• USPTO Pulls Objection to Apple's 'iPad mini' Trademark Claim

    by
    Michael Essany
    Published on 2013-04-09 12:43 AM
    11 Comments Comments


    In what marks a potentially interesting reversal of fortune for Apple in its quest to trademark "iPad mini," the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has withdrawn its primary objections to Apple's application to secure the trademark in question.

    "Upon further review of the application, the examining attorney has determined that the following refusals issued in the initial Office action should be withdrawn," examining attorney Lee-Anne Berns noted. "The examining attorney apologizes for any inconvenience caused."

    In the big picture, however, this doesn't mean that Apple is now guaranteed the trademark that it seeks.

    There may still be reasons to deny trademark protection to "iPad mini". For one, although Berns has found "no similar registered mark that would bar registration" (her emphasis), there may be similar marks in "prior-filed pending applications" that would bar Apple from gaining a trademark.
    Apple will also be required to amend its trademark application to include a disclaimer that it doesn't seek to trademark the lone term "mini."

    "An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms or designs that others may need to use to describe or show their goods or services in the marketplace," Berns writes.

    Source: The Register
    This article was originally published in forum thread: USPTO Pulls Objection to Apple's 'iPad mini' Trademark Claim started by Michael Essany View original post
    1. Categories:
    2. Apple,
    3. iPad
    Comments 11 Comments
    1. PokemonDesigner's Avatar
      PokemonDesigner - 2013-04-09, 01:28 AM
      So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
    1. jOnGarrett's Avatar
      jOnGarrett - 2013-04-09, 01:55 AM
      Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
      So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
      +1

      one more reason so sue Samsung over the Galaxy mini.
    1. unison999's Avatar
      unison999 - 2013-04-09, 01:56 AM
      That is messed up...
      Someone should start a petition for a federal investigation to all the bank accounts owned by people who works at patent/trademark office that gave Apple their patents/trademarks, and a review of all previous granted patents/trademarks to Apple.
    1. slim.jim's Avatar
      slim.jim - 2013-04-09, 01:58 AM
      Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
      So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
      Did you even read any of it? They are not looking to trademark the lone term 'mini'. Go crawl back into your apple hate dungeon and come back when you can read.
    1. luvmytj's Avatar
      luvmytj - 2013-04-09, 02:35 AM
      As I figured they, they made a mistake. Glad they rectified it.
      Go home haters... your drunk!
    1. BhadKarma's Avatar
      BhadKarma - 2013-04-09, 03:44 AM
      Quote Originally Posted by PokemonDesigner View Post
      So what they are saying is that Fapple payed them off so now it's illegal to use the "m word" as in a descriptive manor towards anything caller than the average size.
      "An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms or designs that others may need to use to describe or show their goods or services in the marketplace," Berns writes.

      the "m word" by itself isn't the trademark. Only combine with "iPad"
    1. edoutmax's Avatar
      edoutmax - 2013-04-09, 02:03 PM
      So within a week of the initial rejection, USPTO did an internal review and saw that they made a mistake, LMFAO
    1. sheon's Avatar
      sheon - 2013-04-09, 09:01 PM
      so Apple really does pay off everyone off to get whatever they want
    1. BhadKarma's Avatar
      BhadKarma - 2013-04-09, 09:21 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by sheon View Post
      so Apple really does pay off everyone off to get whatever they want
      Wouldn't you? If you had the money?
      And they didn't pay anyone ... The trademark was rejected cause they analyzed it wrong. They rejected "mini" being a trademark.
    1. Shigoroku's Avatar
      Shigoroku - 2013-04-10, 03:52 AM
      If Apple was allowed to trademark "iPod mini" so long ago, isn't that a precedent? What possible reason could there be to deny this one? It would be a bureaucratic failure if some other company legally makes a product called "iPad mini."
    1. CZroe's Avatar
      CZroe - 2013-05-12, 05:30 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Shigoroku View Post
      If Apple was allowed to trademark "iPod mini" so long ago, isn't that a precedent? What possible reason could there be to deny this one? It would be a bureaucratic failure if some other company legally makes a product called "iPad mini."
      They can't because Apple successfully trademarked "iPad." If someone made a "iPed mini" then, well, they'd probably still get in trouble.

  • Connect With Us

  • Discord

    Join our Discord

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook