or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple loses exclusive 'iPhone' trademark rights in Brazil
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple loses exclusive 'iPhone' trademark rights in Brazil

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Apple's popular handset may soon be joined by other "iPhone"-branded products in Brazil, as regulators have ruled that the company does not own the exclusive rights to the trademark in that country.

Brazil's National Industrial Property Institute (INPI) recently rejected Apple's claim to exclusivity on the iPhone trademark, confirming earlier reports that it was preparing to do so. Apple will now share the iPhone brand with Gradiente Electronica, a Brazilian company that registered the iPhone name in that country seven years before Apple.

Apple had been arguing in the case that it should have exclusive rights over "iPhone," since Gradiente ? even though it has held the trademark since 2000 ? did not release a product using the moniker until December of 2012.

Android iPhone
Gradiente's Android-based iphone. | Source: Gradiente


The INPI pointed out that its decision applied only to handheld electronics. Apple retains exclusive rights to the iPhone brand for t-shirts, publications, and software.

Also, Apple can continue to sell its smartphone products in Brazil. Gradiente, though, does have the option of suing for exclusivity over the iPhone brand.

Gradiente's iPhone is an Android-powered device that launched in December of 2012. Earlier this month, representatives from Gradiente told reporters that Apple had not contacted them regarding the trademark dispute. Speaking with Bloomberg, chairman Eugenio Staub declared his company's openness to discussion.

"We're open to a dialogue for anything, anytime," he said. "We're not radicals."
post #2 of 17

As I wrote elsewhere, this is called application of law as it is supposed to happen in any civilized nation out there.

 

In fact, Apple and its partners have a huge interest in Brazil, for obvious reasons...the country is the 6th largest economy in the world and the natural leader of the Southern Hemisphere - in other words, a key market for Apple, as already confirmed by Cook and others.

 

But no, we do not speak Spanish nor are we part of the prejudiced and nonsensical US-invented "latino" community. So for those with some knowledge of Brazilian Portuguese, you may check this "explanatory" video by Gradiente - they say that the idea behind "IPHONE" came from "INTERNET PHONE" back then (whether one believes that or not is irrelevant now): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRf6...layer_embedded

 

Ultimately, the INPI has simply applied the provisions of Law 9279 - Apple has stated that it may appeal on "removal for non use" grounds. However, this is a lost cause, as it is clear that IGB DID release something since the registration was finally granted to that company in 2008 (the five-year period counts from effective registration and NOT deposit of the request). 

 

As I said before, Apple will have to shut up and pay; simple as that.

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
post #3 of 17
Translation: You can have the name but it'll cost you. Just a cost of doing business. Apple can buy the naming rights and show everyone they are spending their cash hoard. Everybody wins.
post #4 of 17
brlawyer, your argument sounded pretty nice, right up until the derogatory remarks about the US. Perhaps you need to learn to temper your emotions a tad. The "US-invented latino community" has benefited "minorities" very nicely in the US for some time. And I'm proud to be a part of that so-called community.
post #5 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

As I said before, Apple will have to shut up and pay; simple as that.

Not at all. Apple has another option.

While they don't get exclusive rights, it sounds like they are able to use the iPhone name on a non-exclusive basis. They may be willing to live with that.


And what's with all the font tags in your post? It makes quoting very difficult.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #6 of 17
Regarding the headline, how could Apple lose something that they never had? Also, Gradiente was selling Nokia-style "iPhones" in 2000 so their first "iPhone" was not released in 2012 as claimed in this article. A Google image search for 'gradiente iphone 2000' shows many results with the original green and white ad from 2000.
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

....you may check this "explanatory" video by Gradiente - they say that the idea behind "IPHONE" came from "INTERNET PHONE" back then (whether one believes that or not is irrelevant now):

 

Side note: It's totally believable, since everyone was using "i"-names back then because of the growing popularity of the Internet.  Even Apple went along with the fad of that time by using "iMac".

 

Read my previous post with examples.

post #8 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Side note: It's totally believable, since everyone was using "i"-names back then because of the growing popularity of the Internet.  Even Apple went along with the fad of that time by using "iMac".

 

Read my previous post with examples.


No offense, but do we really need your examples to understand this? Not exactly a huge leap in logic even if one slept through a few years?

post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

No offense, but do we really need your examples to understand this? Not exactly a huge leap in logic even if one slept through a few years?

 

None taken, but you should've been here (or on any other forum) when I first commented that i-names had been around for a long time before Apple jumped on the bandwagon.

 

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Apple was the first with an i-name.  Heck, just look at BRLawyer's comment.

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

None taken, but you should've been here (or on any other forum) when I first commented that i-names had been around for a long time before Apple jumped on the bandwagon.

 

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Apple was the first with an i-name.  Heck, just look at BRLawyer's comment.

 

 

I do not know what a lot of people believe. But I do know that many people here know well that the iPhone trademark was owned by Cisco  before Apple. Perhaps less known is the fact that iOS was too owned by Cisco. Apple also tried the "we thought you had abandoned it" ruse when confronted by Cisco with the threat of a lawsuit. Cisco didn't buy it and did file suit. That didn't last long as Jobs used his RDF technique to charm the trademark away from Cisco. Bits and pieces of these events are known by the Apple aficionado here. So I doubt they truly believe iNames were invented by Apple.

 

I did read BRLawyer's comment and, IMO, it does not really address who was first with the i-names. Instead, it was mostly about iChip - the one on his shoulder.


Edited by stelligent - 2/13/13 at 7:54pm
post #11 of 17
Most of the press and AI seem very confused here...

Brazil's patent authority only said that the iPhone name in Brazil belongs to Gradiente, so Apple didn't "loses exclusivity rights": they don't have the trademark at all excepting possibly on what wasn't covered by Gradiente's trademark, i.e. everything outside handheld/mobile phone devices. The patent authority doesn't have the power to enforce trademarks, courts do, so the "Apple can continue to sell its smartphone products" is misleading: they shouldn't as the trademark is not their but the patent authority can't be the one telling them that.

"Stopping misuse of the name is beyond the patent office's purview, and would have to be decided in court." (AP)

So that's round one, and if Gradiente chooses now -pending probable appeal- to sue Apple for misuse of its "iphone" trademark in court Apple will have to settle really quickly unless it wants to stop using the iPhone label for its phones in Brazil.
Edited by Sensi - 2/13/13 at 9:18pm
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

As I said before, Apple will have to shut up and pay; simple as that.

What will Apple have to pay for?

post #13 of 17
Golf/Rabbit, Datsun/Nissan; same cars, different names. Call it the Apple Phone in Brazil...
post #14 of 17
In a related story, Apple announces a new name for their mobile phones sold in the Brazil - the Gradiente!
post #15 of 17

ok the iPhone trademark thing is acceptable... but why does Gradiente's Android-based iphone's screen look like an iPhone?... that is where Gradiente's "We were  first... we are innocent" argument fails... does gradiente have a VOIP phone?... then i see the internet phone thing trademark first Explanation...

post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

ok the iPhone trademark thing is acceptable... but why does Gradiente's Android-based iphone's screen look like an iPhone?... that is where Gradiente's "We were  first... we are innocent" argument fails... does gradiente have a VOIP phone?... then i see the internet phone thing trademark first Explanation...

Looks like as in rounded corners?
post #17 of 17
Looks like someone in Brazil is going to get a big payday : )
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple loses exclusive 'iPhone' trademark rights in Brazil