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 know at least one person is going to bash me for this, but if you were founding a company, wouldn't you try to come up with an original name? I mean, there are a telecommunications company, so it is possible that they could be mistaken for Apple.
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.
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.
With names like Ogg and Vorbis it is much easier to establish a trademark given that they are completely invented name (oh! wait! Maybe they are words in another langage?). And given the controversy inside Free Software circles it gives them much marketing for free.
BTW, on close view I am for Apple on this one, I really think they will win against Apple
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Zlnasdng Telecommunications? Possible, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue...
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
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
Apple is only obligated to go after trademark infringements by companies that are in similar industries. So, of course, they're not going to go after your local grocery store, carpet cleaning services, towing companies, maid services, or whatever else stuck "Apple" in their name so they'd be in the front of the phone book.
But a telecommunications company is fair game since Apple does telecommunications. With the convergence of computers and traditional telephony (e.g. VoIP, modems, 2.4 GHz wireless, DSL), the two industries are becoming basically the same thing these days.
Remember that Apple has one of the top 10 most recognized trademarks, and there are a lot of companies that wish to make some money (through name recognition) off that trademark. At the same time, they hope to mount a sympathy defense by citing how small they are.
I think he certainly knew what what he was doing when he named his company. I wouldn't be surprised if he hoped that Apple would buy him out to settle the naming rights in Australia (much the same way Microsoft did with "Internet Explorer), but they already had the global naming rights. After that didn't happen, he probably figured a $100,000 settlement is pretty cheap to get nationwide publicity for his company. He gets a newspaper article about him, and the sympathy of misguided trademark-haters around the world.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
...going to be over their choice of domain name: iGreen.com.au. These guys must enjoy being in court.
Internet copyright lawyers are generally iTools about stuff like this.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
I'm concerned that Linux is not going to make it to the big time for one simple reason. While coders are working on the system, developers are writing applications, and the press is writing about Linux, there is no concerted effort by a central group that is pursuing important lawsuits against those who use the word "Linux," the syllable "lin," or the letter L in their product names. Further, the penquins at are zoo are labeled as such without any notice that they are not related to or shareholders of a Linux company. I for one am confused by these misleading names and animals and I am sure that if they aren't stopped, and I mean soon, Linux is sure to fade into obscurity.
Can't someone do anything about this problem before it's too late? And why isn't Linus leading the legal fight? What's he got that is more important to work on?
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
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.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
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.
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.
t'nera semordnilap
The growth of the Internet also makes it possible to hear about stories that otherwise might not have been reported stateside. I mean, this was a rather minor case that happened half the world away from the USA, yet it's being reported on a USA-centric site. Just like other news events, we seem to think that the frequency an event happening is the same as the frequency of the media reporting the event. Last year's "increase" in child abductions was such a case, actual cases did not increase, but the rollout of the Amber Alert system in many states gave police a process that notifed all of the local news outlets. Suddenly, child abductions went from a story in segment B of the newscast to a breaking story that disrupted programming. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all have deals with groups of local stations take from their coverage, so a local special report can quickly go national on a slow news day. The public sees several reports on child abductions in a short time frame and thinks there's a crisis going on, when really the risk of the tradegy hasn't changed or is being driven down because a once ignored problem is getting so much attention.
Woz was SORT of okay? I mean the guy is brilliant, yet very humble. If it weren't for him, there would be no Apple today, yet he still gets paid around $50k a year. If you read about things that Woz has done, like giving his stocks away to other apple empoyees who missed out on the IPO, and teaching computer classes for poor kids you start to realize that Woz is probably a much better guy than most of us (no "sort of" about it).
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
In this case, the average - read
- not
aTo the trademark lawyers, we're a really insignifigant portion of the population - most people really know next to nothing about computers.
-T
But this site claims:
I suppose it is "Bayer Aspirin" that is trademarked. Interesting.
And my original point about genericide stands. Try thermos or trampoline or kerosene.
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.
Interesting to note that Apple leaves alone people like Apple Auto Glass here in Canada -- different industry!
We should be more concerned with the ownership of generic words at the DNS level which is the real trademark travesty these days.
The thing about trademarks are you MUST defend them or you will lose them. One instance where you could have reasonably known of the existance of trademark ingringement where you don't defend will strip you of your trademark. Its that simple.