Comments on: “iPhone” iPWNed? https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/iphone-ipwned/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:10:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: Stephen Macklin https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/iphone-ipwned/comment-page-1/#comment-5084 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:10:06 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4307#comment-5084 I don’t think this is a branding crisis for Apple. If the line becomes

iPod
iPod Nano
iPod Shuffle
iPod Phone (iPod Connect – iPod Communicator)

They will probably be in good shape.

]]> By: mmm https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/12/iphone-ipwned/comment-page-1/#comment-5083 Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:02:02 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4307#comment-5083 I’m doubting the veracity of this story. For one thing, you can’t TM anything without an actual use in commerce. The only registered iPhone TM listed at the USPTO is Reg#2293011 which was registered more than 10 years ago, whose first use was in 1997, published for opposition in 1998 and granted in ’99.

If it hasn’t been used, then the registered mark may be been abandoned (regardless of its registered status).

Second, Apple could very well have sought an intent to use application well before debuting the “iPhone.” Though, there are a couple of other more recent iphone applications that seem to be directly on point.

Finally, “iPhone” doesn’t seem to be a particularly strong brand name unless Apple can somehow make the argument it owns the rights to i[Anything].

]]>