Slashdot Mirror
The Apple Name Game
Apple Core sent a link to an article running in Australia about Apple fighting for their name with some little telco called Apple Communications. Well, they were called that. Now they are Green.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I seem to remember Apple has been through a name fight before...
I of course meant the Beatles record label - Apple Corp. (Must remember to use preview).
They are one of the VERY few companies offering unlimited broadband downloads in a country full of 3 Gig caps.
-----
slashdot needs a google topic catagory
Actually the connection is both are in the IT industry and in one industry its bad to have the same name as another company. It actually is possible for people to mistake the telecom company for the computer manufacturer.
Not to mention that the telecom would indirectly benefit from Apple Inc's advertising...etc.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
They may neglect to mention a certain Apple Records that they had to pay off to stay in business. From what I have been told, the very famous MacOS sound "SoSuMi" was derived from that experience. "So sue me."
And how quickly they turn the other cheek.
They used to be:
Applecomm.com.au, but on the frontpage there is an announcement regarding the settlement and the change to iGreen.
I can certainly forgive them for their apples being sour.
The only upside of this is if Apple Communications would have become an ISP (not entirely far fetched). The name Apple Internet Access or Apple Broadband could certainly be too close for comfort, and would enjoy at least a small amount of probable name association; the very thing these sorts of suits are trying to protect against. It's a tough situation on either end of the boot.
--jay
Nanny Ogg and Vorbis (can't remember his full name off hand) are characters from Terry Prachett's DiskWorld series.
I know the attorneys, and the company that employs them, look like assholes when they zealously protect the name -- a reason I couldn't do this kind of work -- but they have to or they'll get screwed in court by someone else. Look at the MS problem with Windows -- Lindows et al. with delicious irony retaliate by attacking all Windows branding. Note that one step in their argument was to submit a list of companies using Window in their name apparently without interference from MS. MS may have blown it, a major catastrophe for them. (Personally I think the name Lindows walks the line of -- a lot of "ordinary people" might reasonably think it's a Microsoft product.) The same could happen to Apple -- every company named Apple could be a nail in the coffin of the trademark.
As someone here has probably mentioned, Apple had early problems with Apple Records, Lennon's company IIRC, and settled by promising not to get into the music business. They got sued when they started doing MIDI; I'm not sure how that was resolved.
So, they do come across as assholes, and maybe they are, but they are trying to protect legitimate business interests, not just flex corporate muscle. Pretty much every case looks like intemperate bullshit, but that's how it works because a trademark dies the death of a thousand cuts. Look at cellophane and aspirin and the other famous lapsed trademarks. A protected trademark, unlike copyright, is immortal.
There are some things about being an 800 lb. gorilla that just have to smell bad. I don't like it -- just check out the sprawling list of reserved names, some not even in use on the Apple site. Microsoft much have an even longer one.
Anything you don't sue can and will be used against you in a court of law. Branding does protect the consumer, and keeps ripoff artists at bay, but I would welcome a solution to these petty skirmishes. Perhaps it would make sense to license the name out under the right circumstances of honest overlap, without waiver of Apple's primary rights. I don't know whether this is done, though I can imagine some pitfalls.
No it didn't. It was from the Apple Records case.
What you are thinking of is when Apple used "Carl Sagan" as an internal code word for a product and the real Carl Sagan sued (or threatened to sue). So they changed it to "BHA" which stood for "Butt Head Astronomer". Sagan then sued (or at least threatened to sue) again and then finally changed it to LAW "Lawyers are Wimps."
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
It is not a generic term and MS already has a trademark for the name.
I think there is a fundamental misconception for what generic means. A term can be generic for one type of goods but not generic for another type. For example, apple is generic with respect to produce, but not with respect to computers. Window is generic with respect to transparent glass, but not with respect to operating systems.
A term is generic if people use the term to refer to an item. For example, people sometimes attempt to use Xerox to refer to photocopying or FedEx to refer to overnight delivery. Those companies thus try very hard to make sure people don't use those names in that manner. Nobody uses the term Windows to generically refer to software. So those who say that the term is generic are mistaken. It is true that windows are a common feature in operating systems, but it is not a common name in operating systems.
No I am not an IP lawyer
We can tell.
"A lot of large companies will higher a consulting firm"???
You mean "A lot of large companies will hire a consulting firm" I presume.
That's what lawyers are actually for (rather than sueing everything that moves). A quick trademark search in the exact industry isn't enough these days and anyone who gets an off the shelf company planning to be the next big thing should perhaps budget in some good trademark lawyers in there formation plans. There are words, combinations of words, and made up words out there. Creativity may be needed but checking definately is.
I agree with the origional comment. Three years back he formed a company called "apple xxxxxx" working in an area quite closely bound to hardware and software developement/sales. Cry me a river.
also indigo was NOT the brand name of the computer apple was selling. it was just the name of the color on the outer shell.
The Apple Communications logo was similarly not a squillion miles away from the Apple Computers logo. Even I was confused for a few seconds the first time I saw their ads - "What's this cheap arsed thing that Apple's gotten into?" were the exact words that bounced through my head.
I'm glad that Apple Computers pursued this one - Anyone who has the naivety to name an electronics/communications company "Apple" in the last few years can only blame themselves if they are eventually called on it.
If a mattress manufacturer developed a new very very soft matress and called themselves Micro-Soft Matresses they wouldn't get away with it.
IANAL, but some of the business-related law study I have done suggests that they would be able to get away with it.
In Australia, trademarks only apply within the industry in which they are registered; this is why Apple Computer could not challenge the validity of the trademarking of Apple International Motor Inn (as mentioned in the story) -- the rationale is that they are not competitors, and so their respective trademarks serve different markets and are not likely to cause conflict or confusion. So, a mattress manufacturer could register a trademark for Micro-Soft mattresses and reasonably and legally resist a challenge from The Beast.
In the case of Apple Communications vs. Apple Computers though, I would think that the potential for conflict was very clear (since they are operating in very closely related industries, at least in most people's minds) so trademarks would kick in at that point.
SofaMan -- Occasionally Battling Evil With His Mighty Powers Of Indolence.
It was called eWorld, and it died quietly because nobody wanted it. It would have been similar to AOL, except not annoying.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;