Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the podcaster's-nightmare dept.

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:
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.
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?"

14 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...because "Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods" were even remotely anywhere near the ballpark of being as well, universally, and ubiquitously known as "iPod", either "back in the day" or now.

    ...

    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% - 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 - especially in an environment where someone might claim the owner didn't protect it.

    1. Re:Yeah... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The iPod is practically on the cusp (if not already) of being one of those universal words that is synonymous with "portable music player"

      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?

      --
      Apology to Ubuntu forum.
    2. Re:Yeah... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, some people who have music players that aren't iPods answer, "Yes," when asked "Do you have an iPod?" because it's universally known and simpler than saying "Yes, well, no, I do have a music player, but it's not an iPod, it's something else. I wanted an iPod, but I guess my parents got suckered into the wrong thing at Walgreens."

      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 some circles. My point, however, is that in some markets, like the US, it's actually hard to find people who have portable music players that aren't iPods (again, the slashdot crowd is far more likely to contain people who would immediately say "Not true! I have XYZ Music Player running Linux, and blah blah blah."

    3. Re:Yeah... by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Also, it doesn't really matter if Line 6's products came first: they clearly didn't do anything to defend the mark in the context of the iPod mark, period, so the point is moot.

      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.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    4. Re:Yeah... by joe+155 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Also, it doesn't really matter if Line 6's products came first: they clearly didn't do anything to defend the mark in the context of the iPod mark, period, so the point is moot."

      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?

      --
      *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    5. Re:Yeah... by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, I'm arguing with a straight face that the word "pod" is from both a textbook definition and a marketing perspective, a perfect label for "slip-on covers designed to protect electronic products"

    6. Re:Yeah... by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would it be OK if they made cases for things besides mp3 players? Because if you check their site it seems they only make covers for laptops. So I'm thinking the iPod wasn't a consideration in their brand, their focus appears to be laptops.

      Trademarks need to use Scrabble rules. Anything in common usage shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked.

    7. Re:Yeah... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The funny thing is that many people here seem to think I'm assuming that Apple doing this is the greatest thing ever. If you'll look at some of the other highly-moderated comments to this story, they note this isn't really an Apple problem, this is a problem of the way US trademark law works: if it can ever possibly be shown you didn't vigorously defend, you can lose a whole broad scope of rights. I agree with you about trademarks and common words. But the fact is that Apple has an extremely profitable, well known, and widely used product (at least in the market we're talking about here, which is the US). If Apple doesn't use a broad brush in aggressively defending against infringement, real or perceived, there is a very real chance that someone - or many "someones" - could come along and (successfully) claim that Apple didn't defend its mark in every instance is should have or could have. When so much is at stake, my only point was: is it any surprise Apple is doing this given the popularity of iPod and its importance to Apple, in the context of the current way US trademark dilution law works?

    8. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ignorant metrosexual hipster flashing his overhyped music player: "Do you have an iPod?"
      Me: "No, I wanted a good high quality music player, something that didn't suck. Also, I'm not a consumerist whore"

  2. Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard by Andrewkov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pod and iPod have totally different meanings. I could understand if Apple is worried about people using the term iPod, but Pod is a common word. What's next, Apple trying to stop people from using the word Book since it might be confused with iBook?

  3. TM by certel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do they had a trademark on the term 'Pod'?

    --
    [%] Cingular Ringtones
  4. No confusion at all by gotrootkit · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "pod -Apple -mp3 -iPod"

    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.

  5. there is a far older pod by grapeape · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Portable On Demand Storage (pods.com) has been around since 1998
    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.

  6. Re:The Golden Rule, Corporate Style by Wooji · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes Apple Core Music Inc. did take Apple Computers to court a couple of times, for name infringement& breaking an agreement. (But settled, $80,000.00 & $26,000,000.00) as long as Apple Computer stayed out of the music business. I think they have a suit pending against them now, because of the Ipod / Imusic business they are into now. So it would be sweet poetic justice if Apple Core would win again.