Apple Doesn't Appreciate Toilet Humor

beaver1024 writes "I doubt if Apple lawyers even contemplated the irony as they slapped a small Australian company producing camping equipment with a lawsuit for trademark violations. Sea to Summit makes a product that assists in the disposal of human excrement, calling it iPood. Apple thinks that 'For obvious reasons, Apple's reputation for clean design and high-tech electronics will suffer should it be associated with latrines and the like through Sea to Summit's use of iPood.' If only Sea to Summit had the resources to fight this in court. Alas, we are witnessing yet another sign of the corrupted nature of IP laws in Australia and internationally."

Comments

iPood

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how easy it is to flush the cache.

Low hanging fruit

[Reilaos]

I can't tell which company is more full of shit.

Re:iLaughed

[Talderas]

iLaughed because they don't like the latrine/bathroom link to their products failing to realize that the iPad has forever been linked to feminine hygiene products.

iPee Laws

[Silfax]

Was this a violation of iPee laws also?

Re:iPee Laws

[rHBa]

IANAL but my understanding was that if you are in a totally different market (i.e electronics vs. outdoor equipment) that it was hard to prove trademark infringement.

For example, I used to work for a small (<10 employees) English company called Typhoon that imported/distributed oriental cookware. We got sued by the makers of Typhoo Tea because our logo and name were too similar. Our company won primarily because the court decided that nobody would confuse a wok with a tea bag.

Now who in their right mind would confuse... Ah!

Re:iPee Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

iAnal but ...

FTFY

Re:bullPoo

[Anonymous Coward]

> What the hell is wrong with Apple not wanting its products associated with poo?

Trademarks are only valid for a specified product category or line of business.

See, for example, Canon EOS cameras and Volkswagen Eos cabriolet cars; there is no trademark case to answer as the product types are discrete and unambiguous.

A good example of a trademark conflict would be Apple adopting the iOS product name when Cisco already held IOS as a trademark for an operating system, so the two companies came to an agreement. But if I developed an umbrella I could name it IOS with no legal qualms, other than for overly-litigious Californian companies.

Re:bullPoo

[beelsebob]

Maybe apple are trying to assert that their products are shit, and hence part of the same line of business.

Wat

[Iburnaga]

Now I am personally an Apple hater. But can someone explain to me how Apple can remotely get away with bullying a company out of a different name for a completely different product?

Re:Wat

[SETIGuy]

But can someone explain to me how Apple can remotely get away with bullying a company out of a different name for a completely different product?

Apple has lots of money.

Re:Wat

[Locke2005]

The purpose for Trademark law is to prevent product confusion. In suing this company, Apple is implicitly asserting that their product is indistinguishable to the consumer from another product used for shoveling shit. Personally, I can see the huge potential for confusion.

Trademarks are not absolute

[bk2204]

The thing that Apple doesn't seem to get is that trademarks are designed to prevent confusion among products in the same field. If the iPood played music or was electronic in any way, Apple might have a leg to stand on. But nobody is rationally going to think that a trowel can in any way be confused with a portable music player. Not only are the products in question completely different, but so are the respective companies' fields of endeavor. Confusion is not possible here.

Re:Trademarks are not absolute

[VisiX]

This is only true when the product you are fighting is related to the product that is trademarked (like Kleenex and other tissue brands). People already refer to all MP3 players as iPods anyway, so in my mind Apple already lost this fight. In any case, they are in danger of losing their trademark because a portable latrine exists with a similar but different name. Even if it was called iPod exactly they still shouldn't have a case because it does not play music or surf the web, it doesn't even appear to be a powered device.

They deserved it

[Wiarumas]

*Insert complaints about how businesses bully common folk and how copyright and IP are BS yada yada yada*.

I agree, but the merciless side of me thinks they deserved it just for the fact of their lack of creativity. I am getting sick of all these things that come up with a product and just slap an i in front of it. Seriously, take another 15 minutes and brainstorm a bit longer.

You have to defend trademarks no matter how silly

[qazwart]

To understand this, you must understand how trademarks work: If you fail to defend a trademark, you will lose it.

Imagine a company called ElectronCo coming up with a new electronic doodad and calling it an "iPud". Apple sues claiming that the name iPud is too close to iPod and iPad, and thus it is a trademark violation, and will confuse the consumer.

If ElectronCo can show that Apple knew about the iPood, and didn't defend its trademark against that, Apple could actually lose the case.

Therefore, companies spend lots of time and effort defending their trademarks from all possible rivals no matter how ridiculous or silly it may look.

Re:iLaughed

[MasterClown]

That joke stinks.

Descartes just got an iwarning

[Hoi Polloi]

"I think therefore I am"

Dear sir, your quotes "ithink" and "iam" are similar to Apple trademarks and are a violation...

Re:bullPoo

[SETIGuy]

It doesn't matter whether it's desirable for Apple. Apple doesn't have legal grounds to stop them from using the iPood name. So Apple is stopping them using financial means.

Re:A travesty, except for one thing...

[VisiX]

They thought it was a funny name and it is, I doubt it was anything more than that. Didn't Apple already lose a lawsuit where they claimed they owned the idea of the small i in front of a word?