
Fujitsu: 'iPad? That's ours'  - jacquesm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/fujitsu_ipad/
======
blahedo
Best line: "No word on whether Canada's Coconut Grove Pads [selling iPad bras]
will enter the trademark battle, but since its products are substantially
different from Fujitsu's, Magtek's, or Apple's, we believe that any such
effort would be a bust."

~~~
robg
That brings up the best point: Can Fujitsu really claim that their device can
be confused with the Apple iPad? The one place that Apple isn't trying to TM
iPad is the Fujitsu use case. Remember, Apple and the Beatles only had a
serious fight once Apple moved into music sales.

~~~
cdibona
I'd think so, this is very much in the same domain as Apple's new product. It
was the change of domain that exposed apple (computer) to the apple (music)
trademark.

But this is actually as if Apple named the Iphone out of the gate as an "Apple
Razr". Sure, one might not have buttons, but there is a clear in domain
example of infringement.

They'll end up paying Fujitsu a pile, I think.

~~~
robg
Please, go read the Trademark applications. Apple's is very broad while _not_
including a use as retail sales platform while Fujitsu's is very, very
specific to include _only_ a use as a retail sales platform. There isn't an
overlap in actual use no matter how much the devices may look/act alike.

In the Beatles case, Apple wanted to change the name to have a much broader TM
to include music use cases. At that point the trademarks came into obvious
conflict. It's not about domains, it's about uses. You pay for each category
of use. When you look at how those categories are broken down it becomes
obvious why it's set up that way.

------
ryanwaggoner
I actually really hope that Apple loses this battle, partly because the name
is horrible, but mostly because they're wrong. I see absolutely no reason that
they should be able to wrest away control of a name being actively used for
another mobile technology product, especially when the other company has
already filed for trademark protection.

~~~
arketyp
In fairness, AFAIK, Apple invented the i __* phenomenon. Other companies
taking advantage of that catchy naming format feels so cheap to me that I
could hardly care less about their actual rights on paper.

~~~
brc
Not really. They popularised for devices it with the iPod and iMac, but
sticking i and e in front of a name was wildly popular in the 1990's. (eBay
anyone?) I would think Apple just followed that trend rather than coming up
with it themselves. The iPhone mark was registered by infogear in 1996. Cisco
acquired Infogear, which is how they ended up with it. The iMac didn't come
out until 1998, the iPod in 2001.

~~~
moeffju
This is only tangentially related to the original post, but the name eBay is
not a case of e-prefixing, it's a shortening of "echo bay", because
echobay.com was already taken.

------
m0th87
Apple did the same thing with the iPhone, which Cisco owned:
[http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/update_on_ciscos_iphone...](http://blogs.cisco.com/news/comments/update_on_ciscos_iphone_trademark/)

They were obviously aware that iPad was trademarked, so if they went ahead
with the name, they must feel confident enough that they'll a reach settlement
of some sorts with Fujitsu et al.

~~~
robg
If you start looking at the various TMs, they also seem to have done the same
with iPod.

The more I think about, the more I'm not sure Apple is behind the iSlate TM
application. The route (random Delaware LLC) seems the same and it's a pretty
broad TM. Either the iSlate name isn't Apple and they couldn't get it, or the
iPad is seen internally as a transitional device to a more fully functioning
iSlate once the bigger screen prices come down.

