As I wrote elsewhere, this is called application of law as it is supposed to happen in any civilized nation out there.

In fact, Apple and its partners have a huge interest in Brazil, for obvious reasons...the country is the 6th largest economy in the world and the natural leader of the Southern Hemisphere - in other words, a key market for Apple, as already confirmed by Cook and others.

But no, we do not speak Spanish nor are we part of the prejudiced and nonsensical US-invented "latino" community. So for those with some knowledge of Brazilian Portuguese, you may check this "explanatory" video by Gradiente - they say that the idea behind "IPHONE" came from "INTERNET PHONE" back then (whether one believes that or not is irrelevant now): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRf6...layer_embedded

Ultimately, the INPI has simply applied the provisions of Law 9279 - Apple has stated that it may appeal on "removal for non use" grounds. However, this is a lost cause, as it is clear that IGB DID release something since the registration was finally granted to that company in 2008 (the five-year period counts from effective registration and NOT deposit of the request). 

As I said before, Apple will have to shut up and pay; simple as that.

Translation: You can have the name but it'll cost you. Just a cost of doing business. Apple can buy the naming rights and show everyone they are spending their cash hoard. Everybody wins.

brlawyer, your argument sounded pretty nice, right up until the derogatory remarks about the US. Perhaps you need to learn to temper your emotions a tad. The "US-invented latino community" has benefited "minorities" very nicely in the US for some time. And I'm proud to be a part of that so-called community.

Regarding the headline, how could Apple lose something that they never had? Also, Gradiente was selling Nokia-style "iPhones" in 2000 so their first "iPhone" was not released in 2012 as claimed in this article. A Google image search for 'gradiente iphone 2000' shows many results with the original green and white ad from 2000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brlawyer 

....you may check this "explanatory" video by Gradiente - they say that the idea behind "IPHONE" came from "INTERNET PHONE" back then (whether one believes that or not is irrelevant now):

Side note: It's totally believable, since everyone was using "i"-names back then because of the growing popularity of the Internet.  Even Apple went along with the fad of that time by using "iMac".

Read my previous post with examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

Side note: It's totally believable, since everyone was using "i"-names back then because of the growing popularity of the Internet.  Even Apple went along with the fad of that time by using "iMac".

 

Read my previous post with examples.

No offense, but do we really need your examples to understand this? Not exactly a huge leap in logic even if one slept through a few years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent 

No offense, but do we really need your examples to understand this? Not exactly a huge leap in logic even if one slept through a few years?

None taken, but you should've been here (or on any other forum) when I first commented that i-names had been around for a long time before Apple jumped on the bandwagon.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Apple was the first with an i-name.  Heck, just look at BRLawyer's comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

None taken, but you should've been here (or on any other forum) when I first commented that i-names had been around for a long time before Apple jumped on the bandwagon.

 

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Apple was the first with an i-name.  Heck, just look at BRLawyer's comment.

I do not know what a lot of people believe. But I do know that many people here know well that the iPhone trademark was owned by Cisco  before Apple. Perhaps less known is the fact that iOS was too owned by Cisco. Apple also tried the "we thought you had abandoned it" ruse when confronted by Cisco with the threat of a lawsuit. Cisco didn't buy it and did file suit. That didn't last long as Jobs used his RDF technique to charm the trademark away from Cisco. Bits and pieces of these events are known by the Apple aficionado here. So I doubt they truly believe iNames were invented by Apple.

I did read BRLawyer's comment and, IMO, it does not really address who was first with the i-names. Instead, it was mostly about iChip - the one on his shoulder.

Most of the press and AI seem very confused here...

Brazil's patent authority only said that the iPhone name in Brazil belongs to Gradiente, so Apple didn't "loses exclusivity rights": they don't have the trademark at all excepting possibly on what wasn't covered by Gradiente's trademark, i.e. everything outside handheld/mobile phone devices. The patent authority doesn't have the power to enforce trademarks, courts do, so the "Apple can continue to sell its smartphone products" is misleading: they shouldn't as the trademark is not their but the patent authority can't be the one telling them that.

"Stopping misuse of the name is beyond the patent office's purview, and would have to be decided in court." (AP)

So that's round one, and if Gradiente chooses now -pending probable appeal- to sue Apple for misuse of its "iphone" trademark in court Apple will have to settle really quickly unless it wants to stop using the iPhone label for its phones in Brazil.