Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming 392
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:
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?"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.
I Did Some Research (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks to the internet archive, there is evidence of Line 6 having fully developed pods for sale during 2000 [archive.org] and 1999 [archive.org].
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.
The Golden Rule, Corporate Style (Score:5, Informative)
Obvious answer (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Trademark dilution (Score:5, Informative)
Though to be fair, Apple might have a case against a maker of MP3 player sleeves even without anti-dilution.
In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:5, Informative)
If you want more evidence, read this article [sweetwater.com]: It's very popular among artists, to quote Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "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."
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
My mp3 player is an iAudio which I use almost exclusively for Ogg Vorbis files. Maybe Apple should also go after them for using the 'i'?
Can Apple actually protect the term "Pod" (Score:2, Informative)
That being said Apple is probably just trying to cast a wide net in trying protect it's iPod trademarks. I think that the precedent set by other products( I have a Game Pod sitting on my desk that I got back in 98 that has 40 different card games) that pod generically defines any product that is compact in nature.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Informative)
Off topic: it was after WW1, not WW2 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Informative)
I use vacuum, though my mother uses "hoover". And I'm Irish, not British, my Canadian friend. :p
Paracetamol is an international, non proprietary name, while acetaminophen is unique to the US, AFAIK. Both are abbreviations of the chemical name.
Re:Yeah... (Score:1, Informative)
If it was a story about any other company, you wouldn't even bother to read it, let alone post more than 20 replies. Don't want to be labeled a fanboy or a shill? Don't act like one.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Informative)
Unless & until you can show me how using the word pod in a name will stand up because Apple can claim it came from iPod and not from the pod in podCast, you won't have a case.[1] If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see logic beyond ukase or fiat.
I don't think you understand how trademark law works.
"Podcast" isn't being claimed as a trademark by Apple. Anybody can use the word, as a normal word in normal conversation, with no problems.
However, when you go to sell something under a brand name, infringement happens if there is a significant chance of consumer confusion between your product and an existing product, or if your brand is likely to dilute the distinctive qualities of a famous trademark. Where you got the name makes no difference. If you wanted to sell the podPlayer, the courts would most likely rule that you're using a name that dilutes the iPod mark and prevent you from doing so. You can't say, "But I got the name from something else", they don't care. It's not like copyright where there's a legal prohibition of derivative works, the mark being a derivative or not isn't a factor.
Specifically, 15 USC 1114 prohibits, in part, "use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" where 15 USC 1127 says "The term 'colorable imitation' includes any mark which so resembles a registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive."
Also, 15 USC 1125 says, in part, "The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection."
You can see that there's no requirement that the infringing mark be a derivative of the original, all that matters is that the two are similar.