"The iFone trademark was filed in Mexico in 2003, a full four years before Apple filed to trademark the iPhone. Despite the rather obvious priority issue, Apple decided to sue iFone in 2009 in an attempt to invalidate the company’s name for being too similar to the iPhone. The predictable response was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFone’s favor ever since."
I think Apple deserves this and perhaps, even more.
So from the perspective of an analogy, corporations don't have 'blood' they have money, which is an analog for blood. And up to the point where they are arguing about this and that the total amount of money that is at stake is constrained by the companies involved deciding not to do business with each other. But a lawsuit can drain a disproportionate amount of money out of the 'target' (and the instigator). This 'escalates' the problem because what is at risk is higher. And, like an individual, when you threaten a company with more serious damage, their willingness to respond with more harm goes up significantly, if they feel like they are fighting for their life they will do things that normally would be considered 'too risky.'
So as an analog, the handgun and a lawsuit are escalation to the conflict which can result in much greater harm.
Apple certainly seems to have done that here. I don't know why though. Ianal, but anyone should be able to look at the date of filing for ifone and compare that to Apple's product launch. Apple lost right there.
Why they went in guns blazing thinking they are going to scare a telco is crazy. And a Mexican telco, which I would bet may behave a little different than US telcos.
I think Apple should have simply kept their mouths shut. I understand you have to protect your trademark, but ones a product, the other a service.
Apple seems to have jumped into a small pool of sharks with the iPhone name. Didn't Cisco have an IP phone called iPhone long before Apple? And as far as I know, Apple made no negotiations with them prior to launch.
I guess when you have enough money in the bank in cash to buy pretty much any competitor, it changes they term competitor in ones mind a bit. I certainly wish they would buy up AT&T and run the company right. 120.00 or more a month for a phone is pushing your luck.
It's more about the unintended consequences of a lawsuit than outright direct effects.
I'm always a bit boggled at why folks think stuff like this is a "win" for lawyers, just because some lawyer makes money. Dealing with these kinds of cases with clients like Apple is like running 2 startups at once. You are working 14+ hour days for a year, dealing with tons of emergencies, researching 100 page briefs as fast as you can, etc.
This is not the win. The real "win" is apple paying you 1k/hr hour to do relatively simple stuff because you won this case. If you lose, well, it's "what have you done for me lately". Hell, if you lose, Apple would probably demand an hourly rate reduction if you want to keep their business.
Look, I would like the judge ordered them to do some custom phone application development instead of citing legal documents. That way, they will need to hire more developers to do that, or allocate some developers from other departments, thus creating more developer jobs. Instead, the lawyers got to fight that battle and get paid for that, thus, they won.
"It’s not actually clear what Apple was thinking this time around – the iFone trademark was filed in Mexico in 2003, a full four years before Apple filed to trademark the iPhone. Despite the rather obvious priority issue, Apple decided to sue iFone in 2009 in an attempt to invalidate the company’s name for being too similar to the iPhone. The predictable response was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFone’s favor ever since."
I'm glad to see them get knocked down a few pegs on stuff like this. Apple could use a modicum of humility.
They sued in 2009, but it was only in 2010 that an Australian tribunal ruled that the "i" prefix could not be an Apple trademark. And that only applies in Australia.
Now, did iFone choose their name based on the positive connotations associated with Apple? I doubt it. And looking at their website, it's about as far removed from Apple as possible.
I see no reason to doubt it. There are exceptions but "i" prefix anything generally is trying to cash in on the association. Whether Apple deserves to be the only company that can use "i" prefix is another matter (I would say no).
This is simply another case where Apple will end up writing a big check. They did it for iPad in China, iPhone from Cisco, the swiss clock thing a couple months ago, etc. Again the difference is Apple users aren't crying about how broken the world is because they have to write a check for walking all over some other companies IP.
Today, it would be another matter. Today, a new product named iSomething is most likely trying to piggy back on Apple's coolness factor.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3591380/iphone-ifone-and-a...
Excerpts from the article:
- Apple already owns two iPhone trademarks in Mexico in Class 9 and Class 28
- in 2009, Apple's lawyers decided iFone's Mexican Class 38 mark wasn't being actively used, and they filed a lawsuit to try and get it canceled so they could register their own pending Class 38 mark on "iPhone."
- iFone obviously disagreed and convinced the Mexican courts that they were still using the mark in commerce
Class 9 = computers, software, cameras, and mobile phone
class 28 = electronic game devices
Class 38 = communication servicesIt'll probably eventually be called the "Apple Phone"; but people will still call it iPhone.
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/cisco_and_apple_agreement_on_ios...