Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming 392
eldavojohn writes "In what may be a case of trademark trolling, Apple has issued warnings to makers of other electronic devices containing the word 'pod.' Two companies have been asked to remove the word from their products. Why might this be a mean action by Apple? These two companies don't manufacture MP3 players as one would think would cause confusion. From the article:
Back in the day, if someone was calling an electronic device a 'pod,' I would have thought they were talking about Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods (which I believe have been around for a while). How come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming?"Profit Pod is a device that compiles data from vending machines, while TightPod manufactures slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products such as laptops and MP3 players.
Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
...
As to "how come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming"; sounds like a fallacious point to me, since the answer is pretty clear: they apparently chose not to "warn" anyone. Also, see the previous point above.
The iPod is practically on the cusp (if not already) of being one of those universal words that is synonymous with "portable music player" - and, in this case, not even because of the same reasons as Kleenex and Xerox, but because nearly all - over 92% [com.com] - of all hard drive-based portable music players actually are iPods.
So when Apple vigorously protects a mark of a product that is so well known and universally popular and desirable (yes, it is "desirable" to most people - that's why there are so many of them, at the price of entire entry level computer systems, no less), even when individual instances could be deemed questionable by others, is it any surprise?
Also, both of these products - Profit Pod and TightPod - are new products, released long after the iPod has been established; while it might be questionable that the former is could be mistaken for an iPod, the latter is an accessory for portable music players. And regardless, Apple needs to defend the mark against real or perceived threats, lest an entity in the future claim that Apple wasn't vigorously protecting it from even possible infringement.
For a mark and product as important as iPod, is it surprising that a company would be very thorough in protecting it? (Does this suck for smaller companies who might not have intended infringement, like Profit Pod? Yep. But if there is a possibility of non-defense in that instance ever being used against Apple as an argument that the mark wasn't properly defended, well, I'm sure you can at least understand the reasoning. Further, the "TightPod" was clearly chosen to play of iPod, unless you ca argue with a straight face that the word "Pod" was just coincidentally included on a protective cover for "portable music players".)
You know what they say about trademarks: protect them, or lose them [wikipedia.org] - especially in an environment where someone might claim the owner didn't protect it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Line 6 and Apple's iPod are both music-related; Line 6's pod products came first, so, really, Apple should be careful about the word "pod," because maybe the reason Line 6 didn't care is that the emphasis is on the i in iPod. (But, who knows, really.)
Line 6's stuff is nearly universally known among guitarists and bassists. "People who enjoy music" is simply a bigger market than "people who play guitars." Considering that, I'd say Line 6 has very good recognition (although their 'pod' products aren't as popular now as they once were... I think Zoom's cheaper copycats took care of that).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry but that is just stupid. Hmmmm, maybe just maybe they didn't feel a portable music player was in any related to their product. Face it: All Apple fanboi-ism in the world can't change the fact that this is total BS.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
it is an interesting point though, Line 6 didn't defend, so couldn't it be claimed that the "POD" is already in the public domain? in which case what are Apple defending? or does trademark law work in such a way that they can effectively steal one by defending it when another company doesn't?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In trademark law, a mark can be eroded and fall into the public domain but terms once in the public domain can also be turned into trademarks. "Apple" and "Macintosh" for example both existed before the Apple Computer
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
And trying to protect words that are used in everyday life is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone in their right mind is arguing for that. First "Windows" and now "Pod" what next, "Mouse"? "Can"? "Pen"?
Will Nintendo start warning people about using the word "Paper" because they have a successful Paper Mario franchise? This is bullshit of the highest degree, right up there with software patents.
If I want to start up a brand of frozen vegetables, I shouldn't have to worry if I wanna call them "Peas-In-A-Pod" for fear of legal issues from Apple. Next thing you know, they'll be taking Granny Smith to court because they call them "apples".
Invasion of the pod people (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Apple should be ridiculed about this as "invasion of the pod people", ala invasion of the body snatchers.
If this is about trademark law then it is the law that is wrong not our usage of common English words. Change the law not our heritage of the English language that is thousands o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but I can still call the windows in my house Windows. I could invent and patent a plastic window to install in your stomach to view what you've eaten and call it bodyWindows. People can create products that work WITH MS Windows like WindowBlind
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
iPods are well known by nearly everyone, even those who don't own one.
(And no, I'm not saying that some 95 year old might know what an iPod is, but the point is that people who know what an iPod is are almost universal in comparison with Line 6 pods. Even if you want to still call it a "market", the iPod's "market" is likely orders of magnitude, literally, larger than Line 6's, in terms of sheer numbers of people who know what each product is.)
Re: (Score:2)
In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:5, Informative)
If you want more evidence, read this article [sweetwater.com]: It's very popular among artists, to quote Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "Their products are used and endorsed by artists such as James Hetfield of Metallica, Matthew Bellamy of Muse, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, and The Edge of U2."
Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:5, Funny)
example usage I use all the time: "My family was hatched from pods."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? This is suspect. The iPod has a very distinctive appearance, and a certain aura about it. I can't imagine someone calling their dull black Sony mp3 player an "iPod" without being corrected. Honest question: have people really been using "iPod" this way?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Techy types and most people who read and post to slashdot would consider it ridiculous to call something that's not an iPod an iPod, but yes, it has gotten that universal in so
Re: (Score:2)
My mom calls her CDs "cassettes"
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
My mp3 player is an iAudio which I use almost exclusively for Ogg Vorbis files. Maybe Apple should also go after them for using the 'i'?
Will iRiver be sending me a new nameplate? (Score:2)
I suppose aPple could claim that the 'i' prefix means that iRiver is 'stealing' part of their name...
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
And what percentage of the cupboard space below the display shelves?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because there are exactly three different kinds of iPods, while there are umpteen-thousand other random players. The amount of something actually sold doesn't necessarily have any relationship to the amount of display space it has.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because things in the natural world are never enclosed in a protective pod.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, that's a serious question: you think that there was zero consideration for "iPod" in any context when that name was chosen?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that there was zero consideration for "iPod" in any context when that name was chosen?
If they wanted to capitalize on the name association with iPod in even the smallest way, even if no one ever "confused" the products, that could constitute infringement, no matter what the word "pod" means, in the dictionary or in nature.
The fact of the matter is, you could be correct in your assertion, but if there was any intent to play off of capitalize
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trademarks need to use Scrabble rules. Anything in common usage shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What pisses me off, is the name of the freaking product is "iPod", NOT "Pod".
Pod is a freaking WORD, not a NAME. I can't believe this damned discussion has to exist, shoot the lawyers, shoot em all!!! Take something as brutally simple and obvious as this and spew FUD until it is no longer so.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the brand recognition is important in a trademark dispute?
Re: (Score:2)
You know just as well as I do that the NAME iPod, both in terms of public recognition, and its status as a trademark, are inextricably intertwined.
I'd think you could at least think of a logic troll for me, wmf.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Next up would probably be iPodXTLive for DJs. Bring it on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the hell does this even mean? "dedicated music player devices"? I guess that includes transistor radios, boomboxes, cassette tape players, and turntables? Obviously, if you include all music players ever made in any category, Apple's market share is going to be a lot lower than the numbers they quote. But that hardly matters; they're not competing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these companies try to get people to call their product by its full name, including function, such as "Zamboni ice resurfacing machine" rather than just "Zamboni," and encourage people to call competitors' products by the actual product description ("ice resurfacing machine"). These campaigns are rarely successful, but the companies still try.
After all, genericization (that's probably not a real word) of a product name is really only the first step in commoditization of that product. After all, if you can't use your name to distinguish your product from anyone else's anymore, that product has essentially become a commodity, and that makes the competitive environment much more challenging. After all, when people buy tissues these days, how many are really loyal to the particular brand Kleenex anymore? How many people care if the personal casette player they buy is actually a Sony Walkman? Or that the copier they buy is actually a Xerox? Or the aspirin they buy is really Bayer Aspirin? And so on.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?
They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.
Apple's not in a good defensive, let alone offensive, position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The term is inaccurate, not to mention the implication is that internet-based media didn't exist before iPods. It's an internet broadcast. The only thing that qualifies as a podcast would be a broadcast using an iPod and a transmitter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?
Nothing. Podcast is just a word in the common language.
They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.
That actually wouldn't be a defense. If they were to sue, what they have to show is that the use of the word "pod" is likely to cause confusion in the eyes of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless & until you can show me how using the word pod in a name will stand up because Apple can claim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
there are numerous clients that can listen / download podcasts on the net.
personally i would LIKE podcasts to be renamed, the whole 'pod' part of the name confuses people to the point that they think that they can ONLY listen / watch (in the case of video podcasting) to these feeds in iTunes.
which of course, is a fallacy that apple would like to continue propogating i'm sure.
we have podcasts on a
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, at one point, Apple tried to snuff the first podcasting client, 'iPodder'.
So yeah. Quiet, fanboy. They didn't invent the GUI either.
Off topic: it was after WW1, not WW2 (Score:3, Informative)
revamped movie (Score:5, Funny)
Dave. Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
Hal. I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Dave. What's the problem?
Hal. Apple discovered my ties to IBM and issued a cease and desist order. You are no longer allowed to open the pod bay door.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Answers on a po(stcar)d =P
Re: (Score:2)
Much ado about nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website [tightpod.com] (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
Bingo. This sounds similar to the story about Google telling media organizations to be cautious about using the words "Google" and "google" now that "google" is in the OED. If you don't at least make an effort to defend, your options on even the most blatant cases get much more difficult.
Re:Much ado about nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, uh - you're thinking logically, try to think like a lawyer for a big company.
You want court cases where you've successfully defended your mark, so rather than go after a blatant case, you go after small, weak companies who are unlikely to afford a court defense. Bingo, another case won, to be used as proof that you've been vigorously defending your mark should you need to go up against a real competitor.
Its not exactly what I'd describe as ethical, but as most companies seem to do it, I'd say the solution lies in trademark law reform.
