Trademark Super-Bully Apple Blatantly Infringes On Headphone Company's Trademarks
from the live-by-trademark-die-by-trademark dept
It's not terribly often we spend the time to write about valid trademark complaints in these here Techdirt pages, but I do think there are times when it makes sense to do so. One of those times is when a company that does everything in its power to be as super-trademark-bullying as possible just flagrantly infringes someone else's trademark as though it were the most natural thing in the world to do.
So let's set this up. Now, I probably don't need to explain to the average Techdirt reader just how trademark-a-licious Apple has always been, but in case I'm wrong about that, it trademarked the interior design of its retail stores, it has long-insisted it is the only one that can use an apple in its logo, it argued that it owned the trademark rights for the generic term "app store," and it even went ahead and threatened a school because it used the forbidden fruit in its logo. In other words, Apple is as trademark-y as it gets.
Except when it comes to headphones it wants to market, in which case someone else's valid trademark can just fuck right off.
Direct Sound Headphones, LLC, of a Fenton, Missouri has sued Apple for Trademark Infringement over the term “Ear Pods”Seems pretty clear cut to me. EarPods was a barely-variant version of a trademark registered by another company, the use of which could have been found with a simple google search, nevermind any actual investigation into the prior use of the term. And, yes, having yet another product in the tech world out there with the use of "pods" in it is as stale as cheap beer that's been sitting in sunlight for the better part of a day, but that isn't really the point. "Ear Pods" works as a trademark and Apple disregarded it and marketed its own product with the term.
Plaintiff, (“Direct Sound” or “Plaintiff”) sued Apple for “violations arising under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. §1051, et seq., (the “Lanham Act”) and for common law trademark infringement and unfair competition under the laws of the State of Missouri, “based on Direct Sound’s ownership of the trademarks “E.A.R.PODS” and “e.a.r.Pods”; Direct Sound’s use of the trademarks “E.A.R.PODS” and “e.a.r.Pods” in manufacturing and selling audio headphones; Apple’s subsequent, improper, and infringing use of “EarPods” to sell goods including audio headphones; and Apple’s continued improper use of “EarPods” despite Apple’s knowledge of Direct Sound’s prior use and ownership”.
And this isn't even the first go around with Apple's product's name.
Back in September 2012, we wrote a story about Apple failing to secure the domain names EarPod.com and/or EarPods.com before announcing its Ear Pod product, writing in part:Live by the trademark, die by the trademark, sirs. You can't on one side be the bully and then cry victim.
“The domain name Earpod.com has been registered since 2008 and is being forwarded to a hearing clinic site at myhearpod.com.
The company that owns the domain name earpod.com owns a trademark on the term “hearpod” and maybe in a position to object to Apple’s trademark or sued Apple for infringing on its mark especially since the own Earpod.com.
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
Filed Under: earpods, trademark, trademark bully
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Are you familiar with Apple?
They take others work, make it their own, then claim the first guy ripped them off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple has a history of naming products what they want, regardless of prior usage, then they pay off the owner and everybody forgets about it. iPad, for instance, was not first used by apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition
So what's the word for what Apple does?
Ah yes, they 'inovate' it from other people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they didn't
I don't them ever claiming that. Xerox PARC was well known and I think Steve Jobs actually gloated about how he took those ideas and made them more useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, they didn't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechDirt reverses itself from its own paradigm because: APPLE
So here's the proper, correct, and usual TechDirt report as it should have been:
Were I on the jury my vote is that they do NOT infringe for this reason: the trademark requires the (silly to me) punctuation mark of "period" aver each of the initial three letters of the trademarked term and the last for letters to be capitalized.
These periods are two things: 1) enough to make it pretty obvious at a distance when they are there or not and 2) a *required* part of the trademarked term.
Hence: E.A.R.PODS, e.a.r.PODS (note that "PODS" must be capitalized) look *nothing* like EarPods. Hence the suit will fail in court. Whether it's a frivolous suit or not I leave up to you to decide.
***
There: I literally just reported on this the way techDirt normally would. Except the suit is against Apple Inc. Which TechDirt in general seems to like to bash every now and again, and that - dear friends - is the only reason this TechDirt article takes the literal opposite of what it would and should have were it any other company involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TechDirt reverses itself from its own paradigm because: APPLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TechDirt reverses itself from its own paradigm because: APPLE
Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TechDirt reverses itself from its own paradigm because: APPLE
TechDirt disapproves of use of a trademark? You object.
TechDirt approves of use of a trademark? You object.
This is pure trolling (classic def.), and is therefore banal & sophomoric w/o any entertainment value. If you'd not gone quite so far, you might've been able to continue to enjoy your OCD-oppositional-defiant 'amusing lunatic' status among a certain subset of readers.
Now? You're just dull.
And yes, I'm going to report your comment, as well as my own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What a lying scumbag you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not yet Registered
Direct Sound filed first their app first (9/8/12), but Apple was able to claim the "priority" date of an application Apple filed in Jamaica (7/17/12) a few months earlier, which put Apple ahead of Direct Sound in line for review at the PTO. Apple's app was approved first and published, while Direct Sound's app was suspended pending Apple's app becoming a registration. But Direct Sound opposed the Apple app, and they claim an earlier "first use date" of 6/28/12, so they should prevail and eventually get the registration, assuming that date is correct and Direct Sound has the evidence to back up that date. If Apple produces evidence of their use that predates Direct Sound use then they could conceivably prevail. It might seem like a slam dunk for Direct Sound but you never know.
I couldn't find it, but a comment on the source article says that Direct Sound's Motion for Summary Judgement was denied, which is interesting and may be a small victory for Apple, at least initially.
Look for the usual "make it go away" settlement from Apple, a la iPad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]