

Apple has lost their legal claim to the iPhone name in Mexico - mun2mun
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-has-lost-their-legal-claim-to-the-iPhone-name-in-Mexico_id36199

======
neya
Here's the brief - There's a telecom company by the name "iFone" in Mexico.
And Apple sued them unnecessarily...and lost the case.

"The iFone trademark was filed in Mexico in 2003, a full four years before
Apple filed to trademark the iPhone. Despite the rather obvious priority
issue, Apple decided to sue iFone in 2009 in an attempt to invalidate the
company’s name for being too similar to the iPhone. The predictable response
was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in
iFone’s favor ever since."

I think Apple deserves this and perhaps, even more.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Great quote from the lobby of the San Jose superior court lobby, "Lawsuits are
like handguns, when you pull the trigger someone is going to get hurt but its
not clear who." I don't know if the lawyer was trying to dissuade a client or
just kibitzing with another lawyer but it was a great comment.

~~~
baddox
What am I missing about that quote? If you're wielding a handgun, it's pretty
clear who will get hurt when you pull the trigger, barring rare events like a
misfire or a ricochet.

~~~
ChuckMcM
What I took away from the quote wash that in personal disputes between
individuals, when one individual pulls out a handgun it escalates the dispute
to the level of potentially mortal harm. Prior to that level of escalation
there could be a knock down drag out fight but it would be perhaps less likely
to result in someone dying. Further, when the stakes become 'life or death'
because someone has a gun, the responses take on a level of urgency and
desperation that they would not have at lower threat levels.

So from the perspective of an analogy, corporations don't have 'blood' they
have money, which is an analog for blood. And up to the point where they are
arguing about this and that the total amount of money that is at stake is
constrained by the companies involved deciding not to do business with each
other. But a lawsuit can drain a disproportionate amount of money out of the
'target' (and the instigator). This 'escalates' the problem because what is at
risk is higher. And, like an individual, when you threaten a company with more
serious damage, their willingness to respond with more harm goes up
significantly, if they feel like they are fighting for their life they will do
things that normally would be considered 'too risky.'

So as an analog, the handgun and a lawsuit are escalation to the conflict
which can result in much greater harm.

------
jbigelow76
This article says a lot about Apple's current disposition:

"It’s not actually clear what Apple was thinking this time around – the iFone
trademark was filed in Mexico in 2003, a full four years before Apple filed to
trademark the iPhone. Despite the rather obvious priority issue, Apple decided
to sue iFone in 2009 in an attempt to invalidate the company’s name for being
too similar to the iPhone. The predictable response was a countersuit by
iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFone’s favor ever since."

I'm glad to see them get knocked down a few pegs on stuff like this. Apple
could use a modicum of humility.

------
mratzloff
They most likely sued iFone on the basis of the "i" prefix branding. iMac was
released in 1998, iPod and iTunes in 2001.

They sued in 2009, but it was only in 2010 that an Australian tribunal ruled
that the "i" prefix could not be an Apple trademark. And that only applies in
Australia.

Now, did iFone choose their name based on the positive connotations associated
with Apple? I doubt it. And looking at their website, it's about as far
removed from Apple as possible.

~~~
Steko
"Now, did iFone choose their name based on the positive connotations
associated with Apple? I doubt it."

I see no reason to doubt it. There are exceptions but "i" prefix anything
generally is trying to cash in on the association. Whether Apple deserves to
be the only company that can use "i" prefix is another matter (I would say
no).

This is simply another case where Apple will end up writing a big check. They
did it for iPad in China, iPhone from Cisco, the swiss clock thing a couple
months ago, etc. Again the difference is Apple users aren't crying about how
broken the world is because they have to write a check for walking all over
some other companies IP.

~~~
swombat
Apple's iStuff wasn't so trendy in 2003, so it's unlikely that the Mexican
telco chose iFone because of Apple.

Today, it would be another matter. Today, a new product named iSomething is
most likely trying to piggy back on Apple's coolness factor.

~~~
cycrutchfield
iPod came out in 2001

~~~
rem7
...in the US. Mexico didn't get iPods that year. Mexico didn't even get the
first version of the iPhone when it came out. You had to buy it in the US and
unlock it. I think the first iPhone legally available in Mexico was the 3G.

~~~
Steko
Let's not pretend Mexico technology magazines didn't cover the iPod craze,
even the iMac was on the cover of Time magazine twice.

8000 BC - 1998: no "i" branding.

1999: Apple release the first in a string of hit products under the "i"
branding.

early 2000's to present: many other technology companies and products use "i"
branding.

2004: in a completely unrelated development, a Mexican company names itself
iFone.

