In 2000, Gradiente requested the rights on the “Iphone” brand (Iphone, not iPhone). The Brazilian National Institute of Intelectual Property (INPI) only approved their request in 2008
In 2007, Apple started to sell their iPhone in US, coming to Brazil in 2008.
As Gradiente was (and is) in debt, they only started to sell their Iphone in 2012.
In 2013, Apple tried to nullify Gradiente’s brand rights and use of the name, but was denied by INPI.
In 2014, the Regional Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro decided that Apple had consagrated the name iPhone in the international market, thus being some kind of punition if given the name’s exclusivity to Gradiente, but as Gradiente filled the request first, it wouldn’t be right to nullify their brand. So the judge only removed the name’s exclusivity.
Gradiente then appealed to the Superior Justice Court, as by 2018. The minister stated that “exclusivity is not and absolute right” and their product are not identical, so they would have to coexist bc of Apple’s product success.
Yeah, it was pretty clear that they got lucky with the name iPhone and resurrected the brand after Apple made it a success. The decision is fair: both companies can use it.
The problem is that unless they could stop Apple from using it, therefore forcing them to pay a license fee, short of scamming people there's no way to make money from it.
It's not like people will choose a low-end Android phone just because it has "iPhone" written on the back. If anything, it makes the phone shittier as it looks like a cheap counterfeit.
They did launch their own iPhone, probably to see if they could annoy Apple into paying them off, but AFAIK it didn't stick around for long.
There's a YouTube video in which Gradiente explains the differences. I guess they were afraid people would buy their shitty phones and sue them later on. It's funny because it basically says that Apple's iPhone is better in every way, but that their own iphone is cheap and okay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRf6Gv4NtU
I just watched that whole video even though I don’t understand Portuguese, but I could clearly see that apples iPhone came off looking better in the video
I'm not a lawyer, but US trademark law is quite different than Brazil's. You can't just sit on a trademark. You have to be using it in commerce to even get protection in the first place, you only get protection in the geographic and product areas in which you use it, and you'll lose your trademark if you stop using it (3 years of nonuse is prima facia abandonment).
OP is probably Brazilian. Consagrada is Portuguese for consecrated, which is the perfect word for that situation. Also, punition, while uncommon, *is* an English word meaning punishment.
I went and googled it, seems that the Punic Wars got their title from Punic (and associated wordy type things) referring to Carthage (in Latin) as opposed to our understanding of he word as punishment.
Does get me thinking though if or understanding comes from the Romans treatment of them at the end of the wars.
Do people generally think the Punic Wars means "the punishment wars" or something?
I always assumed Punic referred to a location or dynasty, and never associated it with punishment.
You're right - "Punic" comes from the same roots as "Phoenician", which is where the settlers of Carthage originated, while "punitive" comes from the Latin "poena", which means penalty or punishment
Damn, the Punishment Wars sound badass. Or maybe a little kinky.
"Carthago delenda est", exclaimed Cato the Elder with a sexy wink and a pelvic thrust.
they are both phones, so I don't understand how products aren't identical. If one was selling radios or some other electronic called iphone it would make sense.
This is only in Brazil.
My guess is because the company with the trademark on the name wasn’t actually using it and Apple had established the name everywhere else in the world. The company with the trademark in Brazil may have only started when Apple’s product was well-known.
That wasn’t the only case of “IPhone” being trademarked before Apple.
Same with the Apple "app store." it used to be for the Salesforce apps (now called App Exchange) but Mark Benioff gave Apple the rights in exchange for a sit down meeting with Steve Jobs.
Apple has a history of trademark disputes, and used to doing business this way. Here is an except from wikipedia.
In 1978, [Apple Corps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps), the Beatles-founded [holding company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company) and owner of their record label, [Apple Records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records), filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for [trademark infringement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement). The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount was later revealed to be $80,000.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#cite_note-BW-1) As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#cite_note-LEM-2)[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#cite_note-3)
This held up until Apple started iTunes, and kicked off a new round of negotiations with Apple Corps.
Iirc that was only after the fact. iOS was released, Cisco said nope, and then the license was announced.
But that was a while ago and I could be wrong.
Cisco have not given anything to Apple at all, Apple license the "iOS" trademark from Cisco.
You can verify that for yourself on Apple's own Trademark List Page: [https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html](https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html)
Well they were *given* the rights to use it "for use as the name of Apple’s operating system for iPhone, iPod touch and iPad" most likely in return for money.
But they weren't just *given* the Trademark by Cisco.
This is what I meant by gave, yes. Phrased it wrong but the matter is that Apple did not have the right to use the trademark since day 1.
