or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › USPTO denies Apple's trademark application for iPad mini
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USPTO denies Apple's trademark application for iPad mini - Page 2

post #41 of 56
So
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Nothing that dramatic in this case.  

It was simply a lazily done trademark application, that most likely will be fixed up and approved.

In fairness, while looking up the records, I saw that the application for "iPod nano" had gone through fairly easily (except for several minor oppositions from companies with trademarks like Nano Media, Nano this or that, none of whom fought hard enough to stop it), so maybe the Apple lawyers doing the "iPad mini" filing thought that its application would go through just as easily.
So now you are a lawyer and know for a fact that Apple was lazy with their filing.
Do you people ever stop with your BS?
post #42 of 56
It's because "mini" is the describing word. If it was part of the name (such as Mini Cooper) then you could patent it. If we allowed it, then you could patent colours and sizes too. Then it gets stupid.
iPad green
iPad huge
iPad 2.0
iPad 5x
Etc....

Apple doesn't patent their iOS numbers either. It's a descriptor. "iOS" is patentable. The 4, 5, 6, 6.1, etc are not.
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts View Post

So now you are a lawyer and know for a fact that Apple was lazy with their filing.

 

I've studied Apple's trademark submissions for years, and discussed them online with IP lawyers.

 

I think it could easily have been submitted correctly and approved the first time around.  It's not like it's the first trademark submission Apple's ever done.   

 

At the same time, as I said, it's no big deal and it'll likely be approved later on.

 

Quote:
Do you people ever stop with your BS?

 

Do you ever contribute anything besides bile?   And yet you wonder why your posts are often removed.

 

If you think it was a good submission, then you should be able to explain why and give evidence to back up your theory.  That's how adult discussion works in real life.  Childish insults can never replace actual research and knowledge.


Edited by KDarling - 4/1/13 at 12:08pm
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbean View Post

I think Samsung has Nano in the name of a fridge.

Anyway, too early for April Fool's.

 

It was on a washing machine Ag+ nano wash or something like that.

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #45 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post

It's because "mini" is the describing word. If it was part of the name (such as Mini Cooper) then you could patent it. If we allowed it, then you could patent colours and sizes too. Then it gets stupid.
iPad green
 

 

That would be the "iPad minti".

A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #46 of 56
Originally Posted by Timbit View Post
It's because "mini" is the describing word. If it was part of the name (such as Mini Cooper) then you could patent it. If we allowed it, then you could patent colours and sizes too. Then it gets stupid.
iPad green
iPad huge
iPad 2.0
iPad 5x
Etc....

 

Funny how "iPod nano" is trademarked. There goes that. Though if your argument really was about patents…

 

Apple doesn't patent their iOS numbers either. It's a descriptor. "iOS" is patentable. The 4, 5, 6, 6.1, etc are not.
 

Right! Because that's not even the same argument by any stretch of the law or imagination (which quite often are the same entity…).

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #47 of 56

File under.... 1st world problems...with a cross reference to nobody really gives a sht!

post #48 of 56
Originally Posted by petrosy View Post
File under.... 1st world problems...with a cross reference to nobody really gives a sht!

 

You could have just told us you've never made something worth trademarking. 1wink.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #49 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBum View Post

Just like "Windows" is a descriptive term for the type of user interface, a term in use long before Windows 1.0 came out.  If they're going to establish the "descriptive term" standard, MS should have their Windows trademark invalidated.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not true. By the time Microsoft got the Windows trademark, 'windows' was widely used to describe those rectangles on your computer screen with information inside. In fact, the use and terminology of 'windows' predates Microsoft's use of "Windows" to describe their product.

 

Agreed.  I wrote to the IBM OS/2 team during the Windows rollout (and great stabbing in the back of their patrons in Armonk) and suggested IBM change the name of OS/2 to "Doors." 

 

As in you can open and walk through doors, but even if you manage to open a window, you have to awkwardly climb in.... 

