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.

Comments

Who are they trying to play off of?

[LostCluster]

In Europe, there's also a telecomm company by the name of Orange. It appears their first selection of Apple Communications was the opposite of Orange, and now their second choice of Green is as well.

The original Apple

[Latent Heat]

Wasn't Apple Records the original "Apple." The Beatles became important enough to have their own record label (apart from their own stuff, that "Those were the days, my friend" song was the only thing they came out with). I suppose the name "Apple" was this kind of Beatles, perhaps John Lennon thing: never explained but meant to suggest getting back to nature or to first principles as in the apple in the Garden of Eden.

Harry Shearer and Eric Idles "Ruttles" had a record label named "Banana" as documented in "All You Need is Cash." Gosh I wish they should show that satire-special again -- it was such a hoot and one is sure to pick up more of the jokes a second time around.

I am hard pressed that if there wasn't an Apple record label with all of the feel-good associated with the Beatles that Jobs and Woz would have called their computer something else. Why do you suppose Apple Computer got a free ride? Yes, a computer company and a record label (at least at the time) were completely different businesses, but Jobs would be coy to suggest that his Apple had no connection to the Beatles Apple and that he wasn't trying to make a connection in people's minds.

Re:The original Apple

[nullard]

Don't forget, Apple Computer was sued by Apple Records over their name. Only when Apple Computer promissed never to enter the recording business were they allowed to keep the name. When the first Macintosh with a microphone shipped, they added a new system alert sound called sosumi. So sue me.

It's harder than you might think.

[Sheetrock]

Just about anything you can easily think of in English is bound to be claimed by someone out there. One-off attempts such as using a generic name appended to another generic name (X-Windows, Apple Telecommunications) are obviously coming under fire by the folks who own the generic names. Even making up something off the top of your head can open you to misfortune, because there are that many businesses out there.

Zlnasdng Telecommunications? Possible, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...

Name making business's

[Flamesplash]

A lot of large companies will higher a consulting firm to come up with a name for them.

NPR had a story about this a couple months ago about how hard it is to come up with a company name now adays. The main problem, as already stated, is that most english words are already taken. So actually finding a meaningful word or combination of words is really really hard.

When there are no real words left, the firm then gets to make up a word that brings out the values of the company, while not sounding to outlandish. It's actually rather interesting how random sounds put together can make someone thing a particular thing when it has no real basis in english. I'm guessing it's based a lot on roots and prefix's used in english.

All in all though, such a firm should be responsible for making sure the name is not already taken.

Legitimate dilution

[Theaetetus]

This is exactly what the trademark laws are set up for. Not for Apple Records vs. Apple Computers, or Apple Computers vs. Granny's Apple Stand, or Microsoft Windows vs. Newpro Windows...

In this case, the average - read

• not

a /. reader - would probably mistake Apple Computers and Apple Communications, and think they are related. Some middle-aged couple who knows nothing about computers and own an iMac would be more likely to go to Apple Communications for their internet connection because they think they're the same company.

To the trademark lawyers, we're a really insignifigant portion of the population - most people really know next to nothing about computers.

-T

Ah

[MacAndrew]

I read a bit of the Bayer site, which says:

Today, Aspirin® is a registered trademark of Bayer AG in Germany and more than 80 other countries. In countries where Aspirin® is not protected by trademark status, such as the United States, the term Aspirin® can be used generically for all products containing the active substance acetylsalicylic acid. However, genuine Aspirin®, renowned the world over, is only available with the Bayer Cross.

But this site claims:

After WWI the trademark was lost by Germany in the USA, UK and France (the victors) where aspirin has entered the language as a generic name. In 1994 Bayer bought back the Bayer Aspirin trademark in the USA from Sterling Drug, who had held it since 1918.

I suppose it is "Bayer Aspirin" that is trademarked. Interesting.

And my original point about genericide stands. Try thermos or trampoline or kerosene.

trademarking

[prell]

I think this, and the "Windows" debacle earler this week, are an example of what I consider a flaw in the current laws. I dont think a company should be able to use just some random noun as their company/product name. Noun combinations are another issue, but naming something "Apple" or "Windows" is ridiculous.

"Apple Computer" should be considered the full name, and if some guy wants to make "Apple Teleco," thats a completely different company, and I defy you to find more than 1% of people who would make the mistake.. and even if they did make the mistake, what does that hurt? "Hi, I want to buy one of those new ibooks" 'oh, no thats Apple Computer. www.apple.com.'

Again, along with things like corporations operating sweatshops in other countries, big companies have WAY too much power. I don't think the founders had the postmodern era in mind 230 years ago, when industry was still relatively local and nascent. I think two things need to happen: a) analysis and updating of current laws, b) multi-national corporations/companies need to be held up to OUR laws, not the laws of the target nation (which is essentially a colony to the corporation by current laws). Part (b) is also another way we can start to "grow up" and face globalization, and be less hypocritical when we say we're an advanced culture.

My $0.02

Why do you think there is a difference?

[sjbe]

For-profit companies that remain viable entities do so because they understand that the primary purpose of a corporation is to make money. Understanding this clarifies why they act the way they do. If they can make money by being decent to people, then they will do that. If being complete jack-holes will make money, then they will do that. Note that these are not necessarily exclusive, companies can be both in different situations or even to different groups of people at the same time.

Apple is no different than any other corporation. Sometimes it is in their "interest" to be nice and sometimes it isn't. But you can understand why if you understand their purpose. (even if you disagree with what they do) Apple doesn't exist to make you feel warm and fuzzy. If they do, it is only because it is in their financial interest to do so.

Uh?`

[2nd Post!]

Except Gates *isn't* the lesser of two evils.

Right now, in our reality, he is the greater of two evils.

*If* Apple were in Microsoft's position, they *might* be the greater evil. Since they are not, they *aren't* the greater evil, only the *lesser* evil.

Apple Communication and Apple Computers both sell web space, email addresses, and online storage. Whether that's enough to litigate over, I won't decide since I am neither Apple company.

However, Apple Computer did eventually infringe on Apple Records by allowing Macs to operate as recording studios. Apple Records and Apple Computers came to an agreement, as have Apple Computers and Apple nee iGreen. If, later, iGreen 'flaunts' the agreement as Apple Computers did, that's up to iGreen to face the consequences, isn't it?

But Apple Computers *did* settle with Apple Recording, after all. Don't forget that bit.