Others Claim To Hold The Trademark On iPad. Is There An App For That?
from the steve-jobs-doesn't-waste-time-on-petty-things-like-trademarks dept
It really was just about three years ago when Apple announced the iPhone and was quickly told that Cisco actually owned the trademark on the word iPhone. A lawsuit followed, but it was quickly settled with some cash changing hands and all was good. So you would think that Apple would take care of such things in advance these days. Apparently not. mrharrysan alerts us to the news that there are a few other companies with various iPad trademarks and Fujitsu in particular is claiming it has no intention of giving its name up. Of course, it's a bit more complicated than that since Fujitsu only has a pending trademark (and earlier it had been considered abandoned before the company re-opened the file). Then there's another company called Mag-Tek that does have a trademark on iPad for PIN-entry keypads, though that might not be considered competitive at all. Still, Fujitsu is posturing about how it doesn't want to give up the name. Apple has an application in for its own trademark and is disputing Fujitsu's right to the trademark and chances are, once again, eventually some money will change hands and forever forward the iPad name will be Apple's to control when it comes to tablet-like devices.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=mad%20tv%20ipad&aq=f&a mp;oq=
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With trademarks, we don't see the resulting conflicts very often because most companies choose to pay "behind the scenes" to avoid them. (We see big guys going after little guys - Olympics, I'm looking at you - because the little guys aren't in a position to stay out of the way.)
Apple has clearly decided that this situation is untenable for them. They have marks they want to use - I'm sure the decision on the *right* mark is Steve Jobs's - and if they took their lawyer's risk-averse advice, they'd never be able to use them. So they just go ahead, obviously aware that a fight will likely ensue - and relying on their ability to outspend pretty much anyone to force a reasonable settlement. Hell, if they can get Cisco to settle, who's likely to stand up to them? Besides, since trademark law doesn't have treble damages based on bizarre valuations and rarely produces prospective injunctions, the downside isn't that terrible: Change the official product name, knowing full well that if the product was a wild success, people will keep calling it what you want anyway.
It's an easy prediction that all the legal complaints about the name will be quietly settled. Apple will pay some unspecified amount for the rights, and that will be that.
-- Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was pretty sickening to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In other news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MadTV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MadTV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iConfused
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would think
I know that's not really how it works, but honestly does anyone hear iSomething and not have Apple as the first thing to come to mind seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I would think
Remember, apple was no more the first with a digital audio player then they were the first to use i as a prefix. Just cause they get known for it, does not mean we should heap it all on em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I would think
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I would think
Ah yes, had forgotten that the iPad wasn't Apple's first foray into feminine hygiene products!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immac
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My GOD, It's Full of Tampons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mac's iPad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not so much the name...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fujistu money grab...
Now that Apple has come out with a version of their own, they want their pay day. To me this is just another example of a tax - in this case on Apple. I was going to say a tax on innovation, but I have a hard time saying that anything Apple did with the (cough) iPad really was innovative. Add in that they locked down the darn thing and I really want to say a tax on stupidity, but a tax nonetheless.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would that not have tipped the world off on Apple's plan for a tablet, and it's name in advance of launch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So for those keeping track of Trademark problems
Apple Computers : Apple Corps - Apple Computers settle with a payment to use the name, and a condition not to do anything in the music business. They then push with adding MIDI and Sound System, ignored the spirit of the Trademark by going forward with iTunes and iPod skirting the settlement that said apple was barred from selling media with music on it. Eventually, Apple Computers got a settlement that stripped Apple Corps of their trademarks, but agreed to license it back.
Apple iPhone : Cisco iPhone - Once again, after the suit came forth, Apple went to the nitpicking of the exact wording. They argued that a cell phone, a VOIP phone, and a POTS phone were all different, thus no trademark infringement. They settled, and time will tell what happens.
Apple iPad : Fujitsu iPad - We will have to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an uphill battle
Trademark "iPed" before Apple gets into the bicycle computer business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: an uphill battle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs to clear copyright?
Yet Apple itself doesn't clear potential names? Why not call this thing the iNetPad or some other "innovative" name? Why do they need to steal the name from Fujitsu or any other company?
And like one of the posters said, as long as Apple's product is more popular, the general public will associate the name with Apple and Apple will basically win the copyright: it doesn't matter what a court says if a "moron in a hurry" thinks an iPad is an Apple product... or that "Apple music" means buying music on iTunes for the iPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]