FryPod (Score:2)
BurgerKing has more money than Apple, so no. (Score:2)
Good for them! Let's take it to the next step.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good for them! Let's take it to the next step.. (Score:2, Funny)
This just in from Big Blue and the crunchy one... (Score:5, Funny)
Two major computer companies announced a lawsuit today against toilet manufacturer iBM...
I Did Some Research (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks to the internet archive, there is evidence of Line 6 having fully developed pods for sale during 2000 [archive.org] and 1999 [archive.org].
I mentioned this in the summary because I used to play bass pretty regularly and I recall around 2002 when all of the sudden these devices were the de facto standard for high quality multi-effects. Everyone came into the store I worked at asking for "pods." I recall when iPod came out that I was figuring there might be fall out but it never came. They're both associated with playing music but with completely different markets. I only wonder what logic Apple is using to sue these companies using the term Pods.
Afterall, there's a company called Pods that owns www.pods.com that rents pods for people to move their stuff in and that was established in 1998. I'm sure they've trademarked 'pod.' It's so funny how Apple is sending to cease and desist letters to companies when they should send themselves one. What a crazy double standard.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"You didn't sue us to defend your trademark against our use, so you've already lost it; now we're suing you to defend our trademark against your use"?
"Or maybe we can Beatle out a deal?"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
All we are saying is give peas a chance.
(They came in pods first.)
Ho ho ho, Green Giant.
Re: (Score:2)
If those other companies wanted to defend their marks, that was up to them. They chose not to. End of story.
Apple IS defending ITS mark against new products that came out long after the iPod mark was established. And the iPod is far, far, far more popular and universally well known than any of the other products you cite.
I'm amazed that you're even remotely surprised by this, or of all of what I noted above and here [slashdot.org] really does esca
Re: (Score:2)
The guy's *name" was Mike Rowe, but he obviously chose "Mike Rowe Soft" as a cute play on Microsoft, not just because he coincidentally chose to call his company/website that. Now, I'd be the first to agree that will probably never in anyone's wildest dreams be confused with Microsoft, just as Profit Pod will likely not be confused with iPod. But that's not the point: the point is someone, somewhere, at some point in the future, possib
Re: (Score:2)
They can't sue them because PODS (Portable On-Demand Storage) isn't in the same realm of consumer goods as the iPod. RTFA: Apple has issued warnings to makers of other electronic devices containing the word 'po
Re: (Score:2)
The Golden Rule, Corporate Style (Score:5, Informative)
Confusion? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like all Apple products, the user interface provides only the needed functions, and comes with only one button:
PROFIT Pod (pPod): Unlicensed name use detected, sending Cease and Desist.
PROFIT Pod (pPod): Press Button to file a motion.
Obvious answer (Score:5, Informative)
How come they aren't warning Apple about their iPod naming?
Because unlike Apple, they don't have a history of being overly litigious. Apple has sued or threatened to everyone from their own customers, to Google.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Okay, so Microsoft products crash from time to time. Let's call it tough love.)
well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark dilution (Score:5, Informative)
Though to be fair, Apple might have a case against a maker of MP3 player sleeves even without anti-dilution.
Their next move (Score:2, Funny)
Let them kill the whole third party accessory market. And anything evenly remoted related to Apple products. They're most likely not making money of these items.
Re: (Score:2)
(insert Mr. T joke here)
Next up... Apple sues God... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I know an IP lawyer who needs work. (Score:2, Funny)
He's behind on his 'Benz payments and could use the work defending someone. "McPod" should bring in McDonals and Apple into a lawsuit.
Thank you!
Why not sue Apple? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps my brain is too constrained by logic to understand.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Score:2)
To borrow a line from Lonesome Dove (Score:2)
Can Apple actually protect the term "Pod" (Score:2, Informative)
TM (Score:2, Interesting)
The Courts Require It (Score:4, Insightful)
This is definitely a case of "don't blame the player, blame the game."
Trade Mark i** (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
PODS (Score:2)
When I hear the word pod, I think of PODS [pods.com], Portable On-Demand Storage. iPod is a blatant ripoff of PODS, since the iPOD just "stores" your electronic crap, just like a POD stores your physical crap.
I think they should be able to trademark iPod, but not the word pod. Besides the pod has been in the dictionary [reference.com] for quite a long time.
No confusion at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Google any similar variant of the above search, and it is obvious how broad 'pod' reaches. Had the exclusions knocked out a significant percentage over just the single term, then Apple might have a point.
The company could have initially called their product the "Apple Pod" but they knew the protective measures of creating a new word. They cannot have it both ways -- consumers aren't being confused by POD.
Methinks Ubisoft Needs to sue Apple. (Score:2)
Apple Pushes World's First Interspecial Lawsuit (Score:3, Funny)
there is a far older pod (Score:3, Interesting)
Line 6 has been selling the pod since 1996
Personal Open Directory since the early 90's
Ipod since 2001
If I was Apple i'd be real careful with this strategy.
Pod people (Score:3, Funny)
Just keep referring to those dweebs with wires hanging out of their ears as "pod people". Laugh at them behind their back. They can't hear you. They can't even hear the bus that's about to run them over. Don't they look stupid? Too cool for school, too dumb for the real world.
Live by the hype, die by the hype
iZune (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iced tea.