Why Trademark Law Needs To Be Re-Visited By A Moron In A Hurry
from the perhaps-the-problem-is-with-trademark-law dept
Late Friday, the story broke that Apple had sent a trademark cease and desist letter to a site called PodcastReady, claiming trademark violations. The podcast community, not surprisingly, spent the weekend screaming in anger at this move. Of course, given other recent cease and desist letters from Apple for products that had "pod" in the name, this isn't that surprising. We've discussed in the past why it's unfortunate that people think of trademark law as "intellectual property law." It's really quite different than either patents or copyright -- which grant a more complete ownership over the idea or content. Instead, trademark law should be viewed much more as a consumer protection law. The purpose is to avoid consumer confusion -- where some ripoff company tries to sell you a fake "iPod." So, if there's no customer confusion, there should be no trademark problem. In fact, it was Apple in a recent case that helped highlight a great legal "test" for applying trademark law: the moron in a hurry test. If a moron in a hurry wouldn't be confused by the use, then there's no trademark violation. In this case, it would seem that Podcast Ready should be in the clear using that test.However, there's a second element of trademark law that causes problems. Trademark law requires that the holder of the mark actively polices its use. That is, if you don't try to stop others who are using the mark from using it, you can lose the trademark. There are some reasons for this, but perhaps it doesn't really make sense any more. Because no one wants to lose their mark, it encourages lawyers to send a cease-and-desist in even the most borderline of cases. The "you must send a cease and desist as soon as possible" combined with the "moron in a hurry" test don't really work too well together, and create a ton of waste in the form of unnecessary legal fees. So, perhaps it's time to explore whether or not there's a better way to handle trademark law, focusing on the consumer protection side, but avoiding the over-active policing of trademarks.
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
A moron in a hurry
It's frustrating enough to see laws passed only as a type of business weapon (i.e., the DMCA), but it's really demoralizing to see the tools of the legal profession used without regard to actual law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademarks
In this case, Apple is the moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yay stupid laws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The biggest problem is the law itself...
The extent to which trademarks are covered is pretty clear, but given the way IP rights are being totally abused by corporations (with the facilitation of Congress), I'm not surprised that companies are all gung-ho with the C&D letters. Nowadays a C&D letters is what a polite "How ya doin'?" to a stranger on the sidewalk was in the past... just a custom, practically a reflex.
It seems to onus is entirely on the receivee of such a letter. He can probably ignore it, but entirely at his own risk. Sending out the letter, much like spam, costs little and carries no risk, and causes a lot of unsuspecting or unwary people to do what you want even if it's not in their best interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll keep that in mind the next time someone mentions anything about buying a Mac..
Keep your trademark apple and your products too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Apple made the first mistake...
Theyu could have just as easily used box, vessel, or tree for the name. Yeah it's confusing but you cannot trademark a commonly used word.
In fact this is unusual, I often see the word pod now and think it always has to do with an ipod. Actually pod is just a word like shoe.
Good luck Apple, if this works try going after Red Delicious, Granny Smith, and Roman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arnt most lawers a moron in a hurry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
InTime vs. OnTime
I had taken the time & money and applied to register my unique mark. Then with one BS opposition letter that was sent to the USPTO, viola, I was in the middle of a $10k plus dispute - if I chose to defend my mark. I’m a very small start-up and don’t have $10k to give to an attorney for this matter that any Moron could have easily seen the visual and phonetic differences. We may share a word in our marks like this Apple example, but give me a break; overall they are different names and mine is completely red while theirs is blue and grey… To top it off, the USPTO only allows 30-days to response or the opposition is automatically awarded – what BS!
I really wish there was a way to defend an opposition as easily as it is to oppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"pod" owned by Apple?
or just the word "pod"? what do we call a group of whales?
this is plain dumb...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, let's kill all the lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I(insert product)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pod Policy
Problem solved. :-P
(I'm working on a second plan involving getting Linus Torvalds and all the "penguins" on an iceberg bound for deep space.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pod Policy
Anyway, I am going to grab my ipod and go out in my icar for a spin around the city (iTown, Indiana). Also, my escape pods are under attack from Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PODS is in Trouble...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pods
POD
Payable On Death (POD a band)
Plain Old Documentation (POD in Perl)
Professional and Organizational Development (POD)
POD from Line6 musical instruments they actually registered the word POD!!!!
Print on Demand (POD)
PODS
Principals of Database Systems (PODS)
Pipeline Open Data Standard (PODS)
Procurment Opportunity Delivery Systems (PODS)
and what about topofthepods.com and podgallery.com and and and and
How much money do the fruits oops I meant suits expect to spend? This only takes product away from the consumer by directing money into lawsuits instead of into the product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were them I would not they have been using that longer than the IPOD so send apple a c/d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PODS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EPods have rights too..
