Apple sues "ifone' in Mexico, loses. The ifone trademark was filed in 2003!

Discussion in 'Mobile Devices & Gadgets' started by Phokus, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. zaydq

    zaydq Senior member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. TuxDave

    TuxDave Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    In case anyone wants to get off the "die die Apple" bandwagon and learn what's really going on.
    http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3...mexican-trademark-standoff-whats-really-going

    It looks like nothing has happened yet and all the "banning iPhone in Mexico" is just sensational news reporting. Typical...
     
  3. akugami

    akugami Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Technically, it does not.

    Cisco, the prior owner of the iPhone trademark had a product with the iPhone name before iFone. It doesn't matter that Apple bought the trademark or that Apple's iPhone is vastly different from Cisco's iPhone.

    As for my "agenda" the OP has a known bias against Apple. I'm proving his comments wrong. Now, others like yourself are saying Apple is wrong and that's ok. Hell, I'm wrong on many occasions. But I provided valid business reasons why Apple must defend their trademark. Instead of refuting my arguments and providing reasons why I'm wrong, you resort to personal insults. Classy my friend. Classy.
     
  4. Rayb

    Rayb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    1

    Not yet, the little iFone guys just filed a counter-suit in response... with the rights of first use.

    All this stems from the two trademark classes (9, 28) that apple filed and already own but wanted the third from iFone (38) invalidated.

    Talk about biting more than you can chew. :whiste:
     
  5. TuxDave

    TuxDave Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    Filing a counter-suit is a far cry from the first "They are suing Apple and they are winning." listed way back on top as well as from the article:

    I don't think I saw any mention that they won the counter-suit yet.
     
  6. brian0831

    brian0831 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if apple tried to obtain the class 38 trademark with ifone communications (or A licensing agreement for the right to use the trademark like the deal they had for ios with cisco) before suing them for it. I'm guessing not since nowhere have mentioned about apple trying to settle with them in order to obtain or use the trademark before bringing the lawsuit against them, but I could be wrong

    There's no denying that public perception regarding many apple lawsuits with patents and trademarks have not been positive, which is why many people including some of the media love to jump on apple when they lose a case like this, especially if apple's actions can easily be perceived as being dbagish and bullyish in the public's eyes


    Either way it looks like apple will now have to spend much more than they initially hoped for the trademark, and probably could've been avoided if apple just negotiated with them nicely in the first place.
     
  7. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,785
    Likes Received:
    33
    Sorry, but this argument is ridiculous. What really matters is that it's highly doubtful that the Mexican company copied some obscure Cisco product in 2003 before the term iPhone meant anything. "Hey, let's call our company iFone after this virtually unknown iPhone product from Cisco!" Yeah right. 10 to 1 no one at iFone ever even saw or heard of a Cisco 'iPhone' like 99% of everyone else in the world.

    That should be the main consideration in a case like this. Suing a company over a name (that isn't even exact) for a product you introduced in 2007 vs. their company name from 2003 that in no way was trying to unfairly capitalize on another product, is just a stupid, silly lawsuit, and thank goodness Apple lost. I hope they're made to pay all sorts of damages for wasting people's time and once again trying to push their weight around.

    It's this kind of uncalled for action by Apple that's making people despise this company.

    You can dismiss it as Apple-hatred if you want to, but it's hatred they are currently bringing on themselves, not for their products, but for their bullying business tactics and dick-move legal crap. Litigation in place of innovation isn't going to cut it.
     
  8. Rayb

    Rayb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, the counter-suit hasn't been decided.

    iFone won the injunction that Apple filed against them for trademark infringement. Therefore affirming iFone rights of first use in Mexico. (They get to keep using the name iFone and tradermark class 38 rights). Instead of Apple negotiating in good faith, Apple wanted an invalidation of the trademark for non-use outright.

    Now that Apple lost the lawsuit and is infringing, iFone is counter-suing for damages (still pending).
     
