{"id":51151,"date":"2015-06-03T12:44:24","date_gmt":"2015-06-03T04:44:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=51151"},"modified":"2015-06-03T12:44:24","modified_gmt":"2015-06-03T04:44:24","slug":"ph-made-myphone-wins-court-case-against-apple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/06\/03\/ph-made-myphone-wins-court-case-against-apple\/","title":{"rendered":"PH-made MyPhone wins court case against Apple"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_51152\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-51152\" style=\"width: 673px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/MyPhone-Infinity-Lite-1.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-51152\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/MyPhone-Infinity-Lite-1.jpg\" alt=\"&quot;Confusingly similar?&quot; Apple loses trademark case against PH-made MyPhone\" width=\"673\" height=\"511\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/MyPhone-Infinity-Lite-1.jpg 673w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/MyPhone-Infinity-Lite-1-300x228.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 673px) 100vw, 673px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-51152\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">&#8220;Confusingly similar?&#8221; Apple loses trademark case against PH-made MyPhone<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>MANILA &#8212; It\u2019s like a battle between David and Goliath of the tech world.<\/p>\n<p>In a recent trademark case, Philippine company Solid Broadband Group &#8212; the makers of My|Phone &#8212; just won against international tech giant Apple.<\/p>\n<p>According to Apple, the brand name \u201cMyPhone\u201d was \u201cconfusingly similar\u201d to its world renowned iPhone, which is \u201clikely to deceive or cause confusion.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Solid Broadband launched My|Phone in 2007, making it the first ever locally branded mobile device in the country.<\/p>\n<p>On May 19, the Philippines&#8217; Intellectual Property Office (IPO) dismissed the case. The report was only disclosed to the stock exchange on Tuesday, June 2.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This is a case of a giant trying to claim more territory than what it is entitled to, to the great prejudice of a local &#8220;Pinoy Phone&#8221; merchant who has managed to obtain a significant foothold in the mobile phone market through the marketing and sale of innovative products under a very distinctive trademark,&#8221; IPO director Nathaniel Arevalo said in an ABS-CBN report.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;While the marks are similar with respect to the word [&#8216;phone&#8217;], it is not sufficient to conclude that confusion among the consumers is likely to occur. &#8216;Phone&#8217; is a generic term for products mobile phones,&#8221; he added.<\/p>\n<p>Arevalo also said that Apple should give credit to the \u201cintelligence and discernment\u201d of consumers when it comes to knowing the difference between My|Phone and iPhone.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The buying public should be credited with a modicum of intelligence and discernment in purchasing articles, such as gadgets and mobile phones&#8230; The fame and popularity of iPhone in fact makes it improbable for one to confuse my|phone product as an iPhone,&#8221; he pointed out.<\/p>\n<p>By law, Apple can still appeal the IPO&#8217;s decision within 30 days after receiving the decision. Otherwise, the decision will be final.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>MANILA &#8212; It\u2019s like a battle between David and Goliath of the tech world. In a recent trademark case, Philippine &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":51152,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1482,19,95,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-breaking","category-business","category-news-ph","category-technology","mauthors-ching-dee","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51151\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/51152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}