Apple Sues Over iGasm Ads

funkeymonkeyman writes "Apple is less than pleased with an interesting new peripheral for the iPod which promises to 'take your appreciation of music to a whole new level.' Legal action has been taken against Ann Summers, the manufacturers of the new device, specifically for the similarity of the iGasm advertisements to the iconic iPod silhouette ads. The CEO of the adult retail chain replied to the threat cheerily, 'Perhaps I can send them an iGasm to put a smile back on their faces.'"

Comments

Only suing vibrators?

[adona1]

Personally, I'm surprised they haven't started suing the iGoatse...which almost makes me wish I had an iPod ;)

The iGasm is ok, but....

[appleguru]

...the OhMiBod vibrator rocks its socks off ;) I got one for my girlfriend for her birthday this year and I've been seeing less of her ever since. http://www.ohmibod.com/

Don't forget the tv ad

[cbuskirk]

http://adsoftheworld.com/node/10351/play

Re:I don't know about you

[Rude Turnip]

How about...i'llgetfiredprobablytomorrowforfollowingaN SFWlinkfarkyouneal

Ann Summers

[Animats]

If you haven't spent much time in the UK, you may not realize that Ann Summers is a major retail chain, with hundreds of sex shops. It's like Victoria's Secret in the US, but harder-core.

TM details FWIW

[chub_mackerel]

Some clarity on TM, at least in US...

No, you can't trademark a style.

You can trademark almost anything that creates a connection in a consumer's mind between a product/service and its origin. Historically this has included logos, words, sounds (Harley Davidson's engine noise), images, even colors (Corningware's "pink" insulation), shapes of products (Weber Grill), type of decoration in a restaurant, called "trade dress" (Taco Cabana).

If whenever you see commercials of a certain "style" and you think "Apple/iPod", then the style is likely trademark material. If another company's using the same style to sell a similar/related product (as opposed to engaging in satire or public comment which is more protected) then I'd put my money on the trademark holder.

...You also have to apply for a trademark(unlike copyright where it's automatically a given)...

Wrong again, at least in the US. Most trademark rights come from using the trademark, not from applying for it. The Trademark office register the mark for you, which gives you some considerable procedural advantages (hence there is a process sort of like patent application that you need to go through), but there's no requirement to register your mark in order to have a trademark. All of which is probably beside the point in this instance, since I bet Apple registered something related to whatever they're suing over.

Re:TM details FWIW

[jabuzz]

Perhaps, but Ann Summers is a U.K. firm so US law and practice will have no bearing whatsoever in a U.K. court of law.

Here's the image

[Ed Avis]

iGasm poster that Apple complained about

Re:I don't know about you

[cenonce]

The ad is not a parody and to suggest that it is simply because it is posted on Slashdot (where everything is "fair use", "prior art" and "parody"!) is nonsense. For a parody defense to work, she needs to be making some kind of commentary about the original product. She is actually advertising her product for use with an iPod! Read a case like Acuff-Rose for parody in copyright. If she is taking Apple's "sillhouette ads" and copying them to advertise her "device", it is copyright infringement, pure and simple. Heck, she could be advertising tires and it would be copyright infringment.

Copyright, not trademark

[maroberts]

As far as I can tell, Apple is upset over the copying of the advert, not so much the device itself.

A recent UK Court of Appeal case has significantly narrowed the scope of Trademark protection, essentially stating that the public are savvy enough to recognise that the use of the same trademark in two different markets is not "passing off". However, this defense may be slightly scuppered by the ad, which does attempt a form of "passing off" and association.

The main complaint really seems to be blatant copying of the ad, and is therefore a Copyright issue. As others have stated, parody is not (officially) a defense in UK Copyright law, but taking the mickey has long been recognised unofficially. A classic example was the "Made In Wales" series of adverts which was parodied by the "Not the Nine O'Clock News" comedy show. The parody was so good , that it was alleged the Welsh Development Agency showed them to real potential clients alongside the original adverts. Also the term "Fair Use" does exist in UK law, and this may perhaps be construed to include parody.