Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

Trademark for the name "iPad mini" denied.

A bit of a weird rejection for Apple:

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/03/...ad-mini-trademark-application-denied-by-uspto

From the actual rejection it looks as if Apple simply screwed up in their application rather than "iPad Mini" not being trademark'able'. Can't see how a properly constituted application could be rejected given they presumably hold a trademark on "iPad".

I suspect that this is an example of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" :)
 
I agree that the 2nd point in the article shows that, as you say, they simply screwed up their application:

And two, USPTO maintains that the webpage specimen submitted by Apple to demonstrate the use of the applied-for trademark is not valid.

It was the first point that seemed weird, especially the highlighted:

One, USPTO’s examining attorney contends that the “iPad mini” name is “merely descriptive.” Apparently, the term “mini” in “iPad mini” just describes the small size of the device. That’s as opposed to differentiating the device from its full-size counterpart, which is, of course, known simply as “iPad.”
 
Bump!

Apple’s $120M jury verdict against Samsung destroyed on appeal:
Apple's second high-profile patent win against Samsung was appealed, just as the first was. And in an opinion (PDF) published today, a panel of appeals judges entirely wiped out Apple's victory and its $120 million verdict.

The new decision found that out of three different patents Apple became famous for winning with, one wasn't infringed and two of them are invalid.

The '647 patent described how to turn phone numbers and other software "structures" into links, allowing users to take actions like calling a number with one "click" rather than copying and pasting. The jury awarded Apple $98.7 million based on that patent, but the appeals judges today held that the patent wasn't infringed at all. They held that "Apple failed to prove, as a matter of law, that the accused Samsung products use an 'analyzer server' as we have previously construed that term."


Appeals judges also invalidated one of Apple's most consistently ridiculed patents, the '721 "slide to unlock" patent. Jurors awarded $3 million based on infringement of that patent, but the appeals panel said the patent is invalid because of prior art.

The appeals court was convinced by two pieces of prior art for "slide to unlock." First, there was the Neonode N1, a Microsoft-powered touchscreen phone that pre-dated Apple's iPhone by a few years. Samsung lawyers trotted out a "Quickstart Guide" for that phone, which instructed its users to "right sweep to unlock" the phone. However, the phone didn't have "a moving image associated with the gesture."
Good news, but it's ridiculous that it took so long as well that Apple got to patent things invented by others years before.
 

Back
Top Bottom