Just not attorneys to C&D Apple from using their family name!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the potato people in The Dark Crystal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irresponsibility
Even assuming the average consumer would not be confused by "pod" in use with another product, it is believed that such connotation: (a) may cause a lessening of the value of the mark if or instance "pod" is used in conjunction with a lesser quality product; or simply that "pod" will less likely be associated with apple and reduce the tm's value to apple, thus reducing impetus to input good will.
i strongly encourage posters to write responsibly as this blog is uniformly ignored by any reader with even a basic legal knowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: irresponsibility
Your posting is way overdone. We don't care about the policies or what is actually contained therein, nor why.
Without you pointing out your legal knowledge on this matter, most of us understand that what Apple is trying to do is a joke, and only an attorney would take it this seriously!
None of the aforementioned changes the fact that "pod" is an ordinary word and that trying to defend oneself from poor foresight is a losing battle. In fact, Apple should be sued for trying to deceive the English language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irresponsibility
Even assuming the average consumer would not be confused by "pod" in use with another product, it is believed that such connotation: (a) may cause a lessening of the value of the mark if or instance "pod" is used in conjunction with a lesser quality product; or simply that "pod" will less likely be associated with apple and reduce the tm's value to apple, thus reducing impetus to input good will.
i strongly encourage posters to write responsibly as this blog is uniformly ignored by any reader with even a basic legal knowledge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: irresponsibility
But since you want to perpetuate the confusion of the issues, I'll go along. If you don't want your trademark diluted, try not using letters of the alphabet coupled with common words as your brand name. It shouldn't be approved anyway, but that's a whole different side of things.
The point is that regardless of the purpose of a trademark, it's stupid to think you can take the phrase "iPod", slap it on a bunch of music players, and think you can shut down anyone else using "pod". If you want an undiluted brand name, don't use an already diluted term. In-no-vate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: irresponsibility
ill admit, i really have no idea why there is a focus on why tm law is considered IP... the fact that this is true is simply because a trademark is just another intangible property right that is artistic/inventive in nature -- as opposed to real property or other rights .... other than that, there is very little similarity between patents/copyrights and tm's as viewed by the law -- tm is derived from the fed. govt's right to regulate interstate commerce, while patents/copyrights stem from the authorship clause, 1.8.8 ---
the fact that "pod" is a known word means very little as far as protectability -- there are tons of known words or minor variations which are very strong TMs: "apple," "speedo," "greyhound," "burger king" --- these are generally termed arbitrary or suggestive and generally have no greater likelihood of being diluted than "pod" --- im sure most users of pod, to which cease and desist letters were sent, had at least a minimal intention of suggesting some mental connection with IPOD --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: irresponsibility
Because they don't have a proverbial leg to stand on. Neither does Apple.
You are correct in that iPod is no more diluted than Greyhound; my point is that anyone can use either of those terms so dilution is natural. They are words which exist in the English language. If you want a solid trademark, try inventing a new word which evokes what you want to associate with your brand. Like "aspirin". Right idea, but the owner of that one didn't fight hard enough to maintain that trademark and lost it. The other extreme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: irresponsibility
Indeed, this is true, but I don't believe that's a policy issue that makes much sense. Without confusion, there shouldn't be much dilution. And, I would think that dilution is simply a *business* and *marketing* issue, and there's no real reason to protect it using trademark law. That is, if you allow your trademark to be diluted, then that suggests you have done a bad job on the marketing side with your brand. Giving it extra protection in the form of trademarks actually can hurt companies by making them less active in protecting their brand from a marketing standpoint.
So, I stand by the original point that the real purpose of trademark law was originally and should remain a consumer protection issue, concerned with confusion. Dilution protection isn't necessary.
i strongly encourage posters to write responsibly as this blog is uniformly ignored by any reader with even a basic legal knowledge
Hmm. I wonder how you know how people with legal knowledge treat this website. Considering the number of lawyers who link to us, submit stories and comment here (in support of us) on a regular basis, I believe your statement is false. Obviously, some disagree with us (as you do), but to claim that we're uniformly ignored is provably false (not to mention petty and uncalled for).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: irresponsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law make sense?
Personally, I don't get all the hype about IPOD it is just an expensive MP3 player. It is like there computers, OK for high school. But not the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple owns the whales then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
APPLE et al
I am not a lover of LARGE multinationals, and especially the (reported) manner in which the bully small business. But, in order to present a fair picture I would like to relay my experience. I am bringing a product to market which includes certain letters which make up part of a trademark registered by a world wide, billion dollar comapny. They objected, which caused me a delay, but upon hearing my story we came to an agreement which did not cost me a penny and leaves me free to use the original product name which I had chose.
If they are being ripped off or taken advantage of they bite, but in my case I have no complaints!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]