iPad mini trademark rejected by US Patent Office
Apple has the right to address whatever specific concerns might have been cited by the USPTO, but the primary issue seems pretty difficult to maneuver around, as the iPad mini “merely describes a feature of characteristic of the applicant’s good.”
The USPTO also took issue with the iPad mini web-page by stating that it “fails to include a picture or a sufficient textual description of the goods in sufficiently close proximity to the necessary ordering information…” Basically, the USPTO review compared the submission with advertising which is not allowed to be used in a trademark application.
However, since Apple owns the trademark “iPad,” it does seem odd that there would be an issue with the application for “iPad mini” as a whole. Apple owns a trademark for the iPod nano and other variations of iDevices, named around characteristics that “merely describe” the feature of the device.
We suspect that Apple has responded to this denial with zeal. Love it or hate it, do you think the USPTO is being a little overbearing or do these details matter in the market place?
1. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Same reason for which Samsung's trademark for Hyper Bright display was rejected
21. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Yup-per. Exactly. But Apple thinks the trademark practice doesn't apply to them, so they put the application in and are in all likelihood, appealing the denial.
36. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 5973; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I hope they appeal. They should have accepted the patent the first time.
40. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2603; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
You know I don't really have a problem with you liking Apple, to each their own. But seriously you come off sounding like a frigging zombie. I was surprised by your comment the other day about how no matter what you post you get thumbed down, it's maybe the first time I read something that didn't read like it was put out by Apple's marketing team and showed there was an actual person posting.
To the main point, you seem to act like no one should question anything Apple does, that they all should just accept it. I use android but when Google or one of their OEMs screw up I call them on it. You seem to be under the delusion that Apple is perfect and can do no wrong, which is dangerous thinking, let alone just plain sad.
46. protozeloz (Posts: 5387; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
He is a troll, his life rolls all about playing the roll of the "die hard apple lover" I don't know if its just his way of showing how retarded a human being can be, or if he actually thinks that way.... Witch I doubt... He makes too many mistakes when writing witch is obviously someone pretending to be just to piss people off
53. lyndon420 (Posts: 2704; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
He gets off on it. His profile is a copy of a trickster from DC Comics.
2. 110410 (Posts: 23; Member since: 26 Feb 2013)
let them trademark that goddamn thing! but fix the stupid patents that shouldn't have been awarded them
3. roscuthiii (Posts: 1887; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
It's not that hard to figure out... it's all the same, and only the scale has changed.
Bout time the USPTO figured out Apple's patents and trademarks are just marketing fluff.
4. PapaSmurf (Posts: 9723; Member since: 14 May 2012)
I rather give Apple a few trademarks than give then some BS patents (Rectangle with curved edges, Siri, Universal Search, etc.)
6. yyuu1000 (Posts: 153; Member since: 26 Jul 2012)
where did you get that picture i have been trying to find it for a long time
7. PapaSmurf (Posts: 9723; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Did a Google search, and my username to this website popped up haha. Here ya go.
11. PapaSmurf (Posts: 9723; Member since: 14 May 2012)
Btw, kind of jealous you have the entire Nexus family. :o
14. yyuu1000 (Posts: 153; Member since: 26 Jul 2012)
yes i have it all after i got a nexus 4 i loved it so i got them all. once you get a nexus there is no going back
19. JonBjSig (Posts: 176; Member since: 17 Nov 2011)
Completely agree, I now have a Nexus 4 and 7 and used to have the Nexus S, other devices may have better hardware but no device has better software.
5. Dingy_cellar_dweller (Posts: 209; Member since: 16 Mar 2013)
The iPad mini tablet, Apple wanted to stop every one else using the term 'tablet' and even the description 'mini'.
Can you imagine what would other companies call their tablet's if Apple was awarded this trademark.
eg. Laptop with no keyboard.
No one can or should be able to trademark generic term's, such as vacuum cleaner, computer and tablet.
8. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 7005; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Thank u for not patent on this dumb name
9. techguy22 (Posts: 227; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
great move. i dont see why they wanna patent everything.
13. darkkjedii (Posts: 14734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
They reject this, yet give them all these other crazy patents they shouldn't get, like rectangle shape. Wowww
15. lyndon420 (Posts: 2704; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Maybe this is a sign that the patent office is gonna change how they award patents. No more vaguely worded ideas that look like a 4 year old scratched on a napkin.
16. darkkjedii (Posts: 14734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Exactly... They're the ones who can stop this patent crap with some new guidelines.
23. lyndon420 (Posts: 2704; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
In my opinion, produce a prototype first and then submit the patent with the exact specifics (along with even pics/video) of the device/service offered. This way it shows they are ready to make these things instead of just sitting on these patents with the intention of sueing anything that looks vaguely similar. "Patent Pending"
27. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2603; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
With the way things are going now, first to file, prior art not being relevant, look for tons of pie in the sky patents being applied for, that way they can lock things up before the tech is even at that level.
Considering how backed up the courts are, you'd think they'd want to try and dissipate/ eliminate the backup. These courts aren't only for the mobile sphere but for all businesses. It's getting really f-ing sad, for awhile the US was tops in innovation, now the business side is choking innovation to death.
33. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
There is one 'minor' speed-bump on the road to first-to-file (at least in the U.S.) - the U.S. Constitution doesn't exactly read as permitting first-to-file. Expect some litigation to result shortly. If the Supremes agree, then we are back to first-to-invent. While bad, at least first-to-invent is familiar territory. Maybe the second time will be a charm.
43. darkkjedii (Posts: 14734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Now that is a good point. You better patent it before apple reads this post Lyndon lol. +1
49. roscuthiii (Posts: 1887; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
I think that may be one of the only saving graces of the changeover to the first-to-file system... IIRC, they were going to institute a more strict approval process.
24. lyndon420 (Posts: 2704; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Maybe apple dipped a little too far into the bribe jar.
34. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Maybe Apple dipped a little too far into the arrogance jar. Too many bribes would have to be passed around for the thing to stick. Arrogance/Hubris is a more credible explanation.
25. MartianMe (unregistered)
must be someone who haven't receive any compensations from apple yet.
28. TROLL (banned) (Posts: 4851; Member since: 13 Apr 2012)
So if this was granted no one else could use the word mini?
Isn't this Frand?
I wonder what's next, or what will they patent?
They Wana TRADEMARK the word Mini,,,,!
31. lyndon420 (Posts: 2704; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Pretty sure they got the trademark for AppStore...even though everything for them is geared towards itunes.
35. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
It isn't even FRAND. The term is overly broad. Overly broad can't be patented or trademarked. Coca-Cola can be trademarked. Cola-flavored soda can't.
29. belovedson (Posts: 832; Member since: 30 Nov 2010)
its about time uspto is a little tough. we need less patents, more innovation, and definitely less lawsuits
48. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Apple is gonna sue "thunderising".
There, how's that sound? lol
32. lyndon420 (Posts: 2704; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
If you only take one bite and put it down, you could be held liable for copyright infringement. Careful when eating it...and trust no one.
39. Abbath (Posts: 99; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
I hate Apple now because of their selfish, pompous attitude but I fail to see any logical reason why they were not given the trademark
44. darkkjedii (Posts: 14734; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
Out of the million they shouldn't get, this is the one they should.
42. Cyberchum (Posts: 456; Member since: 24 Oct 2012)
who is going to want to use the iPad mini name anyway? Even Chinese knock-offs *cough cough* goophone *cough* differentiate their names. Mini is so common. come up with a creative name and the you'll get yourself another traptent.
50. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
Try iPad tiny, of iPad smaller than original iPad ....