March 17, 2010 at 13:47Apple's monopoly on letter i is at stake
The Australian trademark tribunal dismissed Apple’s lawsuit, which the company requested to ban the small Australian firm Wholesale Central Pty Ltd from registering the DOPi trademark, under which they intended to produce laptop bags and cases for Apple products.
Apple's argument in this debate was that the name "DOPi" is very similar to its name for the player "iPod" written in reverse.
However, the representative of IP Australia (the state body that oversees the registration and use of trademarks) Michael Kirov said that there are already several brands on the market, such as iSkin and iSoft, which not only use the “i” prefix in the name, but also operate in the same segment of the electronic goods market as Apple. He also made the judgment that Apple was unable to prove that “a person with ordinary mind and memory”, having seen the letter “i” at the beginning of the product name, would automatically assume that it was released by Apple.
Apple's legal departments have long and often harassed every legal and natural person whose actions they see violate their company’s copyright and trademarks. But in the future, this practice may cease - in connection with the foregoing judicial precedent, it will be more difficult for Apple to prove that ordinary people can be misled by similar names or the letter “i” in them.
Lawyers believe that although the case does not apply to existing Apple trademarks, in the near future, but in the future, companies that register trademarks with the prefix “i” in the name will have more chances to win in legal disputes that Apple may initiate against them .
and © tochnik.
Apple's argument in this debate was that the name "DOPi" is very similar to its name for the player "iPod" written in reverse.
However, the representative of IP Australia (the state body that oversees the registration and use of trademarks) Michael Kirov said that there are already several brands on the market, such as iSkin and iSoft, which not only use the “i” prefix in the name, but also operate in the same segment of the electronic goods market as Apple. He also made the judgment that Apple was unable to prove that “a person with ordinary mind and memory”, having seen the letter “i” at the beginning of the product name, would automatically assume that it was released by Apple.
Apple's legal departments have long and often harassed every legal and natural person whose actions they see violate their company’s copyright and trademarks. But in the future, this practice may cease - in connection with the foregoing judicial precedent, it will be more difficult for Apple to prove that ordinary people can be misled by similar names or the letter “i” in them.
Lawyers believe that although the case does not apply to existing Apple trademarks, in the near future, but in the future, companies that register trademarks with the prefix “i” in the name will have more chances to win in legal disputes that Apple may initiate against them .
and © tochnik.