get any compensation for the iPhone TM then this story to me is much ado about nothing. Fujitsu sells a device for mobile retail sales. That's not a use Apple is claiming at this time. If it's a use they're after, they'll have to work something out with Fujitsu.
  - apgwoz 17y ago
    > They even sued woolworths for this logo: Well come on now. It's a W shaped like an apple! It doesnt' have a bite out of it, but overlap them and they're practically identical.
    - robg 17y ago
      It's not about the image. It's about the use. If Woolworth's were using the image to sell a line of canned corn there would be no case on Apple's part. These stories are all about page views. There's absolutely no effort to clarify. Instead the effort is to obfuscate for the purposes of controversy/traffic.

arketyp 17y ago

In fairness, AFAIK, Apple invented the i* phenomenon. Other companies taking advantage of that catchy naming format feels so cheap to me that I could hardly care less about their actual rights on paper.

brc 17y ago
Not really. They popularised for devices it with the iPod and iMac, but sticking i and e in front of a name was wildly popular in the 1990's. (eBay anyone?) I would think Apple just followed that trend rather than coming up with it themselves. The iPhone mark was registered by infogear in 1996. Cisco acquired Infogear, which is how they ended up with it. The iMac didn't come out until 1998, the iPod in 2001.
- moeffju 17y ago
  This is only tangentially related to the original post, but the name eBay is not a case of e-prefixing, it's a shortening of "echo bay", because echobay.com was already taken.
jacquesm 17y ago
The iware.com domain was registered in 1995, well prior to apples use of the 'i' prefix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-related_prefixes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet-related_prefixes The danger here is to fall in to the trap of thinking that because one party made a lot of noise they must have been 'first' with something. Plenty of times - as in this one - that is not the case. Even though the noise can easily drown out other parties to the point where it becomes really hard to prove otherwise.

hristov 17y ago

It's not going to be that much of a battle. It will be more of a negotiation, as it was with the iPhone trademark. There will be a battle of sorts to determine how much Apple has to pay, but eventually they will pay it and move on. But it is surprising that even after the iPhone trademark fiasco they do not reserve their trademark names before the big announcements.

robg 17y ago
From what I've seen, they didn't pay anything for the iPhone name from Cisco. There was supposed to be a marketing alliance that never materialized. These kinds of naming conflicts have not stopped Apple before. In 2007, on the eve of the introduction of the iPhone, the technology giant Cisco Systems pointed out that it already sold an Internet handset called the iPhone. Steven P. Jobs, Apple’s chief executive, led the negotiation for the name, peppering Cisco executives with calls at all hours, and telling them he was prepared to claim that Cisco was underutilizing the trademark. Mr. Jobs finally persuaded Cisco to surrender the trademark with a vague promise to market their products jointly - a partnership that never materialized. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/technology/29name.html?hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/technology/29name.html?hp Even then, the iPhone use was exactly what Apple wanted. Fujitsu's is much more peripheral.

robg 17y ago

Fujitsu first trademarked the name in 2002 and for one very specific use case (retail sales - not mobile). If they wanted to do anything else with that product line they've had plenty of time. Keep in mind that TMs aren't some broad right. You have to specify each and every use.

jacquesm 17y ago
Try using the name iMac for something close to but not quite an iMac and see how well that defense plays with apple on the receiving side. They even sued woolworths for this logo: http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworth...
- robg 17y ago
  There's an Apple that's sells pickaxes without a problem. TM just isn't much protection unless someone is trying to address the same use with the same name (and/or similar image). From that article: Apple is spooked by the fact Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product. It's about uses not simple names or images. In my opinion, Fujitsu has no legal standing. Heck, if Cisco didn't get any compensation for the iPhone TM then this story to me is much ado about nothing. Fujitsu sells a device for mobile retail sales. That's not a use Apple is claiming at this time. If it's a use they're after, they'll have to work something out with Fujitsu.
- apgwoz 17y ago
  > They even sued woolworths for this logo: Well come on now. It's a W shaped like an apple! It doesnt' have a bite out of it, but overlap them and they're practically identical.
  - robg 17y ago
    It's not about the image. It's about the use. If Woolworth's were using the image to sell a line of canned corn there would be no case on Apple's part. These stories are all about page views. There's absolutely no effort to clarify. Instead the effort is to obfuscate for the purposes of controversy/traffic.