  9. golem

    golem Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2000
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    1
    How do you know if the negotiated in good faith or not? Maybe they did and couldn't come to an agreement and then decided to invalidate it?

    Was ifone in active use? I browsed their website and it says at the bottom that it's copyrighted from 2003 to 2006. Not sure of the difference between copyrighted and trademarked.

    Is what your saying backed on an understanding of the case and it's history or just your personal opinion?

    Edit: Actually, I looked around and it looks like copyright dates normally don't lead up to the current year. So, no idea if iFone was in use or not when Apple filed to invalidate it. Anyone know for sure?
     
    #34 golem, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  10. golem

    golem Senior member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2000
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    1
    Didn't Microsoft recently have to change the name of interface from Metro to something else because of possible litigation? It's entirely possible this is just a dick move, on the other hand it could be a pre emptive move to make sure they aren't sued later on like they were in China.
     
  11. waggy

    waggy No Lifer

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    68,161
    Likes Received:
    5
  12. Anubis

    Anubis No Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    77,592
    Likes Received:
    32
    yea its pretty moronic, they also sued a coffee shop in germany or spain about a similar issue, they lost
     
  13. akugami

    akugami Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    It doesn't matter if you heard of the Cisco product before. A valid trademark is a valid trademark as long as you are using it and when you discover someone is infringing that you enforce it.

    So it doesn't even matter if the Mexican company never heard of Cisco's iPhone (which Cisco obtained by purchasing another company). It doesn't matter if the Mexican company was not copying Cisco. What matters is, is the iPhone a legitimate trademark and who had it first. Is it a unique name or something generic like Apple?

    I already covered this exact issue in a previous post in this thread.

    I'm not saying you can't hate Apple. That's your prerogative. If you want to expend the energy into hatred of a global corporation that doesn't affect me. What is stupid is a lot of people can't separate their disdain for Apple and criticizes Apple for everything Apple does. It doesn't matter whether what Apple is doing is legally sound or not. It doesn't matter if this is something every company including Google would do or not. If Apple did it, then Apple made a douche move.

    You're also bringing in separate issues here since this case has nothing to do about litigation over innovation. This is about protecting one's brand.

    From a business perspective this iFone vs iPhone case is exactly something Apple should legally be engaged in to protect their trademark. The officers in a publicly traded company has a legal obligation to ensure the company stays healthy or to protect profits. Within the bounds of the law of course.

    I provide reasons why Apple should or might be doing this. You provide a lot of opinions on why you hate Apple and call my arguments stupid. You also say that it's a "dick move" by Apple to sue over the iFone trade name yet you conveniently neglect the little fact that if you don't enforce your trademark, you risk losing it.

    From a legal standpoint, Apple is obligated to try to invalidate/obtain the iFone trademark. It would strengthen their existing iPhone trademark. It would also protect their trademark from becoming genericized. This is the biggest reason Apple should be suing and this point is something no one who is criticizing Apple in this thread has even attempted to argue against. Instead, it's comments about how much of a douchebag Apple is and how stupid my comments are.

    Now the "a.pl" case on the other hand...that's retarded on Apple's part. No defending Apple on that one.
     
  14. AyashiKaibutsu

    AyashiKaibutsu Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    Messages:
    9,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    Needing to defend their trademarks doesn't give apple the right to throw all sense and sensibility out the window. Trying to paint it otherwise just makes you look like a desperate apologist.
     
  15. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,785
    Likes Received:
    33
    You're just wrong on every level.

    First off: no one infringed on Cisco's product. The product name is iFONE, not iPhone.

    Cisco didn't even have a product called iPhone. Look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone

    "The Linksys iPhone was a line of internet appliances from Cisco Systems. The first iPhone model, released by Infogear in 1998, combined the features of a regular phone and a web terminal. The company was later purchased by Cisco and no new products were marketed under the name between 2001 and 2006. At the end of 2006, Cisco rebranded its Linksys VoIP-based phones under the name, shortly before Apple released an iPhone of its own. This led to a trademark dispute between the two companies, which was resolved on February 20, 2007."

