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.

iPee Laws

[Silfax]

Was this a violation of iPee laws also?

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.

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: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: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: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.