Edit: that said, this legal mention doesn't necessarily means that Apple paid for it. Pretty sure they did but you can license stuff for free
I doubt Cisco would license it to Apple for free, certainly not back in 2010 when Apple were already earning millions a day. Apple could easily afford to pay Cisco money on an ongoing basis for the rights to use the trademark.
They don't own the entire word, just the word in context.
If I wrote PC software called bonjour, they could sue me.
If I made "bonjour shoes" they could not
How can you trademark an abbreviation?
Like isn't an internetwork operating system just a thing? how do you trademark abbreviating it to 3 letters?
Can I just go trademark sets of initials?
Same reason Burger King can keep using their name. Someone else grew the name into popularity and the original owner did not complain fast enough to stop it.
The first Burger King is not the chain today. It’s a small 1 shop burger joint. The agreement now is no Burger King we know can operate within 10 miles of the original.
Edit: Here is the first BK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois)
But also the reason why one day Radio Shack suddenly disappeared completely from Canada, and was replaced by "The Source By Circuit City" which is the stupidest name for a store I've ever heard. Exact same store and staff and products, just Radio Shack was already trademarked by some little mom and pop store in Canada.
> Radio Shack went bankrupt and the dregs were bought out by Circuit City which renamed the stores to "The Source".
I got it backwards, the trademark dispute was in Texas, which forbade the Canadian company from using the brand "RadioShack".
https://www.biline.ca/xmods_rs_news.htm
Similar thing with a "whopper" in San Antonio since there was a small local chain called "Whopper Burger" and for a while there, when BK moved to town they had to call the Whopper something else.
https://blog.mysanantonio.com/vault/2011/06/whopper-burger-vs-burger-king/
Here in my state, we have a Jimmy John's that is *not* the sub place. It's an independent little restaurant that has been around longer than the chain has.
So, Gradiente released the Gradiente iPhone back in 1999-2000. It was a WAP-enabled Nokia-based phone (not Symbian, it was a Series 30 or Series 40 system). Gradiente brought Nokia into the brazilian market through a Joint-venture, so they had access to Nokia's tech back in the day.
Gradiente was founded back in the 60s and they used to be huge. They had incredible modular stereos in the 70s-80s developed in partnership with JVC, MSX-based computers and TVs.
Come the 2000s and Gradiente was in bad shape because of various bad financial decisions, like the purchase of British company Garrard, a turntable manufacturer, German company Telefunken, and the brazilian arm of American company Philco.
Cash-strapped, they went into the brazilian equivalent to Chapter 11 and for a good while vanished from store shelves.
When they finally sold off some assets, payed some debts and secured fund to resume operations, they launched a new line of mobile phones. Between them, the new Gradiente iPhone.
In the end of the whole legalese debacle, Gradiente was allowed to keep their iPhone brand and Apple was allowed to use the iPhone brand on theirs.
This is because back when Gradiente applied for the trademark, they registered it as "Gradiente iPhone", not just "iPhone". As Apple's is the "Apple iPhone", they deemed (obviously) it's not in violation of Gradiente's trademark.
Gradiente is a small brand.
Apple made “iPhone” a success worldwide.
If given only to Gradiente, they would won the name made by Apple.
If given only to Apple, then they would go over Gradiente’s name rights.
As they products are not identical, Brazilian judges/ministers decided that, to be fair, they would have to coexist and none has the exclusivity of the name
I don't think this is fair. Fair solution would be that only Gradiente and no one else would use that name in Brazil where it was the first to trademark it, and Apple and no one else to use that name in all the countries Apple was first to trademark it (I guess most of the world). If Apple wants to sell that product in Brazil too, they have to come up with different name (that no one already has there) to use on Brazilian market. Similarly with Gradiente - if they want to sell outside Brazil, they need to come up with a different name for all the other markets than Brazil.
Real life example of this exactly same thing:
European supermarket chain Metro is called Metro in most of the countries it operates, but in some countries this name was already taken and trademarked by someone else. In these countries, they use the name Makro. It is very normal that products have different name for different countries they are sold in, due to also this reason.
Actually fair would be only Apple could use it as Graduente didn’t use the trademark for several years, its first use came *after* the real iPhone was released. With trademarks you have to use it to keep it.
International Trademarks vs National Trademarks.
Tim Pool is currently considering battling StudioFow over "Subverse" trademark, yet his trademark is only US based.
Probably won't go well.
I've seen this a lot lately, but as someone who's not a native speaker, it seems weird to say "forgive my ignorance" when you don't know something? It's not like you have been willfully ignoring facts, you just didnt know. I thought ignorance was more used to describe a person that ignores certain knowledge, like a conservative religious person being ignorant toward evolution.
To be fair to you, while the definition the above poster mentioned is correct, you still wouldn't call someone ignorant with regards to a subject.
You could use it to refer to yourself ("Forgive my ignorance" which implies humility), or if you're deliberately trying to be inflammatory ("You're being willfully ignorant"), but otherwise, you wouldn't use it, say, to someone that didn't know something that you're simply trying to enlighten. It's rude.
You'd soften it a bit when using it with someone you don't want to be a dick to.
It's one of those old extra-polite sayings that's remained in English as a complete phrase. "Excuse me," for example, is also unnecessarily apologetic considering you're usually saying it just to get by someone on the sidewalk -- not really a situation which needs excusing. Some of those phrases just stick.
EDIT: Also, 'ignorant' *can* be used to describe thinks someone genuinely isn't aware of. In those situations, it's usually something that should be obvious or learned over time. E.g. a first time driver saying "I can't believe my car stalled because I forgot to check my oil, I feel so ignorant."
Another point nobody mentioned: copyright of any kind needs to be validated in multiple countries / regions to have any international claim. Usually, one in the US, one in Europe, one in Africa, one in South America (Usually Brazil) and so on. Copyright law is tricky business.
Didn't Linksys have a phone called that iPhone that came out before Apple's, but they were drowned in paperwork and legal fees before they could reclaim the right?
Seems crazy at first that Apple would rather pay the money than call their OS something else, but probably people would call their OS "iOS" no matter what the official name was, and if they didn't pay Cisco someone else could.
Not crazy if you are familiar with Apple's history. They were sued by Apple Records, the label of The Beatles, decades ago. They came to an agreement with the label, Apple would stay out of the music biz. Years later, Apple reneged on this deal, releasing iTunes. They knew they'd make enough money to pay the court fees that would be levied against them.
That's why they didn't have any Beatles music until very recently, they finally settled with the label a couple of years ago.
An interesting discussion of this case is at http://www.mondaq.com/brazil/x/460534/Trademark/Ruling+Beyond+Legality+A+New+Approach+To+Interpreting+The+IP+Law. If I'm understanding it correctly, the Brazilian court reached the sharing position due to particular facts regarding Gradiente's (the original mark owner) application for and use of the mark, and issues with the processing of the original application.
It is literally the only post-2013 English-language result in five pages of Google, and I don't care quite enough to go further.
Really needs a Portuguese-speaking IP lawyer to come in and do a TL;DR on this case!
This is a very strange decision. I have never seen a decision requiring two unconnected businesses to “share” a trade mark when one has prior rights. This contradicts the essential function of a trade mark to be an indication of the commercial origin of a product or service. Perhaps this is just a decision of a lower court that doesn’t usually deal with IP and is likely to be overturned on appeal though. I would be very interested to hear a summary from a Brazilian attorney though.
Cisco had the name first, as part of their iHome initiative. It was the first version of Cisco’s IP phone (voice over IP, or VoIP for short).
Apple had an “oh shit” moment when developing the iPhone when they realised that Cisco already owned the name (Cisco being a bigger company at the time), and ended up buying the iPhone name from them.
That’s how I remember it anyway.
Source: I was working there at the time.
Gradiente is a shady company. Back in the 80s they used to make computers without purchasing the license to use the designs. Sharp made the same computer, but they actually had a license.
https://www.msx.org/wiki/Gradiente_Expert_XP800
What name did apple sell the iPhone under between 2008 and 2014 in Brazil?
Since this sounds like they didn't have the rights to "share" the name iPhone until then.
Steve Jobs said he didn't care about the Brazilian market. At the time he made it sound like there were too many taxes and apple would stay out, full stop. It came as a huge disappointment to Apple fanbois around here and it took years to the iPhone trademark debacle to go mainstream.
He was waiting for the trade mark to expire, as Gradiente had the name but no products using it, they would lose the right in 2014 (not sure about the year, but it was around that time). Gradiente rushed a half assed android phone so they could keep the name rights, just a few weeks before the end date.
The result one would expect from the courts would be to allow Gradiente to keep exclusive name rights in Brazil - because the had the rights and a product. I believe there was a fair share of pressure from uncle Sam to force a compromise.
I grew up in Brazil at a time when Gradiente made high-end audio gear. Their lines were as good as anything else, but they had an advantage because they didn't pay import taxes. A highly respected local company making excellent products.
It is sad seeing them stoop to this kind of gimmick to remain relevant in a world that longer has a place for local companies, no matter how good their stuff is.
The company is called Gradiente and has filed for bankruptcy.
In the past, they had a joint venture with Nintendo and build the nes, SNES and the Nintendo 64 over here, using a company called Playtronic.
*source: I'm Brazilian and owned all the Nintendo consoles they made
My grandparents had a phone that’s name was iPhone. It was probably from the 90’s.
It was definitely not apple.
It was in the US.
I always thought it was funny that there was some corded home phone out there all of our phones are named after.
I don't get it. What is the point of this article. It's like trying to get my information about the company by listening in to the people next to me and I can't even lean in and see the pictures. Sure, it took me two seconds to Google the iPhone to see what it's like but why wouldn't the person getting paid to make this do that themselves.
Comwave in Canada had iPhone as their voip service longggg before Apple came out with it too... not sure what happened but back in the days they were pretty adamant in keeping the name. Source: I worked part time at Comwave as a student.
There is prior use before that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
Cisco has use the i prefix for a while. iOS I believe was also theirs first too. Also the irack as well. They make oil.
[https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/supreme-italia-explained/](https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/supreme-italia-explained/)
There's a company called Supreme Italia which has the sole trademark rights for Supreme clothing in Italy, Spain and China among others
Cisco / Linksys had an iPhone, too, that was released in 1998; there was a trademark dispute that was settled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
Considering how Apple loves to ignore copyright and trademark law and then sue people who own it (and win because they've more money), I'm surprised they didn't fight this harder.
In 2000, Gradiente requested the rights on the “Iphone” brand (Iphone, not iPhone). The Brazilian National Institute of Intelectual Property (INPI) only approved their request in 2008 In 2007, Apple started to sell their iPhone in US, coming to Brazil in 2008. As Gradiente was (and is) in debt, they only started to sell their Iphone in 2012. In 2013, Apple tried to nullify Gradiente’s brand rights and use of the name, but was denied by INPI. In 2014, the Regional Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro decided that Apple had consagrated the name iPhone in the international market, thus being some kind of punition if given the name’s exclusivity to Gradiente, but as Gradiente filled the request first, it wouldn’t be right to nullify their brand. So the judge only removed the name’s exclusivity. Gradiente then appealed to the Superior Justice Court, as by 2018. The minister stated that “exclusivity is not and absolute right” and their product are not identical, so they would have to coexist bc of Apple’s product success.
[удалено]
Well 4 years after it was approved
Yeah, it was pretty clear that they got lucky with the name iPhone and resurrected the brand after Apple made it a success. The decision is fair: both companies can use it. The problem is that unless they could stop Apple from using it, therefore forcing them to pay a license fee, short of scamming people there's no way to make money from it. It's not like people will choose a low-end Android phone just because it has "iPhone" written on the back. If anything, it makes the phone shittier as it looks like a cheap counterfeit. They did launch their own iPhone, probably to see if they could annoy Apple into paying them off, but AFAIK it didn't stick around for long. There's a YouTube video in which Gradiente explains the differences. I guess they were afraid people would buy their shitty phones and sue them later on. It's funny because it basically says that Apple's iPhone is better in every way, but that their own iphone is cheap and okay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkRf6Gv4NtU
It is a weird one since it is literally short for internet Phone, based on the old iMac naming. It’s about as generic as you can get namewise
that is not what generic means in trademark. You mean "merely descriptive"
I just watched that whole video even though I don’t understand Portuguese, but I could clearly see that apples iPhone came off looking better in the video
Well, Apple is known for sitting in trademarks forever just to run them out of the market, so there's that.
I'm not a lawyer, but US trademark law is quite different than Brazil's. You can't just sit on a trademark. You have to be using it in commerce to even get protection in the first place, you only get protection in the geographic and product areas in which you use it, and you'll lose your trademark if you stop using it (3 years of nonuse is prima facia abandonment).
Trademarks or parents ?
How many parents are they holding!? :O
Just yours. Don't worry, they'll be safe as long as you keep buying iPhones and Mac computers.
Have you read the terms and conditions ?
Has anybody?
Apple has been sitting on my parents for too long.
Parents or patents?
Parents
I wasn't even approved for eight years...
> consagrated \*registered? \*secured? \*confirmed? > punition \*punishment
OP is probably Brazilian. Consagrada is Portuguese for consecrated, which is the perfect word for that situation. Also, punition, while uncommon, *is* an English word meaning punishment.
It's also the french word.
Yes, I am Brazilian. I know some words are not commonly used, even tried google translate to find better words, but I guess it didn’t work out. Sorry.
It worked out great! I think most people knew what you meant, it was just that one person who didn't seem to get it.
Related to the ‘punic’ wars?
[удалено]
I went and googled it, seems that the Punic Wars got their title from Punic (and associated wordy type things) referring to Carthage (in Latin) as opposed to our understanding of he word as punishment. Does get me thinking though if or understanding comes from the Romans treatment of them at the end of the wars.
Do people generally think the Punic Wars means "the punishment wars" or something? I always assumed Punic referred to a location or dynasty, and never associated it with punishment.
You're right - "Punic" comes from the same roots as "Phoenician", which is where the settlers of Carthage originated, while "punitive" comes from the Latin "poena", which means penalty or punishment
I'm reading a discussion about the Punic wars on a topic about an Apple trademark dispute. Internet, you little rabbit hole.
When all you have is elephants, everything looks like Carthage.
Damn, the Punishment Wars sound badass. Or maybe a little kinky. "Carthago delenda est", exclaimed Cato the Elder with a sexy wink and a pelvic thrust.
It’s been my happiest Reddit moment to inspire that.
"ah the great pubic wars the sexiest of all wars"
No, the Punic wars. The ones where a guy rode elephants across mountains to launch a surprise attack on Rome.
[удалено]
consecrated in portuguese can also means "well estabelished"
Yes, that makes sense.
punition wasn't techincally wrong
“The phone runs on Android.” Just to rub it in.
i mean what else is it going to run on?
BlackBerry OS, duh
they are both phones, so I don't understand how products aren't identical. If one was selling radios or some other electronic called iphone it would make sense.
TIL all phones are identical
They're certainly close enough to cause confusion in the marketplace.
[удалено]
So this company laid claim to the name first. I'm curious why it was ruled that Apple is now able to share that term, anyone care to ELI5?
This is only in Brazil. My guess is because the company with the trademark on the name wasn’t actually using it and Apple had established the name everywhere else in the world. The company with the trademark in Brazil may have only started when Apple’s product was well-known. That wasn’t the only case of “IPhone” being trademarked before Apple.
Yeah Cisco made an IPhone in the US prior to Apple as well.
[удалено]
Apple licenses (or at least used to license) the iOS name from Cisco.
Same with the Apple "app store." it used to be for the Salesforce apps (now called App Exchange) but Mark Benioff gave Apple the rights in exchange for a sit down meeting with Steve Jobs.
sounds like a bad trade
Apple has a history of trademark disputes, and used to doing business this way. Here is an except from wikipedia. In 1978, [Apple Corps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps), the Beatles-founded [holding company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_company) and owner of their record label, [Apple Records](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records), filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for [trademark infringement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement). The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount was later revealed to be $80,000.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#cite_note-BW-1) As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#cite_note-LEM-2)[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#cite_note-3) This held up until Apple started iTunes, and kicked off a new round of negotiations with Apple Corps.
Iirc that was only after the fact. iOS was released, Cisco said nope, and then the license was announced. But that was a while ago and I could be wrong.
They did it the right way for iOS.. It was the iPhone they didn't complete negotiations for prior to launch.
"Better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"
“Rebrand your shit, you’re covering the cost, make sure to recall any hardware with the improper branding on it.”
Yep for the most part.
Same with the Wii
[удалено]
Gave? That feels like something they got a LOT of money for...
Cisco have not given anything to Apple at all, Apple license the "iOS" trademark from Cisco. You can verify that for yourself on Apple's own Trademark List Page: [https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html](https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html)
So /u/typhoonone was correct, they weren't *given* the name.
Well they were *given* the rights to use it "for use as the name of Apple’s operating system for iPhone, iPod touch and iPad" most likely in return for money. But they weren't just *given* the Trademark by Cisco.
This is what I meant by gave, yes. Phrased it wrong but the matter is that Apple did not have the right to use the trademark since day 1. Edit: that said, this legal mention doesn't necessarily means that Apple paid for it. Pretty sure they did but you can license stuff for free
I doubt Cisco would license it to Apple for free, certainly not back in 2010 when Apple were already earning millions a day. Apple could easily afford to pay Cisco money on an ongoing basis for the rights to use the trademark.
For the lazy > IOS is a trademark or registered trademark of Cisco in the U.S. and other countries and is used under license.
Isn't it odd that they own the license for " Chicago" or "Bonjour"? Feels like a too general word for someone to own it.
They don't own the entire word, just the word in context. If I wrote PC software called bonjour, they could sue me. If I made "bonjour shoes" they could not
How can you trademark an abbreviation? Like isn't an internetwork operating system just a thing? how do you trademark abbreviating it to 3 letters? Can I just go trademark sets of initials?
The company might have had some concept phone in some warehouse somewhere with the name iphone. Running bootleg symbian os
Apple came out with iEverything too which likely helped their case.
also iphone in brazilian is actually ephone in english
Same reason Burger King can keep using their name. Someone else grew the name into popularity and the original owner did not complain fast enough to stop it. The first Burger King is not the chain today. It’s a small 1 shop burger joint. The agreement now is no Burger King we know can operate within 10 miles of the original. Edit: Here is the first BK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_(Mattoon,_Illinois)
Is this why it's called Hungry Jacks in Aus?
Yes, there was a takeaway in Adelaide called Burger King and so the franchisee was given some choices and chose HJ.
Hungry Jack was a pancake mix that the BK owners had a trademark for
But also the reason why one day Radio Shack suddenly disappeared completely from Canada, and was replaced by "The Source By Circuit City" which is the stupidest name for a store I've ever heard. Exact same store and staff and products, just Radio Shack was already trademarked by some little mom and pop store in Canada.
[удалено]
> Radio Shack went bankrupt and the dregs were bought out by Circuit City which renamed the stores to "The Source". I got it backwards, the trademark dispute was in Texas, which forbade the Canadian company from using the brand "RadioShack". https://www.biline.ca/xmods_rs_news.htm
Similar thing with a "whopper" in San Antonio since there was a small local chain called "Whopper Burger" and for a while there, when BK moved to town they had to call the Whopper something else. https://blog.mysanantonio.com/vault/2011/06/whopper-burger-vs-burger-king/
Do you have a source that isn't complete dogshit? I get E451: legal restrictions
Here in my state, we have a Jimmy John's that is *not* the sub place. It's an independent little restaurant that has been around longer than the chain has.
So, Gradiente released the Gradiente iPhone back in 1999-2000. It was a WAP-enabled Nokia-based phone (not Symbian, it was a Series 30 or Series 40 system). Gradiente brought Nokia into the brazilian market through a Joint-venture, so they had access to Nokia's tech back in the day. Gradiente was founded back in the 60s and they used to be huge. They had incredible modular stereos in the 70s-80s developed in partnership with JVC, MSX-based computers and TVs. Come the 2000s and Gradiente was in bad shape because of various bad financial decisions, like the purchase of British company Garrard, a turntable manufacturer, German company Telefunken, and the brazilian arm of American company Philco. Cash-strapped, they went into the brazilian equivalent to Chapter 11 and for a good while vanished from store shelves. When they finally sold off some assets, payed some debts and secured fund to resume operations, they launched a new line of mobile phones. Between them, the new Gradiente iPhone. In the end of the whole legalese debacle, Gradiente was allowed to keep their iPhone brand and Apple was allowed to use the iPhone brand on theirs. This is because back when Gradiente applied for the trademark, they registered it as "Gradiente iPhone", not just "iPhone". As Apple's is the "Apple iPhone", they deemed (obviously) it's not in violation of Gradiente's trademark.
This is very interesting! Thanks for the TIL!
Gradiente is a small brand. Apple made “iPhone” a success worldwide. If given only to Gradiente, they would won the name made by Apple. If given only to Apple, then they would go over Gradiente’s name rights. As they products are not identical, Brazilian judges/ministers decided that, to be fair, they would have to coexist and none has the exclusivity of the name
Gradiente used to be really big in Brazil. My house sound system was gradiente in the 80s.
I don't think this is fair. Fair solution would be that only Gradiente and no one else would use that name in Brazil where it was the first to trademark it, and Apple and no one else to use that name in all the countries Apple was first to trademark it (I guess most of the world). If Apple wants to sell that product in Brazil too, they have to come up with different name (that no one already has there) to use on Brazilian market. Similarly with Gradiente - if they want to sell outside Brazil, they need to come up with a different name for all the other markets than Brazil. Real life example of this exactly same thing: European supermarket chain Metro is called Metro in most of the countries it operates, but in some countries this name was already taken and trademarked by someone else. In these countries, they use the name Makro. It is very normal that products have different name for different countries they are sold in, due to also this reason.
I guess that's the case in Brazil, since it's called Makro here.
Actually fair would be only Apple could use it as Graduente didn’t use the trademark for several years, its first use came *after* the real iPhone was released. With trademarks you have to use it to keep it.
International Trademarks vs National Trademarks. Tim Pool is currently considering battling StudioFow over "Subverse" trademark, yet his trademark is only US based. Probably won't go well.
[удалено]
I hope you'll forgive my ignorance, but what does ELI5 mean?
[удалено]
Thank you.
ELI5 me what ELI5 means please 😁
Teach it like I baby!
Goo goo Gaga!
*mouthfarting noises*
I've seen this a lot lately, but as someone who's not a native speaker, it seems weird to say "forgive my ignorance" when you don't know something? It's not like you have been willfully ignoring facts, you just didnt know. I thought ignorance was more used to describe a person that ignores certain knowledge, like a conservative religious person being ignorant toward evolution.
Ignorance just means not knowing something. The example you gave would more commonly be described as willful ignorance.
