Apple Warns Companies About 'Pod' Naming

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:

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.

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?"

Yeah...

...because "Line 6's Guitar and Bass pods" were even remotely anywhere near the ballpark of being as well, universally, and ubiquitously known as "iPod", either "back in the day" or now.

...

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:

...Escape Pod?

Re:Yeah...

No problem. TightPod can just rename their product the "TightSosumi". ;')

Also, Line 6 and Apple's iPod are both music-related; Line 6's pod products came first, so, really, Apple should be careful about the word "pod," because maybe the reason Line 6 didn't care is that the emphasis is on the i in iPod. (But, who knows, really.)

Line 6's stuff is nearly universally known among guitarists and bassists. "People who enjoy music" is simply a bigger market than "people who play guitars." Considering that, I'd say Line 6 has very good recognition (although their 'pod' products aren't as popular now as they once were... I think Zoom's cheaper copycats took care of that).

Re:Yeah...

"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."

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?

Re:Yeah...

Actually, it does matter.

And trying to protect words that are used in everyday life is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone in their right mind is arguing for that. First "Windows" and now "Pod" what next, "Mouse"? "Can"? "Pen"?

Will Nintendo start warning people about using the word "Paper" because they have a successful Paper Mario franchise? This is bullshit of the highest degree, right up there with software patents.

If I want to start up a brand of frozen vegetables, I shouldn't have to worry if I wanna call them "Peas-In-A-Pod" for fear of legal issues from Apple. Next thing you know, they'll be taking Granny Smith to court because they call them "apples".

In a Different Community, It Was The Standard

Listen, I played bass, I worked at a music store that sold effects pedals. "Pod" meant Line 6's guitar pod. People came in and literally said, "I'll take one pod, please." I'm not kidding you, these things were huge and still are. Go into your local Guitar Center or what ever you have and say, "I'll take one pod, please." You can bet your ass the guy at the counter will pull up a guitar pod and ring it up right there.

If you want more evidence, read this article [sweetwater.com]:

By the end of 2002, the Line 6 people had proven themselves by designing what were unquestionably (to me, in any case) the best amp and effects models available, including the remarkable Vetta amplifiers and the best selling POD modules.

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:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard

Pod and iPod have totally different meanings. I could understand if Apple is worried about people using the term iPod, but Pod is a common word. What's next, Apple trying to stop people from using the word Book since it might be confused with iBook?

Re:In a Different Community, It Was The Standard

Yep, I certainly use common word "pod" in everyday speech.

example usage I use all the time: "My family was hatched from pods."

;)

Re:Yeah...

The iPod is practically [...] synonymous with "portable music player"

Maybe in the US. Here in Netherlands they are commonly called 'mp3-speler' (=mp3 player).

nearly all - over 92% - of all hard drive-based portable music players actually are iPods.

Again, maybe in the US. The US is not the whole world. From what I have seen a typical electronics store here devotes some 5 to 10% of the digital audio player shelve space to iPods. For HD-based players is might be a bit more, but nowhere near the majority. It might have to do with the fact that in the first few years, the iTMS would not sell outside the US.

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'?

Re:Yeah...

'' From what I have seen a typical electronics store here devotes some 5 to 10% of the digital audio player shelve space to iPods. ''

And what percentage of the cupboard space below the display shelves?

Re:Yeah...

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".)

Yeah, because things in the natural world are never enclosed in a protective pod.

Re:Yeah...

That's true that it often happens, and if it does the trademark is lost. This is why companies with very popular products spend so much time and money suing people and embarking on public education campaigns to get people to stop using their name generically.

All of these companies try to get people to call their product by its full name, including function, such as "Zamboni ice resurfacing machine" rather than just "Zamboni," and encourage people to call competitors' products by the actual product description ("ice resurfacing machine"). These campaigns are rarely successful, but the companies still try.

