Apple Vs Pod

Entil'Zha

Apple cracks down on use of the word 'pod'

[url]http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2164984/apple-goes-pod-makers[/url]

Apple has stepped up its legal crackdown on businesses using the word 'pod' in product and company names.

The company sent a cease-and-desist order last week to Podcast Ready, which markets an application known as myPodder that lets users download podcasts directly to a portable music player.


***
Next Up, Apple to sue Arthropods, and to petition the Government to force everyone in the world to stop eating pea pods, flowers must also stop producing seed pods.

Sanfam

Well, legally it does make sense. the term Pod in the sense that it is used is a trademark of Apple. Same for iPod. If one does not keep up in defending these trademarks, well...you know the way things go.

Entil'Zha

Oh i know, but i always like having a little fun at apple's expese.

Biggles

But have they actually trademarked the term "pod"? If they haven't then they may not have much of a case unless people are using their actual trademarked names like iPod.

Sanfam

I actually believe they have. On top of that, they do have some legal grounding to persue derivative works even if it lacks the 'i.' hell if I can cite why at this freakin' hour :P

Rogue Trader

its just funny when Apple whose name is taken from another company sues people for using the word pod.

Biggles

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Sanfam [/i]
[B]I actually believe they have. On top of that, they do have some legal grounding to persue derivative works even if it lacks the 'i.' hell if I can cite why at this freakin' hour :P [/B][/QUOTE]

If it's a competitor in the same market, they do.

Entil'Zha

But if some organic farmer wanted to call their veggie the pPod ...

Sanfam

First off, that'd be a stupid product and they'd be beaten for it. ;)

Freejack

A trademark is not the exculsive rights to a specific word, its the right to use a specific word in a specific context.

For Apple to have grounds to pursue those using the word Pod, they need to be in the same industry, or there has to be intent to leverage Apples trademark or IP to sell products.

Example of two products existing with the same trademark, say a Chevy Impala and and excersize machine called the Impala. In that instance, the word Impala could be trademarked by both manufacturers. Now if the company making the excersize machine were to attempt to mimic the Impala logo, the GM would have grounds to persue...

Jake

Entil'Zha

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]A trademark is not the exculsive rights to a specific word, its the right to use a specific word in a specific context.

Jake [/B][/QUOTE]

So my question becomes, how did Apple get away with their Nano, when Creative had the Zen Nano out first ( i believe)

Freejack

It could be one of several things...

1. It could be that creative never licensed the word Nano

2. It could be the word nano, in the context of small portable electronic devises was in fair use prior to Creative, and therefore it could not be trademarked

3. A third party had trademarked nano prior, but did not "defend" or use the trademark and therefore it became a fair used word.

Jake

Lord Refa

What about the pod people? What will happen to them now? :S

Entil'Zha

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lord Refa [/i]
[B]What about the pod people? What will happen to them now? :S [/B][/QUOTE]


They'll have to go back to Mars and stop their snatching.

Random Chaos

I find this hipocritical of Apple, considering their use of the name "Apple" and all the legal wrangling that the other "Apple" company has done with them.

Freejack

One of the issues is that in our legal system, if you do not defend your trademark against minor or indirect infractions, it becomes more difficult to defend it against major or direct infractions.

Jake