Apple Legal vs iPod Domains

[GoCubsGo]

This is why I think apple is stupid.

 

[Kagetenshi]

This kinda stuff isn't really news to me, Apple's been suing fansites for years.

If by "suing" you mean "serving Cease and Desist orders to", and if by "fansites" you mean "rumor sites", then yes. The ThinkSecret case was so unusual precisely because Apple actually sued.

~J

 

[Kobushi]

This is why I think apple is stupid.

Yeah, inovation and rising stock prices is kind of dumb

 

[Kobushi]

I can see two sides to this:

1. It does seem a bit silly to stomp out all the free advertising. Having your product name all over the place is something most companies pay good money to have done. You may as well just quit showing a bunch of epileptic silouhettes with fancy background colors on tv, billboards, magizines, etc. right now. If you don't own an ipod now, I doubt it's because you haven't heard of it.

2. It makes sense for apple to protect it's trademark (sort of). But has Kleenex really lost anything to generic brands of facial tissue? It could be that Apple is pretty proud of their name (as they should be) and don't want it associated with sub-par merchandise. I've seen quite a few crummy devices geared towards ipod.

 

[njmac]

Nope, you aren't the only one.

As others have alluded to, I advise everyone crying "why would they do this?" to take a few minutes and look up the concept of a "genericized trademark". You may find it enlightening.

~J

That was enlightening, thanks. If Apple doesn't take any action and one day there is an MS iPod, people would be all over the net wondering how Apple could be so stupid as to not protect their trademark.

These accessory sites will continue to flourish even with a name change.

 

[illegalprelude]

Yah right. If you think this isn't going to hit mainstream news sites when user's put up a stink about it you are WAY off. Whenever a large company goes after the little guy or a fan site it will get picked up.

I agree. leave fan sites alot man. their your loyal base although it seems as of late, apple dosent care about their loyal core anymore. their aiming towards mainstream with alot of things now

 

[vaal]

Non-argument (made by non-lawyers, no doubt)

and:
jacuzzi, duck tape, zip-lock, frisbee, Q-tip, tampax, clorox, velcro, k-way, polaroid, vaseline, tupperware, sharpie, chapstick, aspirin, saran wrap, pyrex

anymore?

This entire line of reasoning makes no sense. Those words are now in common use, but they are NOT in common commercial use. Who can name a vendor other than 3M who calls their product "Scotch Tape" or a vendor other than Johnson & Johnson who calls them "Band-Aids" or "Q-Tips?"

"Aspirin" was truly lost by Bayer. But a Google search reveals that this was probably because of the Treaty of Versailles.

All of which makes Apple's behavior somewhat nonsensical. Wouldn't you WANT everyone to associate your brand name with an entire category of products? I doubt that Apple is in danger of losing the iPod trademark any time soon...

 

[milzay]

Agree with Val^^.
Just because you refer to the 'hoover' it doesn't mean when you go to the shop companies are selling hoovers, they're selling vacuum cleaners. Also I think the market knows we're talking about MP3 players. I've not heard anyone say they want an iPod and mean some other MP3 player. This is jst stupid, they're losing free publicity and pissing people off, is it worth it? No.

 

[Qunchuy]

This entire line of reasoning makes no sense. Those words are now in common use, but they are NOT in common commercial use. Who can name a vendor other than 3M who calls their product "Scotch Tape" or a vendor other than Johnson & Johnson who calls them "Band-Aids" or "Q-Tips?"

The issue here is with non-Apple entities using "iPod" as part of their name. If a startup company called itself "Band-Aids-Deluxe", you can bet J&J would complain.

 

[Qunchuy]

...I think the market knows we're talking about MP3 players. I've not heard anyone say they want an iPod and mean some other MP3 player. This is jst stupid, they're losing free publicity and pissing people off, is it worth it? No.

I think it's funny that the market/media/masses/whatever uses the generic term "MP3 player" to refer to things like the iPod (which really prefers to be an AAC player) and the [older] Sony devices (which are exclusively ATRAC players).

 

[EvilMole]

Yes ... they did .. they chose a non public battle/announcement - unlike some of the other noncreative people trying to make a quick buck at Apple's expense.

LOL yeah, going public about being bullied by a large corporation is "trying to make a quick buck at Apple's expense." Please, man, stop drinking the KoolAid before you get tooth rot.

 

[EvilMole]

They're protecting the name "iPod" from loosing its trademark status by becoming a common household name.

This isn't about dilution. All Apple has to do is insist that the offending sites have an acknowledgement of their trade mark. That's what they do with magazines to preserve the trademark's status, and it's perfectly fine legally.

This is about control, like all Apple's media relations.

 

[EvilMole]

The words are too generic.

Apple Computer, Inc. does not have a trademark for the word "apple", or (probably) "mac"...but they most certainly do for "Apple Computer" and "Apple Macintosh"...as well as "iPod".

BONG! Incorrect . Apple has the trademark of Mac, Apple, and a zillion other names.

