Results 1 to 12 of 12

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: USPTO Pulls Objection to Apple's 'iPad mini' Trademark Claim

  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Michael Essany's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana
    Posts
    3,783
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 1,480 Times in 566 Posts

    Default USPTO Pulls Objection to Apple's 'iPad mini' Trademark Claim


    In what marks a potentially interesting reversal of fortune for Apple in its quest to trademark "iPad mini," the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has withdrawn its primary objections to Apple's application to secure the trademark in question.

    "Upon further review of the application, the examining attorney has determined that the following refusals issued in the initial Office action should be withdrawn," examining attorney Lee-Anne Berns noted. "The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused."

    In the big picture, however, this doesn't mean that Apple is now guaranteed the trademark that it seeks.

    There may still be reasons to deny trademark protection to "iPad mini". For one, although Berns has found "no similar registered mark that would bar registration" (her emphasis), there may be similar marks in "prior-filed pending applications" that would bar Apple from gaining a trademark.
    Apple will also be required to amend its trademark application to include a disclaimer that it doesn't seek to trademark the lone term "mini."

    "An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms or designs that others may need to use to describe or show their goods or services in the marketplace," Berns writes.

    Source: The Register

  2. #2
    So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bklyn NY !!
    Posts
    913
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 62 Times in 51 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
    So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
    +1

    one more reason so sue Samsung over the Galaxy mini.

  4. #4
    Livin the iPhone Life
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,143
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 87 Times in 71 Posts

    That is messed up...
    Someone should start a petition for a federal investigation to all the bank accounts owned by people who works at patent/trademark office that gave Apple their patents/trademarks, and a review of all previous granted patents/trademarks to Apple.

  5. #5
    Livin the iPhone Life slim.jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    116
    Thanked 128 Times in 98 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
    So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
    Did you even read any of it? They are not looking to trademark the lone term 'mini'. Go crawl back into your apple hate dungeon and come back when you can read.

  6. #6
    My iPhone is a Part of Me luvmytj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    676
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 70 Times in 56 Posts

    As I figured they, they made a mistake. Glad they rectified it.
    Go home haters... your drunk!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
    So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
    "An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms or designs that others may need to use to describe or show their goods or services in the marketplace," Berns writes.

    the "m word" by itself isn't the trademark. Only combine with "iPad"

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to BhadKarma For This Useful Post:

    Jokadaking (04-08-2013)

  9. #8
    So within a week of the initial rejection, USPTO did an internal review and saw that they made a mistake, LMFAO

  10. #9
    so Apple really does pay off everyone off to get whatever they want

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by sheon View Post
    so Apple really does pay off everyone off to get whatever they want
    Wouldn't you? If you had the money?
    And they didn't pay anyone ... The trademark was rejected cause they analyzed it wrong. They rejected "mini" being a trademark.

  12. #11
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Newnan, GA, USA
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    If Apple was allowed to trademark "iPod mini" so long ago, isn't that a precedent? What possible reason could there be to deny this one? It would be a bureaucratic failure if some other company legally makes a product called "iPad mini."

  13. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Shigoroku View Post
    If Apple was allowed to trademark "iPod mini" so long ago, isn't that a precedent? What possible reason could there be to deny this one? It would be a bureaucratic failure if some other company legally makes a product called "iPad mini."
    They can't because Apple successfully trademarked "iPad." If someone made a "iPed mini" then, well, they'd probably still get in trouble.

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •