NEWS USPTO U-turn on ‘iPad mini’ refusal
The USPTO has gone back on its original decision to refuse Apple’s application for a trademark covering the term ‘iPad mini’.
USPTO examining attorney Lee-Anne Berns rejected the initial registration, which was filed in November 2012, on the grounds that the “applied-for mark merely describes a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods”.
In its offi cial statement refusing the applications, the USPTO found the term ‘iPad’ to be descriptive, reasoning that the prefi x ‘i’ denotes ‘Internet’, and ‘Pad’ refers to ‘pad computer’ or ‘Internet pad device’,
terms it said are “used synonymously to refer to tablet computers”.
Defining ‘mini’ as “something that is distinctively smaller than other members of its type or class”, it determined ‘iPad mini’ a combination of descriptive terms and therefore unregistrable as a trademark, a decision which has since been overturned.
In the supplementary office action addressed to Apple, the USPTO said: “Upon further review of
the application, the examining
attorney has determined that the following refusals issued in the initial office action should be withdrawn.
“The examining attorney apologises for any inconvenience caused.”
It also advised that Apple should add a disclaimer in its amended mark application, making it clear it refers to ‘iPad mini’ as a whole, and not just ‘mini’.
Jonathan Gelchinsky, partner at
Finnegan,
Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP in Boston, said Berns had made the right decision in overturning the prior refusal: “I think that the examining attorney’s initial decision on the alleged descriptiveness of the ‘iPad’ portion of the mark was questionable under the circumstances,” he said.
“The examiner herself noted in the first action that Apple could likely overcome that part
of the refusal by entering a claim into the record that Apple owns an earlier registration for the mark. She easily could have justified not refusing the term in the first instance based on that same registration that she suggested Apple rely on.”
He added that even if the original decision stood, Apple could have overcome it in a number of ways, including “claiming ownership of a prior registration as suggested by the examiner, stating in the record that the mark has been in use for fi ve or more years, or submitting evidence that the mark is recognised as a trademark for Apple’s
products”.
“It is almost certain that Apple would have overcome the refusal to register the ‘iPad’ component of the mark had the examiner not changed her position,” he said.
GLOBAL EXPERIENCE IN BRAND MANAGEMENT
Squire Sanders can help you protect one of your most valuable assets – your brand. We provide the complete range of legal services across the lifecycle of a trade mark including clearance searches, filing and prosecution, oppositions and revocations and portfolio management. We devise effective anti-counterfeiting strategies and advise on cost-effective dispute resolution. Beyond protection, we help to realise the value of a brand through commercial agreements.
We represent companies, of all sizes and in all fields, throughout the world, and help them to protect and exploit their brands.
Best of all, our team combines a seamless international service with a local presence – meaning we can solve your branding issues wherever they arise in the world and wherever you are based.
Contact:
Chris McLeod +44 20 7655 1590
chris.mcleod@
squiresanders.com
Florian Traub +44 20 7655 1091
florian.traub@
squiresanders.com
squiresanders.com www.worldipreview.com Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 2 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44