Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), as everyone knows, has had a heck of a time protecting it patents and copyrights from trolls as well as other legitimate companies that try to use variations of what Apple has devised in order to gain an advantage through some form of confusion with consumers (at least, that is often Apple’s argument).
But one would not think that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) would also have to fight for trademarks too. Well, this case was about to involve a fight, but then it didn’t because apparently, Apple lawyers were able to effectively use a Jedi mind trick to convince the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to change its mind in regards to trademarking the name, “iPad Mini.”
In a rare move – especially one that did not involve an official appeal by the affected party – the USPTO reversed a prior finding in January that Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) could not claim a trademark on “iPad Mini” because of term was “merely descriptive.” This went counter to an earlier ruling about the term “iPad,” for which Apple did claim a trademark. A USPTO attorney very carefully argued against trademarking “iPad Mini” by braking down the term and making the case that the entire term was erely describing the device – which is not allowed to be trademarked under U.S. law.
Once the application for trademark was rejected in late January, Apple was granted six months to file an appeal to the ruling to make the case that “iPad Mini” was not “merely descriptive.”
But three months later – without any official appeal filed by Apple – the USPTO inexplicably reversed itself, saying that it would accept the trademark application as long as Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) relinquish claims to the word “Mini.”
The USPTO has provided no official statement as to the basis for its reversal., only to say that the acceptance was being granted “upon further review,” and the office apologized for “any inconvenience.”
Is it just us, or do you find this interestingly odd too? Do you have thoughts about what might be up with Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) in regards to this trademark case? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.