or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple may be hiding behind 'Brightflash' dummy corporation to trademark 'iWatch' name
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple may be hiding behind 'Brightflash' dummy corporation to trademark 'iWatch' name

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Signs that Apple is preparing to roll out a wearable device called the "iWatch" grew stronger Tuesday following a report that the company may have set up a shell corporation in Delaware designed to register iWatch trademarks without arousing suspicion.

Brightflash filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Brightflash filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office


The shell company, dubbed "Brightflash USA LLC," is registered to a Delaware corporate services company that Apple has used in the past to conduct similar surreptitious trademark registration operations. Brightflash was first discovered and connected to the iWatch moves by French site Consomac.

Brightflash has filed for or requested trademark registration for "iWatch" in at least five major jurisdictions: the U.S., the U.K., the E.U., Australia, and Denmark.

Additionally, the company has filed in a number of smaller countries including Antigua and Barbuda, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bahrain, Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba, Bhutan, Botswana, China, Cuba, Curacao, Georgia, Ghana, Iceland, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Liberia, Lesotho, Morocco, Monaco, Moldova, Montenegro, Madagascar, Ex Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Oman, Serbia, Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saint-Martin, Syrian Arab Republic, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan , Tunisia, Uzbekistan, and Zambia.
Brightflash has filed 'iWatch' trademark registrations in more than 50 jurisdictions around the world.
Each of those registrations is filed under international classification 14, covering jewelry, clocks, and watches. Apple recently updated their corporate trademark protection to include coverage under that class, lending even more credence to iWatch rumors.

Though many of the links between Apple and Brightflash could be considered circumstantial, there is at least one somewhat firm connection. Both companies used the same Ecuadorian intellectual property attorney -- Alejandro Ponce Martinez of Quevedo & Ponce -- to file Class 14 registrations in the country, as noted by MacRumors.

One factor working against the link is that Apple has already applied for several "iWatch" trademarks under its own name, notably in Japan, Russia, Mexico, and Taiwan.

Despite the questions, Apple has used this obfuscation strategy successfully in the past, most recently the 2009 applications for "iSlate" and "iPad" trademarks in advance of the tablet's debut. The concept has been around for decades, famously used by Walt Disney to buy up large tracts of land in Florida for what would eventually become Walt Disney World at prices that would have been unavailable if the true buyer had been known.
post #2 of 36
"number of smaller countries including .... China .... India"

surprises me slightly either of those are considered "small" Anywhere on the Internet , let alone a site looking at Apple and the future
post #3 of 36
Apple might simply be trademarking the name to ensure others do not use it without intent to use it themselves.
post #4 of 36

It might not even be Apple that's registering the trademark. Just because Brightflash was used by Apple before doesn't mean this time it's for Apple. Who knows, maybe Samsung or a stock analyst is using Brightflash to mess things up for Apple.

post #5 of 36
"Additionally, the company has filed in a number of smaller countries including ...... China......"

So now China is considered a smaller country as compared to the U.S., the U.K., the E.U., Australia, and Denmark?
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

Apple might simply be trademarking the name to ensure others do not use it without intent to use it themselves.

Unlike copyrights, trademarks are lost if you don't use them.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 36
Not to mention this Brightflash company is on Orange St. lol
post #8 of 36

Well if they both use the same Ecuadorian attorney then it must be true!  Case closed.

post #9 of 36

Canadians out of luck?

post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Brightflash has filed for or requested trademark registration for "iWatch" in at least five major jurisdictions: the U.S., the U.K., the E.U., Australia, and Denmark.

Additionally, the company has filed in a number of smaller countries including Antigua and Barbuda, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bahrain, Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba, Bhutan, Botswana, China, Cuba, Curacao, Georgia, Ghana, Iceland, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Liberia, Lesotho, Morocco, Monaco, Moldova, Montenegro, Madagascar, Ex Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Oman, Serbia, Rwanda, Sudan, Sierra Leone, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saint-Martin, Syrian Arab Republic, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan , Tunisia, Uzbekistan, and Zambia.
Brightflash has filed 'iWatch' trademark registrations in more than 50 jurisdictions around the world.

One factor working against the link is that Apple has already applied for several "iWatch" trademarks under its own name, notably in Japan, Russia, Mexico, and Taiwan.

 

I'm not seeing how Apple filing for the trademarks in those jurisdictions itself rules out it being behind Brightflash. I doubt Apple would be running around trying to scoop up the jurisdictions that Brightflash missed if it wasn't Apple.

post #11 of 36
Yeah. I think Brightflash is Apple. Although, what seems strange to me is that Apple went ahead and registered the iWatch trademark under four countries, I don't get that. If they are hiding under Brightflash's shell then why not just file for those countries under Brightflash's name as well? I think it's a trick to throw us off, honestly. That way it looks like Apple tried but Brightflash snatched up the trademarks before.
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