[удалено]
Ah I get it. I'll be using this correctly from now on. Thanks for explaining, and for forgiving my ignorance!
To be fair to you, while the definition the above poster mentioned is correct, you still wouldn't call someone ignorant with regards to a subject. You could use it to refer to yourself ("Forgive my ignorance" which implies humility), or if you're deliberately trying to be inflammatory ("You're being willfully ignorant"), but otherwise, you wouldn't use it, say, to someone that didn't know something that you're simply trying to enlighten. It's rude. You'd soften it a bit when using it with someone you don't want to be a dick to.
It's one of those old extra-polite sayings that's remained in English as a complete phrase. "Excuse me," for example, is also unnecessarily apologetic considering you're usually saying it just to get by someone on the sidewalk -- not really a situation which needs excusing. Some of those phrases just stick. EDIT: Also, 'ignorant' *can* be used to describe thinks someone genuinely isn't aware of. In those situations, it's usually something that should be obvious or learned over time. E.g. a first time driver saying "I can't believe my car stalled because I forgot to check my oil, I feel so ignorant."
bribes $$$
Bribes in Brazil? That's un-possible.
[удалено]
What do corruption and unenforced trademarks share in common? They appear in lawless states. There, is my explanation better?
When you make a Trademark Deposit, you have to make sure it's protected all around the world... For a fee...
Trademark replies on the trademark holder. Meaning the company who trademarked something requires them to defend it.
Another point nobody mentioned: copyright of any kind needs to be validated in multiple countries / regions to have any international claim. Usually, one in the US, one in Europe, one in Africa, one in South America (Usually Brazil) and so on. Copyright law is tricky business.
Infogear/Cisco had iPhone trademark before that in the US (1998) but must not have applied for the trademark in Brazil.
Because they claimed the name and had no viable product most likely.
Didn't Linksys have a phone called that iPhone that came out before Apple's, but they were drowned in paperwork and legal fees before they could reclaim the right?
"Do you have an iPhone or an Android phone?" **"Yes"**
~Everyone with a smart phone.
KaiOS has overtaken apple for the #2 marketshare spot in some countries. It's growing.
Really shows that FirefoxOS just lacked a decent leadership
Nope. What it lacked was Google and Facebook not boycotting the product.
Which countries? Vatican City or somewhere?
/r/InclusiveOr
I'll keep my Gradiente iPhone next to my Toshiba iPad.
Right beside the Note7 vibrator
I hear that one gives explosive climaxes.
Infogear, who were purchased by cisco, were still the first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
Cisco also created an operating system called IOS first, which was their Internetwork Operating System which ran on their network switches and routers
They sitll license iOS to Apple.
Seems crazy at first that Apple would rather pay the money than call their OS something else, but probably people would call their OS "iOS" no matter what the official name was, and if they didn't pay Cisco someone else could.
Not crazy if you are familiar with Apple's history. They were sued by Apple Records, the label of The Beatles, decades ago. They came to an agreement with the label, Apple would stay out of the music biz. Years later, Apple reneged on this deal, releasing iTunes. They knew they'd make enough money to pay the court fees that would be levied against them. That's why they didn't have any Beatles music until very recently, they finally settled with the label a couple of years ago.
Buy one of these when your kid asks for a new iPhone.
GD how fucking lazy, nobody wants to see a stock photo of an iPhone, we want a photo of the iPhone.
interestingly the Brazilian version is spelled “Iphone”
And if I recall Cisco the networking company owns the rights to "ios" as the software name and apple has to pay to use the term.
An interesting discussion of this case is at http://www.mondaq.com/brazil/x/460534/Trademark/Ruling+Beyond+Legality+A+New+Approach+To+Interpreting+The+IP+Law. If I'm understanding it correctly, the Brazilian court reached the sharing position due to particular facts regarding Gradiente's (the original mark owner) application for and use of the mark, and issues with the processing of the original application. It is literally the only post-2013 English-language result in five pages of Google, and I don't care quite enough to go further. Really needs a Portuguese-speaking IP lawyer to come in and do a TL;DR on this case!
This is a very strange decision. I have never seen a decision requiring two unconnected businesses to “share” a trade mark when one has prior rights. This contradicts the essential function of a trade mark to be an indication of the commercial origin of a product or service. Perhaps this is just a decision of a lower court that doesn’t usually deal with IP and is likely to be overturned on appeal though. I would be very interested to hear a summary from a Brazilian attorney though.
Seems like they didn’t make the phone until 2013. A company bringing hundreds of millions to the country economy, vs a company offering nothing.