 

...oh well, it was a thought....  1tongue.gif

 

...and not that their listening to me would have accomplished a great deal, LoLz....  ...but I did get a nice letter back from the then new IBM CEO's office thanking me, and later some videotapes I think were generally only sent to major clients and developers, one Apple-related (about the "AIM Alliance," i.e., the Apple-IBM-Motorola "Pink" initiative, some residual bits of which, I believe found its way into OS X).

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #50 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's no Apple trademark on Mac Mini either AFAIK, tho I think Apple claims it's trademarked.

*though, come on Sally, you can do better than that. Theres no trade mark for "fornicator of truth" but you have taken the label of this.  

iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #51 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

I think it could easily have been submitted correctly and approved the first time around.  It's not like it's the first trademark submission Apple's ever done.   

 

LOL

 

Apple: A company easily out-thought by a regular poster against them on 'AppleInsider'.

 

In the future, would it be possible to just attach your arrogance in a separate file, rather than include it in your original post?

 

If pseudo legal gobbledygook were toxic, we’d all be dead having gazed upon this post.

If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #52 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

iPod mini, Mac mini, Cooper mini, Arduino mini, TiVo mini etc.... just too common

 

You mean Mini Cooper? Your way around would suggest that there was a larger version of the Cooper.

 

Given that there is no trademark for Mac mini or ipod mini I do wonder why apple decided to throw money at this application. I assume that the others had also been rejected on the same grounds.


Edited by hungover - 4/1/13 at 1:59am
post #53 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Meh. This just opens the door for everyone else to call their tablet "iPad mini".

 

They've a TM on iPad. It'd be like trying to call your car a Porsche 1000.

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #54 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Okay, I have to step in here because so many people are quoting this nonsense.  

 

It's "Mini Cooper" not "Cooper mini" and yes, it is a trademark.  

 

The mini does stand for "small" in the same way as the iPad mini, but perhaps putting it backwards makes the difference?  In any case, the ruling makes no difference to Apple's branding except that Samsung will probably come out with a "mini" something just to be dicks about it (they specialise in that sort of 'mucho-macho' behaviour).  My feeling is that this whole article/situation is weird, but pretty much the exact definition of "much ado about nothing." 

 

Did you just try to argue that the mini in Mini Cooper (Austin Mini Cooper or Morris Mini Cooper) doesn't mean small?

Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #55 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

 

Okay, I have to step in here because so many people are quoting this nonsense.  

 

It's "Mini Cooper" not "Cooper mini" and yes, it is a trademark.  

 

The mini does stand for "small" in the same way as the iPad mini, but perhaps putting it backwards makes the difference?  In any case, the ruling makes no difference to Apple's branding except that Samsung will probably come out with a "mini" something just to be dicks about it (they specialise in that sort of 'mucho-macho' behaviour).  My feeling is that this whole article/situation is weird, but pretty much the exact definition of "much ado about nothing." 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

 

Did you just try to argue that the mini in Mini Cooper (Austin Mini Cooper or Morris Mini Cooper) doesn't mean small?

It sounds to me like he is saying mini does mean small. but MINI is also a brand and Cooper is just one of the models offered by MINI.

When you say Austin Mini Cooper, Morris Mini Cooper. or now the BMW MINI Cooper it's pretty much on par as saying GM Chevy Impala or a Ford Lincoln MKZ.

post #56 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

LOL

Apple: A company easily out-thought by a regular poster against them on 'AppleInsider'.

In the future, would it be possible to just attach your arrogance in a separate file, rather than include it in your original post?

If pseudo legal gobbledygook were toxic, we’d all be dead having gazed upon this post.

KDarling is correct. As a lawyer, though not one expert in IP, I like any person with such training and experience recognize the difference between arrogance and well-reasoned arguments. KDarling's are well-reasoned, not arrogant. Whether the legal precedent and the specifics of this fact situation support his argument is beside the point; his argument would form a good legal theory of the case that further legal research in preparation of a legal brief will either confirm or deny.

Your comments are those of pure arrogance, without the benefit of knowledge or reasoning.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › USPTO denies Apple's trademark application for iPad mini