I'm not seeing how Apple filing for the trademarks in those jurisdictions itself rules out it being behind Brightflash. I doubt Apple would be running around trying to scoop up the jurisdictions that Brightflash missed if it wasn't Apple.
yeah, I definitely think it's Apple too.
post #13 of 36
from bizjournals, June 5, 2013: Delaware-based Brightflash USA files a U.S. trademark on a device called the iWatch, which covers a range of computer-connected watches and bracelets. The company doesn%u2019t have a website, and it appears it doesn%u2019t make its own products.
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by W.T.Effyall View Post

from bizjournals, June 5, 2013: Delaware-based Brightflash USA files a U.S. trademark on a device called the iWatch, which covers a range of computer-connected watches and bracelets. The company doesn%u2019t have a website, and it appears it doesn%u2019t make its own products.
Dead giveaway. Jigs up Apple
post #15 of 36

What pointless skullduggery.  Using shell corporations for this silliness is ridiculous behaviour.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

Not to mention this Brightflash company is on Orange St. lol

Well, One Infinite Loop was too darned suspicious.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

What pointless skullduggery.  Using shell corporations for this silliness is ridiculous behaviour.

And yet this is perfectly normal behavior for large companies. Try again.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

And yet this is perfectly normal behavior for large companies. Try again.

Disney has done this with large land purchases so they wouldn't have the seller artificially jacking up the prices. It would be great if we didn't need any clandestine actions to protect our interests but we do. I certainly don't use my real name on internet forums and suggest others probably shouldn't either.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

And yet this is perfectly normal behavior for large companies. Try again.
There is no rule that says perfectly normal cannot also be ridiculous.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #20 of 36
undefined

Edit: Damn it, 'undefined'... What I HAD posted was that it appears that the building is registered to CT Corporation, whose wiki suggests that they specialise in trademark research. The MacRumors article states something similar, and goes further to say that thousands of companies are registered there. Going to (re)state the obvious and say Brightflash LLC is a shell company...
Edited by ytsethunder - 4/22/14 at 10:26am
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Disney has done this with large land purchases so they wouldn't have the seller artificially jacking up the prices. It would be great if we didn't need any clandestine actions to protect our interests but we do. I certainly don't use my real name on internet forums and suggest others probably shouldn't either.

 

You mean you're not actually Malcolm's brother, Solipsism?  

I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
I have enough money to last the rest of my life. Unless I buy something. - Jackie Mason
Never own anything that poops. - RadarTheKat
Reply
post #22 of 36
Apple may have a few fights on their hands with a iwatch name.

http://www.iwatch365.net/

That is another Chinese company who have been using a similar name in the wristwatch market for a while they do market research in China for watches. They could argue that apple iwatch could create confusion in the market place. They also been using the name since 2006 long before the whole Apple iwatch thing came about.
post #23 of 36

Since AI is so negligent with their reporting on the latest Samsung-Apple trial (going on at this very minute!) I thought I'd post this here for everyone to read:

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-asks-for-less-money-for-apples-accused-infringement-as-it-drops-ipad-claims/

 

And here's where you can see real-time updates in the trial:

 

https://twitter.com/hashtag/appsung?f=realtime

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Apple may have a few fights on their hands with a iwatch name.

http://www.iwatch365.net/

That is another Chinese company who have been using a similar name in the wristwatch market for a while they do market research in China for watches. They could argue that apple iwatch could create confusion in the market place. They also been using the name since 2006 long before the whole Apple iwatch thing came about.

Would that conflict when it appears that only their domain name appears to use iWatch but it doesn't appear to be the name of the company? Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Would that conflict when it appears that only their domain name appears to use iWatch but it doesn't appear to be the name of the company? Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?

 

Yeah, not at all the same as an actual product name.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well, One Infinite Loop was too darned suspicious.

I meant to say it's like that saying about apples and oranges.
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Also note the website has a copyright of 2009-2010. Not updated in 4 years?

 

A copyright claim of 2009-2010.  Anyone can put whatever date they want on their website.  Why, you can even claim your product to be the #1 vodka of  2033  2034 if you want. (sorry, 2033 is taken)  ;)

post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

You mean you're not actually Malcolm's brother, Solipsism?  

I don't get the reference.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by angusw View Post

"Additionally, the company has filed in a number of smaller countries including ...... China......"

So now China is considered a smaller country as compared to the U.S., the U.K., the E.U., Australia, and Denmark?

I thought the same thing. Many others aren't small, at least compared to the average european country. Bad choice of words.

post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I don't get the reference.

 

Malcolm X

 

... or were you just being coy, Roy.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Malcolm X

Ah! That went waaaaaay over my head.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 36

i read this a 40 minutes earlier on macrumours

post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant View Post

i read this a 40 minutes earlier on macrumours

It's comments like that that are forcing journalists to release shoddier work in order to beat some invisible clock.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It's comments like that that are forcing journalists to release shoddier work in order to beat some invisible clock.

no, it is comments like this that should tell appleinsider that they should give thanks where it is due instead of writing it like it is new.

post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by revenant View Post

no, it is comments like this that should tell appleinsider that they should give thanks where it is due instead of writing it like it is new.

If they did indeed use MR as a source I agree.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #36 of 36
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
It's comments like that that are forcing journalists to release shoddier work in order to beat some invisible clock.

 

Where’s the plus infinity button…

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple may be hiding behind 'Brightflash' dummy corporation to trademark 'iWatch' name