 

[EvilMole]

As others have alluded to, I advise everyone crying "why would they do this?" to take a few minutes and look up the concept of a "genericized trademark". You may find it enlightening.

And, once again, remember that all Apple has to do is ask for an acknowledgement of trademark on the offending sites. It doesn't *have* to ask for the site name to be changed in order to prevent genericization.

 

[EvilMole]

It makes sense for apple to protect it's trademark (sort of). But has Kleenex really lost anything to generic brands of facial tissue?

Lots of people stuff misread the law about trade mark genericization, and this is a good example.

Kleenex remains a trademark, as does Hoover. It's actually very, very difficult to lose a trademark - you basically have to allow other competing products to carry the same name for many years (hence hula hoop, lanolin, and aspirin all lost their TM status, while Hoover hasn't - try making a vacuum cleaner called Hoover and you'll see what I mean). Certainly, simply allowing web sites to include your product name in their titles, when they cover only your product, wouldn't be enough.

 

[xnu]

This may be a prelude to licensing iTunes DRM to other hardware manufacturers. They are protecting the name and building the "made for iPod" franchise so they can secure their revenue stream. With the delay of Nokia's N91 until next year, it appears micro$oft has not quite refined their DRM and Apple is probably waiting as long as they can before they feel they must open the flood gates.

 

[dogcowx]

I don't think you're quite right. "MAC" is ok. "APPLE" is not.

Apple is not? What about AppleInsider? AppleFritter? Apple II History Archive? AppleMinis, etc. etc. I don't see Apple cracking down on any of these sites.

 

[AP_piano295]

Bad press? no good outcome?

Trust me almost zero folks care about Apple protecting trademarks let alone even knowing about it taking place.

Anyways "iPod" is trademarked by Apple they can attempt to control it as they see fit.

That doesnt mean we have to agree with their decision.

 

[AP_piano295]

Yeah, inovation and rising stock prices is kind of dumb

yeah because they are doing well right now they cant ever make mistakes

 

[AP_piano295]

They're protecting the name "iPod" from loosing its trademark status by becoming a common household name.

If they make no attempt to protect it, they may eventually be sued for free-use of the word "iPod" by competitors.

Examples are the Zipper, the Frigidaire (french)... can't think of anymore.

What will happen is ipod will become synonymous for the name mp3 player they can still keep their brand name. Like kleenex a brand name has come to mean tissue.

 

[EvilMole]

What will happen is ipod will become synonymous for the name mp3 player they can still keep their brand name. Like kleenex a brand name has come to mean tissue.

Try calling launching a tissue brand called Kleenex and Kimberley Clark will sue your ass into next week - and win. Kleenex is NOT and never has been genericized.

 

[gauriemma]

Let us know if you get a notice from Apple Legal demanding that you change your user name.

A bit extreme, yes. How about in other industries? Anyone know? What about other iconic products?

Walkman
Jeep
Kleenex
Coke/Pepsi
Tylenol

Just curious.

-Squire

<edit> About a dozen others beat me to it. Thanks, though. I'll put some of this stuff in my classes.

Nope. Can't think of any more.

Say, I hope I remembered to Tivo "Lost" tonight...

 

[gauriemma]

BONG! Incorrect . Apple has the trademark of Mac, Apple, and a zillion other names.

Including "New York®". How the hell does a corporation get to make the name of a state a registered trademark? Does Rand-McNally have to pay royalties to Apple whenever they print a map?

 

[marmiteturkey]

Totally unreasonable of Apple.

Can I start a trend for new subversive site names?

What about if I chose to call my site one of the following? You can't patent the word 'pod'...

www.wikipod.com

www.multipod.com

www.spaghettipod.com

 

[EvilMole]

Including "New York®". How the hell does a corporation get to make the name of a state a registered trademark? Does Rand-McNally have to pay royalties to Apple whenever they print a map?

That's a great example of how people misunderstand trade marks. A trade mark doesn't give you power of the use of a word or phrase: It protects you solely within a particular context, and where there's evidence that using it might confuse people.

In this case, the New York trademark covers a font. It doesn't prevent you making a sandwich called New York, or being the New York Yankees. And other people using the same phrase in a different context *doesn't* dilute Apple's trade mark.

It's why Apple only got into trouble with Apple Records when it started making machines capable of creating music, the context in which Apple (Records) had the trade mark.

In the case of the iPod, iPod is *so* unique that it's easy to argue that consumers would be confused, so I would have trouble arguing that setting up an "iPod Trucking Company" wasn't simply taking advantage of the Apple trade mark. Apple would argue that consumers would automatically assume it was something to do with them.

However, in the case of the iPod sites, there's little chance that consumers would assume this - unless it was designed to look like an Apple site. The sites could go to court, and might well win - but it's simply not worth the money.

It still makes Apple look ****** though. It doesn't need to defend its trademark in this way: it can simply grant them permission to use it if they acknowledge the trade mark.