Apple has lost their legal claim to the iPhone name in Mexico

Here's the brief - There's a telecom company by the name "iFone" in Mexico. And Apple sued them unnecessarily...and lost the case.<p>"The iFone trademark was filed in Mexico in 2003, a full four years before Apple filed to trademark the iPhone. Despite the rather obvious priority issue, Apple decided to sue iFone in 2009 in an attempt to invalidate the company’s name for being too similar to the iPhone. The predictable response was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFone’s favor ever since."<p>I think Apple deserves this and perhaps, even more.

This article says a lot about Apple's current disposition:<p>"It’s not actually clear what Apple was thinking this time around – the iFone trademark was filed in Mexico in 2003, a full four years before Apple filed to trademark the iPhone. Despite the rather obvious priority issue, Apple decided to sue iFone in 2009 in an attempt to invalidate the company’s name for being too similar to the iPhone. The predictable response was a countersuit by iFone, and the court battles have been swinging in iFone’s favor ever since."<p>I'm glad to see them get knocked down a few pegs on stuff like this. Apple could use a modicum of humility.

They most likely sued iFone on the basis of the "i" prefix branding. iMac was released in 1998, iPod and iTunes in 2001.<p>They sued in 2009, but it was only in 2010 that an Australian tribunal ruled that the "i" prefix could not be an Apple trademark. And that only applies in Australia.<p>Now, did iFone choose their name based on the positive connotations associated with Apple? I doubt it. And looking at their website, it's about as far removed from Apple as possible.

This is a non-news. The Verge has an article mentioning that the loss has no impact on Apple's ability to use the name.<p><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3591380/iphone-ifone-and-apples-mexican-trademark-standoff-whats-really-going" rel="nofollow">http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3591380/iphone-ifone-and-a...</a>

I'm wondering if they could work the phonetic angle since the "ph" orthography doesn't exist in spanish. Instead they should conduct the entire case calling it the "eep-hoan-ey". In ads and campaigns they could go out of their way to never pronounce iPhone (then again, I'm not sure trademarks extend to the phonetic pronunciation, so maybe the pronunciation used in deciding the case matters. I think trademarks only cover orthography).

I guess this is the other side of the coin as far as their brashly-use-trademarks-and-sort-it-out-later methods go. Not a bad track record though.

Something tells me, that even with a loss in court, it was worth having a few years of iPhone sales as the "iPhone".<p>It'll probably eventually be called the "Apple Phone"; but people will still call it iPhone.

Not sure why Apple sued iFone in 2009 "for being too similar to iPhone" when iFone has been around much longer. That was a dumb move.

This appears to be the iFone trademark holders in Mexico:<p><a href="http://www.ifone.com.mx/frameset_productos_oficina.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ifone.com.mx/frameset_productos_oficina.htm</a>

Exposing tensions between execs through Frostall's departure, slap by UK court, less enthusiasm surrounding iPad mini lunch and now this. It has been a bad week for Apple.

Seems like the legal department of Apple is busy lately.

They could always call it the iGalaxy :-S

Aren't "iPhone" and "iOS" technically trademarks of Cisco, not Apple?

How did they think they could win this? Does any lawyer have a theory on what they were going for?

Is it me or have all apple related article in the past 2 weeks been negative.

I wonder why Apple took this route. When they introduced the iPod they made an agreement with Line 6 who owns the mark Pod for the guitar effects processor.

Somehow I'm not worried about their brand getting usurped.

So how's that nuclear war going for you, Steve-O? Had time to rent a copy of <i>WarGames</i> yet?

aPhone.