http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp
Are you all really that surprised that Apple is suing them?
Are you all really that surprised that Apple is suing them?
The confusion appears to come from what Gallastegui told El Universal, which details iFone's trademark infringement countersuit and demands against Apple. Garbled through Google Translate, it sounds like the court ordered Apple to pay substantial fines and perhaps even pull the iPhone from market — a big deal since the iPhone 5 just launched with Mexican carrier partners. But those are just the demands, and iFone's case doesn’t appear to have gone anywhere yet. We'll obviously update if we learn otherwise, but I would guess Apple and iFone will eventually settle this one and we'll never hear about it again.
IFONE PREDATES THE IPHONE!
I know all about trademarks. The fact that you can't wrap your brain around the above fact tells us all we need to know about your dumb agenda.
In case anyone wants to get off the "die die Apple" bandwagon and learn what's really going on.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3...mexican-trademark-standoff-whats-really-going
It looks like nothing has happened yet and all the "banning iPhone in Mexico" is just sensational news reporting. Typical...
All this stems from the two trademark classes (9, 28) that apple filed and already own but wanted the third from iFone (38) invalidated.the decision does not, in fact, prohibit Apple from selling iPhone-branded products in Mexico. The decision, instead, reaffirmed iFone's right to continue using its brand name. iFone's countersuit is reportedly still pending, iFone's demands -- a portion of iPhone sales and a potential sales ban -- have not yet been enforced.
Not yet, the little iFone guys just filed a counter-suit in response... with the rights of first use.
All this stems from the two trademark classes (9, 28) that apple filed and already own but wanted the third from iFone (38) invalidated.
Talk about biting more than you can chew. :whiste:
The predictable response was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFones favor ever since.
Sorry, but this argument is ridiculous. What really matters is that it's highly doubtful that the Mexican company copied some obscure Cisco product in 2003 before the term iPhone meant anything. "Hey, let's call our company iFone after this virtually unknown iPhone product from Cisco!" Yeah right. 10 to 1 no one at iFone ever even saw or heard of a Cisco 'iPhone' like 99% of everyone else in the world.No. Technically, it does not.
Cisco, the prior owner of the iPhone trademark had a product with the iPhone name before iFone. It doesn't matter that Apple bought the trademark or that Apple's iPhone is vastly different from Cisco's iPhone.
Filing a counter-suit is a far cry from the first "They are suing Apple and they are winning." listed way back on top as well as from the article:
I don't think I saw any mention that they won the counter-suit yet.
iFone's demands -- a portion of iPhone sales and a potential sales ban -- have not yet been enforced.
No, the counter-suit hasn't been decided.
iFone won the injunction that Apple filed against them for trademark infringement. Therefore affirming iFone rights of first use in Mexico. (They get to keep using the name iFone and tradermark class 38 rights). Instead of Apple negotiating in good faith, Apple wanted an invalidation of the trademark for non-use outright.
Now that Apple lost the lawsuit and is infringing, iFone is counter-suing for damages (still pending).
You can dismiss it as Apple-hatred if you want to, but it's hatred they are currently bringing on themselves, not for their products, but for their bullying business tactics and dick-move legal crap. Litigation in place of innovation isn't going to cut it.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp
Are you all really that surprised that Apple is suing them?
WTF!?
/facepalm
Sorry, but this argument is ridiculous. What really matters is that it's highly doubtful that the Mexican company copied some obscure Cisco product in 2003 before the term iPhone meant anything. "Hey, let's call our company iFone after this virtually unknown iPhone product from Cisco!" Yeah right. 10 to 1 no one at iFone ever even saw or heard of a Cisco 'iPhone' like 99% of everyone else in the world.
I already covered this exact issue in a previous post in this thread.That should be the main consideration in a case like this. Suing a company over a name (that isn't even exact) for a product you introduced in 2007 vs. their company name from 2003 that in no way was trying to unfairly capitalize on another product, is just a stupid, silly lawsuit, and thank goodness Apple lost. I hope they're made to pay all sorts of damages for wasting people's time and once again trying to push their weight around.
I'm not saying you can't hate Apple. That's your prerogative. If you want to expend the energy into hatred of a global corporation that doesn't affect me. What is stupid is a lot of people can't separate their disdain for Apple and criticizes Apple for everything Apple does. It doesn't matter whether what Apple is doing is legally sound or not. It doesn't matter if this is something every company including Google would do or not. If Apple did it, then Apple made a douche move.It's this kind of uncalled for action by Apple that's making people despise this company.
You can dismiss it as Apple-hatred if you want to, but it's hatred they are currently bringing on themselves, not for their products, but for their bullying business tactics and dick-move legal crap. Litigation in place of innovation isn't going to cut it.
You're just wrong on every level.It doesn't matter if you heard of the Cisco product before. A valid trademark is a valid trademark as long as you are using it and when you discover someone is infringing that you enforce it.
Once again, Cisco acquired a NAME: iPhone. They had no product with that name, and certainly not a well known one anyone was trying to capitalize on. Another company registered the name iFONE, and clearly DIDN'T in any fashion copy Cisco. They sure as hell didn't copy a product that didn't exist yet.So it doesn't even matter if the Mexican company never heard of Cisco's iPhone (which Cisco obtained by purchasing another company). It doesn't matter if the Mexican company was not copying Cisco. What matters is, is the iPhone a legitimate trademark and who had it first. Is it a unique name or something generic like Apple?
What you don't seem able to grasp, is that Apple is bringing the hatred on themselves.I'm not saying you can't hate Apple. That's your prerogative. If you want to expend the energy into hatred of a global corporation that doesn't affect me. What is stupid is a lot of people can't separate their disdain for Apple and criticizes Apple for everything Apple does.
No, the counter-suit hasn't been decided.
iFone won the injunction that Apple filed against them for trademark infringement. Therefore affirming iFone rights of first use in Mexico. (They get to keep using the name iFone and tradermark class 38 rights). Instead of Apple negotiating in good faith, Apple wanted an invalidation of the trademark for non-use outright.
Now that Apple lost the lawsuit and is infringing, iFone is counter-suing for damages (still pending).
The proper analogy here would be if Microsoft were suing a company called "Meetro" that registered its name four years before 'Metro', because they bought the name 'Metro' from a company that sued them and won, had no product called Metro, and WASN'T being infringed upon by a company called Meetro.Didn't Microsoft recently have to change the name of interface from Metro to something else because of possible litigation? It's entirely possible this is just a dick move, on the other hand it could be a pre emptive move to make sure they aren't sued later on like they were in China.
From a legal standpoint, Apple is obligated to try to invalidate/obtain the iFone trademark.
Infringing on what. Class 9 (which Apple owns) covers mobile phones. Damaged you can always sue for but Apple still holds its relevant trademark.