Close
  • Latest News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Cloud
  • Mobile
  • Networking
  • Storage
  • Applications
  • IT Management
  • Small Business
  • Development
  • Database
  • Servers
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Innovation
  • Blogs
  • PC Hardware
  • Reviews
  • Search Engines
  • Virtualization
Read Down
Sign in
Close
Welcome!Log into your account
Forgot your password?
Read Down
Password recovery
Recover your password
Close
Search
Menu
Search
  • Latest News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Cloud
  • Mobile
  • Networking
  • Storage
  • Applications
  • IT Management
  • Small Business
  • Development
  • Database
  • Servers
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Innovation
  • Blogs
  • PC Hardware
  • Reviews
  • Search Engines
  • Virtualization
More
    Home Latest News
    • Mobile

    Apple iPad Mini Trademark Fight May Make Sense After All

    By
    Wayne Rash
    -
    April 9, 2013
    Share
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Linkedin

      I have to admit that when I read Michelle Maisto’s story in eWEEK about Apple’s fight with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to get a trademark for iPad Mini, my first thoughts weren’t about Apple but instead about Austin Powers. I kept wondering if this was an attempt to prevent Dr. Evil’s even more malignant protégé Mini Me from using his name.

      After all, Apple has tried strange intellectual property tricks in the past, such as trying to pass off a drawing of a rectangle as an invention, or trying to claim that only Apple could have an app store. But the more I thought about this, the more that obviously wasn’t the intent. BMW has been selling a car called the “Mini” for years, and it’s pretty clear that BMW and all of the other products with “mini” attached to their name couldn’t become the subjects of trademark suits because of this.

      So obviously, Apple’s motivation for trying to trademark the name of the iPad Mini wasn’t to get control of the word “mini.” But that doesn’t mean that the USPTO wasn’t worried about that. This would explain the requirement for a disclaimer for the iPad Mini that says that that particular use of the word “mini” applies on to the iPad trademark and not to anything else.

      The name “iPad Mini” is certainly consistent with previous practices by Apple. Apple also sells a Mac Mini and it used to sell an iPod Mini, which is in fact the first iPod I ever owned. In that sense, I think it’s possible to read too much into the use of the descriptor, “Mini” when referring to Apple products. There’s also no reason to assume that Apple was attempting to prevent anyone else from using the term, if only because it would have already done so years ago.

      In fact, considering the trouble that Apple is having trying to trademark the name “iPad” and even “iPhone,” it’s a smart move. If Apple can trademark the full term, even with the disclaimer in the U.S., then international trademark conventions will give it at least some protection elsewhere. Right now that’s a problem for Apple, which has found that the iPad name was already in use outside the United States before Apple started using it, and that the term “iPhone” was in use in Brazil long before Apple introduced the first of its products with that name.

      Apple iPad Mini Trademark Fight May Make Sense After All

      The concern by the USPTO is understandable. Apple has been very aggressive in defending its patent and trademark turf for years, and in a number of cases its claims were dubious at best. But it doesn’t appear that this is one of those cases. Instead it just seems to be a way for Apple to protect the name.

      But that leads to other questions. If Apple keeps running into problems with the names of its products, does this mean that Apple isn’t doing a very good job of searching out trademarks before it starts using them? Or more cynically, does it mean that Apple has simply decided to start patenting everything it can find, valid or not and let the courts sort it out? Likewise has the company simply decided to pick names it likes and to dare existing trademark holders to do something about it?

      There’s certainly every reason to believe that Apple doesn’t try too hard to search for potential patent or trademark conflicts. It is, after all, the 800-pound gorilla in the tech business, and to some extent it can do what it wants to do. But even 800-pound gorillas can get sued by smaller creatures, sometimes just because they’re Apple. Likewise, Apple’s trademarks get filed in other countries before Apple has a chance to file everywhere.

      Because of this guerrilla war on intellectual property, Apple also has a responsibility to protect its legitimate property. That means that if Apple names its small tablet the iPad Mini, it should be able to protect the name and there’s no reason for the USPTO to refuse to do it, even given the company’s checkered past in that area.

      Apple isn’t completely out of the woods regarding its trademark application. The USPTO is requiring Apple to agree to the use of a disclaimer specified by the trademark office stating that it wasn’t asserting an exclusive right to use the word “mini” apart from the iPad tablet.

      But assuming that Apple agrees that it’s not making any exclusive claim to the word “mini” except as it applies to the iPad, then the USPTO may decide to let it happen. Apple has 6 months to respond to the USPTO disclaimer requirement, or the agency will reinstate its refusal to grant the trademark. If I had to guess, I think Apple will agree to the disclaimer. At least it gets its trademark that way

      Avatar
      Wayne Rash
      Wayne Rash is a freelance writer and editor with a 35 year history covering technology. He’s a frequent speaker on business, technology issues and enterprise computing. He covers Washington and is Senior Columnist for eWEEK. He is the author of five books, including his most recent, "Politics on the Nets". Rash is a former Executive Editor of eWEEK and Ziff Davis Enterprise, and a former analyst in the eWEEK Test Center. He was also an analyst in the InfoWorld Test Center, and Editor of InternetWeek. He's a retired naval officer, a former principal at American Management Systems and a long-time columnist for Byte Magazine.

      MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

      Android

      Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro: Durability for Tough...

      Chris Preimesberger - December 5, 2020 0
      Have you ever dropped your phone, winced and felt the pain as it hit the sidewalk? Either the screen splintered like a windshield being...
      Read more
      Cloud

      Why Data Security Will Face Even Harsher...

      Chris Preimesberger - December 1, 2020 0
      Who would know more about details of the hacking process than an actual former career hacker? And who wants to understand all they can...
      Read more
      Cybersecurity

      How Veritas Is Shining a Light Into...

      eWEEK EDITORS - September 25, 2020 0
      Protecting data has always been one of the most important tasks in all of IT, yet as more companies become data companies at the...
      Read more
      Big Data and Analytics

      How NVIDIA A100 Station Brings Data Center...

      Zeus Kerravala - November 18, 2020 0
      There’s little debate that graphics processor unit manufacturer NVIDIA is the de facto standard when it comes to providing silicon to power machine learning...
      Read more
      Apple

      Why iPhone 12 Pro Makes Sense for...

      Wayne Rash - November 26, 2020 0
      If you’ve been watching the Apple commercials for the past three weeks, you already know what the company thinks will happen if you buy...
      Read more
      eWeek


      Contact Us | About | Sitemap

      Facebook
      Linkedin
      RSS
      Twitter
      Youtube

      Property of TechnologyAdvice.
      Terms of Service | Privacy Notice | Advertise | California - Do Not Sell My Information

      © 2021 TechnologyAdvice. All Rights Reserved

      Advertiser Disclosure: Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which TechnologyAdvice receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. TechnologyAdvice does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.

      ×