    So when iFone registered its name in 2003, there was no product on the market called iPhone (and certainly not iFone) so they weren't infringing on anyone, they weren't copying anyone, they weren't trying to ride the coattails of any successful product called an "iPhone".

    Your 'argument' (and yes, it's completely ridiculous) is that Cisco by merely owning the name iPhone, with no well-known product with that name for anyone to be capitalizing on by "copying" it as iFone, was infringed upon, therefore Apple is somehow RETROACTIVELY being infringed upon by a company that had 'iFone' 4 years before they made an 'iPhone'.

    You just flat out believe that because Apple is bigger and has more money, they can lay claim to iAnything, even against different product names registered years before theirs, and on top of the even bigger irony that the only ones to ever infringe on the name 'iPhone'... was Apple!

    It's so absurd it defies belief that Apple could be so stupid to think their case would fly.
    Once again, Cisco acquired a NAME: iPhone. They had no product with that name, and certainly not a well known one anyone was trying to capitalize on. Another company registered the name iFONE, and clearly DIDN'T in any fashion copy Cisco. They sure as hell didn't copy a product that didn't exist yet.


    What you don't seem able to grasp, is that Apple is bringing the hatred on themselves.

    It's your preogative to make up lame excuses for a company, defying all logic and common sense, simply because you're dazzled by the fact that they throw a lot of money around like a bully and make shiny plastic gizmos you like. Doesn't change the fact that they use courtrooms like an out of control bully against companies that have done NOTHING against them. This was a classic case, you're just too far in the tank for them to admit it, and admit the complete logic fail. You simply believe Apple should always win because they throw more money around and should be able to get away with anything they want to "protect thier brand" as if no one else has any rights to protect theirs.

    In this case, clearly iFone has the right to protect THEIR brand against Apple's bullying. I hope this leads to Apple not being able to sell the iPhone in Mexico and losing boatloads of money there. Would serve them right for thinking they can strongarm some other business out in the name of "protecting their brand" when an iFone dating from 2003 is NOT their brand, all yours and their wishful thinking aside.
     
    #40 Zaap, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  16. TuxDave

    TuxDave Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Messages:
    10,577
    Likes Received:
    1
    Infringing on what. Class 9 (which Apple owns) covers mobile phones. Damaged you can always sue for but Apple still holds its relevant trademark.
     
  17. Zaap

    Zaap Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    5,785
    Likes Received:
    33
    The proper analogy here would be if Microsoft were suing a company called "Meetro" that registered its name four years before 'Metro', because they bought the name 'Metro' from a company that sued them and won, had no product called Metro, and WASN'T being infringed upon by a company called Meetro.
     
  18. brian0831

    brian0831 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that from a legal standpoint, Apple is obligated to obtain the iFone trademark to strengthen their intellectual property holding and to protect themselves. This can be achieved by negotiating with iFone Communications to obtain the rights to the iFone trademark. They are not obligated to invalidate someone's existing trademark. Invalidating an existing company's trademark through lawsuit without negotiation is just another mean of achieving the goal of obtaining the necessary iphone trademark, and one that can easily be perceived as being bully-ish and d-bag-ish by the public, especially ones who already dislikes Apple based on their other legal practices
     
  19. Kenmitch

    Kenmitch Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 1999
    Messages:
    6,575
    Likes Received:
    9
    You can't always get what you want I'd think. Not sure why Apple has the pinky and the brain mentality and why people feel obligated to defend them.

    Example: www.nissan.com
     
  20. Rayb

    Rayb Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    1
    Each trademark class covers a wide range of categories that describe what a trademark is for. The Class 38 as described by Apple, is broader in the description than the other classes. (It basically covers all wired and wireless telecommunication services). You do the math...

    Class 9 ---> Apple
    Class 28 ---> Apple
    Class 38
    ---> iFone

    The other trademark classes aren't in question. iFone only wants to keep what is theirs (38) and Apple happens to infringe on it in Mexico.
     
Loading...