Does Apple Own All Naming Rights To Any Electronic Device Named A Pod?
from the just-wondering dept
Apple has always been especially protective of their intellectual property -- and when it comes to trademarks, the law pretty much requires you to be extra aggressive or you risk losing the protection. Unfortunately, this leads to plenty of cases where companies send out legal nastygrams when there is no real trademark violation. Nick Burns writes in to point out that: if you use "POD" in your product name, Apple may threaten you. In this case, it's a device for keeping track of how many tickets or tokens have been won from silly arcade-style games -- having little to nothing to do with the iPod name Apple is trying to protect. Of course, if this case actually went to court, Apple might have a difficult time proving any confusion. They'd better watch out, or the makers of the Profit Pod might just pull out the morons in a hurry test, Apple itself used in a recent trademark case. Assuming most morons in a hurry wouldn't come close to confusing the Profit Pod with an iPod, it seems like Apple doesn't have much to go on here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Name brand association
First :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Name brand association
Really. You find me a customer who would confuse that for a music player, and I'll show you someone who should be institutionalized for their own safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name brand association
First :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mistaken Identity
It really annoys me because what I have far outpasses what Apple make.
They own "iPod" not "Pod" or "i" or "iPo" or any other variation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Line 6's range of POD guitar amplifier emulators have been around for over 8 years. Are they going to get sued because of the name and the music connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right...
And on the issue of confusion. Even if you mistake the Profit Pod for the iPod all your confusion will be resolved as soon as you find a picture of it and realize its not a media player.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark is not copyright
With that in mind, then yes, there is a requirement for all sorts of frivolous "legal notices". Sure, apple could spend 20K$ every time investigating every other product out there using part of one of their trademarked names, or they could spend 20$ every time by sending out a warning that they own the trademark to iPod and are not afraid to protect it.
How one interprets the letter they recieve is up to them. This is a legal check in the box, and its one that Apple would be up shit creek for if they didnt do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apple's history
apple sued eMachines over a blue computer built into a monitor called an e-one, even though the computer with built in monitor (sometimes called a moniputer) waqs pioneered by packard bell and other companies in the 90's.
here are some pictures of an e-one:
http://images.google.com/images?q=emachines+e-one&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
the e-one did look like the old imacs, and so apple sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: apple's history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: apple's history
http://oldcomputers.net/pet2001.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take Apple down
What tends to happen in these cases is the larger more successful company effectively bullies the smaller underdog in the courts until the smaller company is forced to concede. There is no legal reason why I can not market a brand of ANYTHING an call it mPod or even m-Pod or variations, but Apple is larger then I am, and I can not afford the legal bills. Same with Lindows and Microsoft, the larger companies bullies the underdog into submission.
Which is why someone like Sony or even Microsoft needs to brand come device using POD in the name and then if Apple goes after them, keep the case open until it reaches its natural conclusion, that legally Apple does not own the trademark on POD, only on iPod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is common practice at Apple
The "nice" image that Apple gives out is nothing but a smokescreen. They have always been more aggressive and heavy handed with their market than Microsoft has. The only difference is that most of the time they are the underdog. In this case, they aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quote
I'm sorry Dave, I have a cease and desist letter from Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TSR-80's Next?
As is my Skilcraft Dual Power Calculator. Perhaps I should let Apple know about them damn blind people ripping them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Product Placement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet - the way these companies are abusing it all, it's doing quite the opposite now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a Riddle for you: What do Trademark law, Patent Law and Copyright law have in common?
Answer: Nothing, except you keep confusing the issues by thinking they are the same thing.
Please, do yourself a favor and read up on what trademark law is and why it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple=Microsoft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't take them down, just shut em up.
I don't know if you could prove that an mPod doesnt infringe on the iPod, but I'll say this: I'd like to see somebody make a player called an IPOD (In all caps, perhaps both bolded and italicized) and see if they can win with that.
I just don't think that the average consumer is this dumb. If a person goes to a store, and they see "Apple iPod" on display in a clear glass case (so they see the brand name, AND the player itself) and next to it they see "Microsoft IPOD" and it's got some kind of Sansa-like look to it but it's orange, I think most people could figure out which one their son or daughter wanted, or even which one they want. To me, the entire point just doesn't stick. Trademark laws aren't here to protect the name of a product. They're here to protect someone else from selling a product under the same name as your product. Selling is the key word there. If I was to get a bunch of scrap metal and build a small compact car and then sell it as a "Fjord Explorer" then I don't think Ford Motor Company has any right to sue me for trademark violation what-so-ever, because if a person wanted an SUV, and they see my compact car, no consumer in their right mind is going to be able to get them comfused, even if the names sound similar when spoken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]