Recently the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected Apple's application to trademark "iPad Mini", which seemed rather obvious since it essentially is just a smaller iPad. However, the USPTO withdrew its statement and decided to reconsider Apple's application. Apparently "upon further review of the application", they decided the word "Mini" does not simply define a physical characteristic of the goods. However, they also mentioned that Apple must waive any exclusive rights of the term "Mini", and as long as Apple does not provide the necessary disclaimer within six months, the USPTO will refuse to register the trademark.
Despite what we find to be "obvious" in our dictionary, laws dictating the government, especially in patent litigation, must take extreme measures to define what is "obvious". As Professor Lavian mentioned, in law schools there are entire classes dedicated to the word "obvious". While I first found the USPTO's rejection to be common sense and thought Apple was just pushing it, this withdrawal reminded me how detail oriented the legal system is, and the process of defining the word "Mini" and its implications can affect the mobile market.
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=2E2FEECA-A397-5EC1-C5331687F6B72DB4
Wow, how interesting. I guess sometimes creating the whole new product, even if it is the smaller size is "obvious". However, I believe, that designing smaller Ipad required analysis of a lot technical specifications - I am sure that the difference is not only the size in the case with a mini Ipad.
ReplyDeleteThe word "mini" definitely to the regular consumer market seems like a clever word to define the product, however think about all the internal technical aspect that had to become "mini".
ReplyDeleteIm not surprised that Apple tried to claim exclusive rights on the term "mini". However I am surprised that the USPTO retracted their statement and reviewed it further. It seems as if they has already made up their mind and were just doing it to be politically correct.
ReplyDeletewow. can't believe there was such a debate over the word mini or that Apple even tried to register that. It can be used for so many products in the market it wouldn't be fair. why not iMini?
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that the USPTO are considering that the word "Mini" does not simply define a physical characteristic of the goods. In what other respects does it define? Its simplicity?
ReplyDelete