Australian Trademark Tribunal Tells Apple That It Can't Stop Other Products From Using The Letter 'i'
from the imorons-in-ihurry dept
Late last year we noticed that Apple seemed to be getting needlessly (and at times ridiculously) aggressive over its trademarks in Australia. There was the software developer who had a product named iPodRip, which had been around for years, which Steve Jobs suddenly decided needed to change its name. When the developer pleaded directly to Jobs, Jobs replied "Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal," which is amusing since the Beatles once tried to force Jobs to change the name of Apple -- and to him it was a big deal. Then there's the lawsuit against Macpro, a company that's been in business for 26 years -- since before Apple even had Macintosh as a product. And, finally, there's Apple's decision to fight Woolworth's in Australia (and New Zealand) because its logo looks sorta like an apple, though absolutely nothing like Apple's apple logo.While some of those disputes are ongoing, Apple has now lost a different trademark claim, while also being smacked down for thinking that just because a product has the letter "i" it means it violates an Apple trademark. In this case, it wasn't even the first letter of the product -- which was DOPi. Admittedly, this is iPod backwards, but no moron in a hurry -- which, I should note, was the legal standard that Apple's own lawyers brought back into vogue a few years ago -- is going to look at a product called DOPi and confuse it with an official Apple product.
And it wasn't like the folks on the tribunal just don't like Apple. The head guy is apparently a fan, but finds it ridiculous that Apple seems to think anything with an "i" is infringing:
In the tribunal hearing, IP Australia, the government body that oversees trademark applications, said Apple overlooked the fact that there were already a large number of products that have the "i" prefix, for example iSkin and iSoft to name just two, all of which are operating in the same class of electronic goods as Apple.Chalk one up for iCommon sense.
The registrar overseeing the case Michael Kirov, who confessed to being a tech head and a fan of Apple's products, judged that Apple failed to demonstrate that a "person of ordinary intelligence and memory" would automatically assume that just because a product carries the letter "i" it is an Apple product.
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
good way to start a Friday. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In My Imagination�
Apple Again Responds with iNuke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have just been sent here by Apple to tell you to
cease and desist immediately.
We (Apple) may have a product in the future that uses the word icommon or icommon technology (also yet to be developed) and dont appreciate you violating one of our (yet to be) trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iCommon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@www.eZee.se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @www.eZee.se
Our lawyers will be contacting you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @www.eZee.se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
First we are going after Nintendo for having the i in "Nintendo", that is a clear violation of our copyright.
We have repeatedly told them its no big deal to simply drop the i and be Nntendo, we think it has a nice ring to it.
Heck! We even suggested they use this as they slogan:
Two N's are better than one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, that's iNFRINGEMENT!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can We Use Eye Eyenstead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can We Use Eye Eyenstead?
That'll be $40k or both your kidneys, por favor....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can We Use Eye Eyenstead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New higher trademark bar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like a reasonable man
I like how Australia has raised the bar a bit above a moron in a hurry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about
would be interested in hearing your opinion on that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]