~~~
anonymouz
The Linksys iPhone came out in 1998 too
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_iphone>). I doubt they were copying the
iMac naming, which was just released around the same time. Putting 'i' in
front of your product names, when the Internet starts to become a commodity
and you want to connect your product to it, isn't exactly far-fetched.

~~~
Steko
Thanks, that is a silver bullet counterexample I was unaware of. I guess
there's a decent amount of doubt we can merit whether it was connected.

I guess the "i" branding is a natural extension of "e" branding that followed
from email. Anyway like I said I dont think Apple should have exclusive rights
to "i" branding for various reasons, the biggest of which is that it doesn't
seem like they've attempted to defend it against hundreds of other products
using it.

------
akshat
This is a non-news. The Verge has an article mentioning that the loss has no
impact on Apple's ability to use the name.

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3591380/iphone-ifone-
and-a...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3591380/iphone-ifone-and-apples-
mexican-trademark-standoff-whats-really-going)

~~~
jpalomaki
Seems to be much better description about the case than the original article.

Excerpts from the article:

\- Apple already owns two iPhone trademarks in Mexico in Class 9 and Class 28

\- in 2009, Apple's lawyers decided iFone's Mexican Class 38 mark wasn't being
actively used, and they filed a lawsuit to try and get it canceled so they
could register their own pending Class 38 mark on "iPhone."

\- iFone obviously disagreed and convinced the Mexican courts that they were
still using the mark in commerce

    
    
      Class 9 = computers, software, cameras, and mobile phone
      class 28 = electronic game devices
      Class 38 = communication services

------
malandrew
I'm wondering if they could work the phonetic angle since the "ph" orthography
doesn't exist in spanish. Instead they should conduct the entire case calling
it the "eep-hoan-ey". In ads and campaigns they could go out of their way to
never pronounce iPhone (then again, I'm not sure trademarks extend to the
phonetic pronunciation, so maybe the pronunciation used in deciding the case
matters. I think trademarks only cover orthography).

------
nachteilig
I guess this is the other side of the coin as far as their brashly-use-
trademarks-and-sort-it-out-later methods go. Not a bad track record though.

------
tristan_juricek
Something tells me, that even with a loss in court, it was worth having a few
years of iPhone sales as the "iPhone".

It'll probably eventually be called the "Apple Phone"; but people will still
call it iPhone.

~~~
icebraining
But why sue and expose themselves to an injunction?

~~~
MichaelApproved
Maybe being on offense allowed them to set the pace of the trial more and
possibly be in a better position for a settlement in the case. I'd be great to
hear from a lawyer if this speculation is correct.

------
unreal37
Not sure why Apple sued iFone in 2009 "for being too similar to iPhone" when
iFone has been around much longer. That was a dumb move.

~~~
erifneerg
I would a though iPod made more sense but waiting until 2009 is odd.

------
rhplus
This appears to be the iFone trademark holders in Mexico:

<http://www.ifone.com.mx/frameset_productos_oficina.htm>

------
tmister
Exposing tensions between execs through Frostall's departure, slap by UK
court, less enthusiasm surrounding iPad mini lunch and now this. It has been a
bad week for Apple.

------
cvander
Seems like the legal department of Apple is busy lately.

~~~
belorn
For the last 2 years yes.

------
Mordor
They could always call it the iGalaxy :-S

------
cpeterso
Aren't "iPhone" and "iOS" technically trademarks of Cisco, not Apple?

~~~
Karunamon
Apple licensed the IOS name from Cisco.

[http://blogs.cisco.com/news/cisco_and_apple_agreement_on_ios...](http://blogs.cisco.com/news/cisco_and_apple_agreement_on_ios_trademark/)

------
ladzoppelin
How did they think they could win this? Does any lawyer have a theory on what
they were going for?

------
rbn
Is it me or have all apple related article in the past 2 weeks been negative.

------
rome
I wonder why Apple took this route. When they introduced the iPod they made an
agreement with Line 6 who owns the mark Pod for the guitar effects processor.

------
feralchimp
Somehow I'm not worried about their brand getting usurped.

------
CamperBob2
So how's that nuclear war going for you, Steve-O? Had time to rent a copy of
_WarGames_ yet?

------
antidoh
aPhone.

