Slashdot Mirror
Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming
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?"
...
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.
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.
Apple's afraid that the term ipod will become generic (genericided?). Suing random '*pod' named businesses show's they're 'actively defending' their mark.
Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.
For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
They've gone half-way, but now it's time to make SURE that the iPod's name will never be infringed upon. The next logical step is to not allow others to use any name beginning with the letter "i", ESPECIALLY a lower-case "i". Good for Apple, glad to see they're supporting free speech! Because I know that if I see a piece of technology with the word "pod" in it, it immediately becomes indistiguishable from an MP3 player.
Ride the skies
Hey, I did a bit of research on Line 6. According to Wikipedia, the iPod debuted on October 23, 2001 (or at least was unveiled).
Thanks to the internet archive, there is evidence of Line 6 having fully developed pods for sale during 2000 and 1999.
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.
My work here is dung.
When you were small, Apple Records could put the squeeze on you for being "Apple Computer". But when you get big, you get to do to unto others as once you hoped would not be done unto you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Rock is dead. Long live scissors and paper!
The problem is an absolutely stupid and misguided part of US trademark law called the Federal Anti-Dilution Act. This allows owners of famous marks to go after users of similar marks in any field, even fields where there would be no confusion. There's no doubt that "iPod" is a famous mark. It's the trademark winner-take-all act.
Though to be fair, Apple might have a case against a maker of MP3 player sleeves even without anti-dilution.
...for putting peas in a pod.
If you want more evidence, read this article: It's very popular among artists, to quote Wikipedia: "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."
My work here is dung.
The sad truth is that unless a trademark holder defends their trademark to a near insane degree courts in the last 30 years have shown a hair trigger willingness to rule that the trademark has moved into the public domain. The courts don't just take into evidence the infringement cases that a holder won but all the cases the holder filed. The courts consider the mere filing of the suit as evidence of defense of the trademark regardless of the merits of the case. Accused infringers will defend themselves by pointing out all possible cases of infringement in which the holder did not sue. As a result the trademark holder files a blizzard of suits, many if not most without strong merit, merely to demonstrated to the courts that they vigorously defend their trademark.
This is definitely a case of "don't blame the player, blame the game."
Two major computer companies announced a lawsuit today against toilet manufacturer iBM...
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net