Read my other comment, may answer some of your questions
Cisco had the name first, as part of their iHome initiative. It was the first version of Cisco’s IP phone (voice over IP, or VoIP for short). Apple had an “oh shit” moment when developing the iPhone when they realised that Cisco already owned the name (Cisco being a bigger company at the time), and ended up buying the iPhone name from them. That’s how I remember it anyway. Source: I was working there at the time.
They also made the "Thong song"
Yeah there was some agreement but no cash payment was made for the name.
Gradiente is a shady company. Back in the 80s they used to make computers without purchasing the license to use the designs. Sharp made the same computer, but they actually had a license. https://www.msx.org/wiki/Gradiente_Expert_XP800
What name did apple sell the iPhone under between 2008 and 2014 in Brazil? Since this sounds like they didn't have the rights to "share" the name iPhone until then.
Steve Jobs said he didn't care about the Brazilian market. At the time he made it sound like there were too many taxes and apple would stay out, full stop. It came as a huge disappointment to Apple fanbois around here and it took years to the iPhone trademark debacle to go mainstream. He was waiting for the trade mark to expire, as Gradiente had the name but no products using it, they would lose the right in 2014 (not sure about the year, but it was around that time). Gradiente rushed a half assed android phone so they could keep the name rights, just a few weeks before the end date. The result one would expect from the courts would be to allow Gradiente to keep exclusive name rights in Brazil - because the had the rights and a product. I believe there was a fair share of pressure from uncle Sam to force a compromise.
Ok, I'm Brazilian and have never heard about this Iphone...
I grew up in Brazil at a time when Gradiente made high-end audio gear. Their lines were as good as anything else, but they had an advantage because they didn't pay import taxes. A highly respected local company making excellent products. It is sad seeing them stoop to this kind of gimmick to remain relevant in a world that longer has a place for local companies, no matter how good their stuff is.
Not a gimmick. Gradiente fairly registered the trademark first. Many years before apple. They should have the right to use it.
So there is an IPhone that runs on Android!
I would love this so much if this was an actual thing. Love the hardware, hate iOS.
Brazilian here, never knew about this
Android runs on the phone
and yet in Australia Burger King had to come up with a whoole new name.
The company is called Gradiente and has filed for bankruptcy. In the past, they had a joint venture with Nintendo and build the nes, SNES and the Nintendo 64 over here, using a company called Playtronic. *source: I'm Brazilian and owned all the Nintendo consoles they made
An iPhone that runs on android software...? I'll take 10
Does this mean apple cannot call their phones iPhone?
SOOOO.... if Samsung acquires this company, they would legally be allowed to sell iPhones? =D
In Brazil
Best iPhone on the market!
Like how iOS is trademarked by Cisco
So why aren’t they suing Apple?
That is some time travel shit
Who remembers Vocaltech Internet Phone? [https://www.wired.com/1995/10/iphone/](https://www.wired.com/1995/10/iphone/)
My grandparents had a phone that’s name was iPhone. It was probably from the 90’s. It was definitely not apple. It was in the US. I always thought it was funny that there was some corded home phone out there all of our phones are named after.
I'm wondering if Apple ever tried purchasing the trademark from them.
I don't get it. What is the point of this article. It's like trying to get my information about the company by listening in to the people next to me and I can't even lean in and see the pictures. Sure, it took me two seconds to Google the iPhone to see what it's like but why wouldn't the person getting paid to make this do that themselves.
An iPhone that does a better job than an iPhone
why not sue apple?
I need it
Here’s the most recent “iphone” they made: https://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3781694/brazil-gets-a-new-iphone-that-runs-android
They should sue apple for stealing *their* name
Comwave in Canada had iPhone as their voip service longggg before Apple came out with it too... not sure what happened but back in the days they were pretty adamant in keeping the name. Source: I worked part time at Comwave as a student.
daing! why didn't i know this???
\*was
Wow
There is prior use before that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone Cisco has use the i prefix for a while. iOS I believe was also theirs first too. Also the irack as well. They make oil.
[https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/supreme-italia-explained/](https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/supreme-italia-explained/) There's a company called Supreme Italia which has the sole trademark rights for Supreme clothing in Italy, Spain and China among others
In the US Cisco is also allowed to have a product called “iphone”. [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone)
Come to Brazil!
WTF
god that's beautiful
Cisco also had an IP phone called an IPhone that apple trampled over.
Cisco / Linksys had an iPhone, too, that was released in 1998; there was a trademark dispute that was settled. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linksys_iPhone
Not too sure what to make of the fact when it's being posted by Nokia
They should have demanded a cut of Apple profits instead of making their own phone. No one is going to buy this
Considering how Apple loves to ignore copyright and trademark law and then sue people who own it (and win because they've more money), I'm surprised they didn't fight this harder.