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.
Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
...
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% [com.com] - 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 [wikipedia.org] - especially in an environment where someone might claim the owner didn't protect it.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)
Really? This is suspect. The iPod has a very distinctive appearance, and a certain aura about it. I can't imagine someone calling their dull black Sony mp3 player an "iPod" without being corrected. Honest question: have people really been using "iPod" this way?
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
Techy types and most people who read and post to slashdot would consider it ridiculous to call something that's not an iPod an iPod, but yes, it has gotten that universal in some circles. My point, however, is that in some markets, like the US, it's actually hard to find people who have portable music players that aren't iPods (again, the slashdot crowd is far more likely to contain people who would immediately say "Not true! I have XYZ Music Player running Linux, and blah blah blah."
Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard (Score:5, Interesting)
TM (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry but that is just stupid. Hmmmm, maybe just maybe they didn't feel a portable music player was in any related to their product. Face it: All Apple fanboi-ism in the world can't change the fact that this is total BS.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
it is an interesting point though, Line 6 didn't defend, so couldn't it be claimed that the "POD" is already in the public domain? in which case what are Apple defending? or does trademark law work in such a way that they can effectively steal one by defending it when another company doesn't?
No confusion at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Google any similar variant of the above search, and it is obvious how broad 'pod' reaches. Had the exclusions knocked out a significant percentage over just the single term, then Apple might have a point.
The company could have initially called their product the "Apple Pod" but they knew the protective measures of creating a new word. They cannot have it both ways -- consumers aren't being confused by POD.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
Trademarks need to use Scrabble rules. Anything in common usage shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
there is a far older pod (Score:3, Interesting)
Line 6 has been selling the pod since 1996
Personal Open Directory since the early 90's
Ipod since 2001
If I was Apple i'd be real careful with this strategy.
Re:Yeah... (Score:1, Interesting)
Me: "No, I wanted a good high quality music player, something that didn't suck. Also, I'm not a consumerist whore"
Re:The Golden Rule, Corporate Style (Score:2, Interesting)