Remember the kerfuffle when Re/Max tried to block the trademark registration of rival real estate company Rehava? Well, they're not the only company that knows how to play hardball.
Consider Apple (yes, that Apple, fellow fanboys), whose lawyers are pursuing the "Pod" trademarks:
What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if its name ended in "pod," it might attract the ire of Apple's shark-like legal team.
Apple's obsession with the blockbuster success of its iPod has driven the corporation to chase down many companies attempting to use the media player's three-letter suffix in their product or business names. Names that have come under fire include MyPodder, TightPod, PodShow, and even Podium. On Monday, Sector Labs, a small business whose Video Pod trademark has been blocked by Apple, took legal action to fight back.
"It appears that Apple is not only trying to put an iPod in everybody's hands and white earbuds in everyone's ears but to control the use of our language and most particularly the word 'Pod,'" Sector Labs' lawyers wrote in a 239-page response to Apple's trademark opposition, which has blocked Video Pod's development. "If we are not careful, in Apple's quest for dominance, they will soon attempt to take over the words 'Phone' and 'Tunes' — let us hope they do not attempt a coup over the exclusive rights to the letter 'i'."
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/apple-calls-leg.html
After all of the whining that they did over "Evil Micro$oft" over the years you would think that they would be better.
Now that they have a little bit of the hammer, they're far worse than MS ever was.
I love when bad things happen to them in court.
PS. I just wish my iPhone and Macbook were made by less shameful creeps.
What about the storage containers PODS?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
What about the band P.O.D.?
What about the storage containers PODS?"
Or the maternity store, Pea in a Pod? They've been around for much longer than the iPod.
Apple just wants to cement their position as complete, total iDiots.
Much in the same way SONY learned in the 80s that they could copyright WALKMAN, but not WALK or MAN.
Personally I find the cult of apple repellent in their tactics and arrogance.
They throw their weight around with C&D orders banking on having deeper pockets than their opponents regardless of the validity of their case, which as they are not idiots they must be aware is bullshit.
Apple, all about innovation...yeah.
Trademark operates on an 'enforce it or lose it' standard. If a trademark holder doesn't take continuous and credible measures to protect their mark, they lose it. That's how 'kleenex' stopped being a brand name and became a generic term for 'snot-wiper'.
3M went ballistic to retain its rights to the term 'Velcro', and now you see products labeled 'hook and loop fastener' in the store. Chrysler-Daimler opened a crate of whoopass over the term 'Jeep', which is why we have a category of cars called 'sport utility vehicles'. In 2000, Yahoo! and the Australian actor/director Yahoo Serious had to go to court because the company applied for trademark over that term in the Australian entertainment market. A year or two ago, Google had to haul out the lawyers to keep the term 'Googling' from reducing their company name to a generic term for internet search.
So let's face it: the iPod brand name is phenomenally valuable. It's so valuable that a horde of people want to use the term without actually paying royalties to Apple. If Apple doesn't maintain a track record of being serious about finding and stopping anything that even /might/ be a violation, they risk having 'iPod' become as generic a term as 'kleenex'.
And if you don't think these companies are trying to catch a free ride on Apple's coat tails, ask yourself how they came up with a name that contains 'pod' in the first place. As an acid test, replace 'pod' with the name of some other MP3 player and see if the overall concept still holds:
- MyZuner
- TightZune
- ZuneShow
- Zunium
For the record I'm not particularly mad at Apple, I just wish people would stop treating it like some holier than thou company that is only out there to spread peace and love. (and music) Just like Microsoft, they are a big company so their lively hood is determined on whether they can make a buck.
Anyway, this would not be an attempt to control the word "pod" in all uses, but as used in association with a certain type of product or trade. That's how trademark works.
Like Mike Stone said, "And if you don’t think these companies are trying to catch a free ride on Apple’s coat tails, ask yourself how they came up with a name that contains ‘pod’ in the first place."
All the companies/products mentioned are using the "pod" prefix/suffix in association with Apple- or multimedia-related ventures, which is a definite violation of Apple's trademark. The band P.O.D., the storage containers called PODS and the maternity store Pea in a Pod are not, which is why Apple isn't going after them.
I believe podspeakers were here before Ipod...
Perhaps Apple will now have to hand over the rights to the name "pod" to Scandyna speakers... Or not...