Back in June Apple faced off against a Mexican telecom over the trademarked word “iFone.” In that case, the iFone telecommunications company argued that Apple had infringed its trademark with the iPhone. A court ruled that because telecom services and telephone hardware aren’t the same product, there should be no confusion among consumers about which is which.
Unfortunately for mobile carriers in the country, because they do offer telecommunications services, they were barred from using the name “iPhone” in marketing materials.
Now an Indian mobile phone manufacturer called iVoice Enterprises Limited is taking Apple to task over a similarly named product, this time called the “iFon.”
The body that governs India’s trademarks, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, has been petitioned by iVoice to revoke Apple’s trademark in that nation. The company has a bit of an advantage over the Mexican “iFone” case in that both iVoice and Apple attempted to trademark a mobile phone name, not a service. That’s about the only thing it has going in its favor, though.
iVoice was founded in 2007, after the announcement of the first-generation iPhone, and originally planned for its own iFon to be a cheap, but feature-rich cell phone. The name was created to stand for “India Phone,” according to the Times of India. The iFon trademark was registered in May that year.
In 2008, Vodafone announced that it would be bringing the iPhone to India, and Apple filed a motion against the iVoice trademark, noting that it was phonetically similar to the iPhone’s name. In 2009 the iPhone 3GS launched in the country as iVoice’s investors continued to drop support for the organization thanks to Apple’s motion.
By 2010, the iFon was still said to be on the way, and iVoice had finished filing a counterclaim against Apple, but the damage was already done. Without the backing of its domestic and overseas partners, iVoice had to admit defeat. The company now claims that Apple’s petition to remove its trademark caused “irrecoverable financial impact on our business model” and has since scuttled the project entirely.
Apple was recently asked for an official response to the trademark claim, indicating that the Appellate Board has reviewed the case as presented by iVoice and is moving on to the next stages of the dispute. The process is far from over, but Apple certainly has an advantage since it filed for the mark all the way back in 2006 (versus mid-2007 for iVoice).
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
OMG are you kidding me? They waited THIS long to go after Apple? This to me smells of nothing more than a cash grab!
Indian courts are known for the fastest dealing of cases. 50 years and above are not uncommon
I’ve got a few theories about why Apple Watch wasn’t called iWatch, but surely avoiding junk lawsuits like this is somewhere on Apple’s list.
They didn’t need to have “irrecoverable financial impact on our business model.” They could have sensed the impact of iPhone earlier and just changed their name to avoid the damage.
Some companies needs to be popular by suing Apple… Its not a news worthy.
How is this any different than Apple suing grocery stores from using apples in their logo, or having domains like a.pl ?
India and China = World hubs of innovation and excellence. (sense the sarcasm…)
dvinder42
You are dishonest….
Without China, iPhone would NOT exist….
Where are the factories which make iPhones?
USA ?
Without China, production of the iPhones would probably have gone to Vietnam, Mexico, Brazil? And Motorola once made phones in USA, so yes, it is possible.
No, without Apple, the iPhone wouldn’t exist. Just because it is made in China, doesn’t mean it exists because of China.
It is a blanket statement, but not without more than a large sliver of truth. I think the other commenters make valid points to rebut your claim.
this is stupid. apple started the whole “i” thing to begin with. too bad apple couldn’t “own” the lowercase i before any word idea and eliminate all the corny names that have followed since the iPod.
iMac was the first, followed by iTunes, then iPod.
correct, but all the 3-party products with the “i”came after the iPod
This would be akin to the Candy Crush people trying to copyright “candy”.
I am sure this is going to be thrown out of the court.