After all, genericization (that's probably not a real word) of a product name is really only the first step in commoditization of that product. After all, if you can't use your name to distinguish your product from anyone else's anymore, that product has essentially become a commodity, and that makes the competitive environment much more challenging. After all, when people buy tissues these days, how many are really loyal to the particular brand Kleenex anymore? How many people care if the personal casette player they buy is actually a Sony Walkman? Or that the copier they buy is actually a Xerox? Or the aspirin they buy is really Bayer Aspirin? And so on.

Re:Yeah...

If they're going after the use of a word or use of pod, what are they going to do about podcast?

They're either going to have to remove that word from everyone's vocabulary (that genie has already left the bottle), or everyone will say they are using the fragment pod from podcast, not iPod.

Apple's not in a good defensive, let alone offensive, position.

Re:Yeah...

No, Apple didn't invent podcasting. In fact, they didn't even coin the term. It was a concept implemented by Tristan Louis and Dave Winer, originally referred to as 'audioblogging'.

In fact, at one point, Apple tried to snuff the first podcasting client, 'iPodder'.

So yeah. Quiet, fanboy. They didn't invent the GUI either.

revamped movie

Dave. Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

Hal. I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave. What's the problem?

Hal. Apple discovered my ties to IBM and issued a cease and desist order. You are no longer allowed to open the pod bay door.

Much ado about nothing?

Apple's afraid that the term ipod will become generic (genericided?). Suing random '*pod' named businesses show's they're 'actively defending' their mark.

Problem is more with trademark law than apple methinks.

For a mild laugh, check out the tightpod website [tightpod.com] (one of the sued comapnies) - spandex clad notebooks (including tiger skin for the suitably inclined osx user)

Re:Much ado about nothing?

on even the most blatant cases

Uh, uh - you're thinking logically, try to think like a lawyer for a big company.

You want court cases where you've successfully defended your mark, so rather than go after a blatant case, you go after small, weak companies who are unlikely to afford a court defense. Bingo, another case won, to be used as proof that you've been vigorously defending your mark should you need to go up against a real competitor.

Its not exactly what I'd describe as ethical, but as most companies seem to do it, I'd say the solution lies in trademark law reform.

Good for them! Let's take it to the next step....

They've gone half-way, but now it's time to make SURE that the iPod's name will never be infringed upon. The next logical step is to not allow others to use any name beginning with the letter "i", ESPECIALLY a lower-case "i". Good for Apple, glad to see they're supporting free speech! Because I know that if I see a piece of technology with the word "pod" in it, it immediately becomes indistiguishable from an MP3 player.

This just in from Big Blue and the crunchy one...

Two major computer companies announced a lawsuit today against toilet manufacturer iBM...

I Did Some Research

Hey, I did a bit of research on Line 6. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the iPod debuted on October 23, 2001 (or at least was unveiled).

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

When you were small, Apple Records could put the squeeze on you for being "Apple Computer". But when you get big, you get to do to unto others as once you hoped would not be done unto you.

Obvious answer

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

The problem is an absolutely stupid and misguided part of US trademark law called the Federal Anti-Dilution Act. This allows owners of famous marks to go after users of similar marks in any field, even fields where there would be no confusion. There's no doubt that "iPod" is a famous mark. It's the trademark winner-take-all act.

Though to be fair, Apple might have a case against a maker of MP3 player sleeves even without anti-dilution.

Next up... Apple sues God...

...for putting peas in a pod.

The Courts Require It

The sad truth is that unless a trademark holder defends their trademark to a near insane degree courts in the last 30 years have shown a hair trigger willingness to rule that the trademark has moved into the public domain. The courts don't just take into evidence the infringement cases that a holder won but all the cases the holder filed. The courts consider the mere filing of the suit as evidence of defense of the trademark regardless of the merits of the case. Accused infringers will defend themselves by pointing out all possible cases of infringement in which the holder did not sue. As a result the trademark holder files a blizzard of suits, many if not most without strong merit, merely to demonstrated to the courts that they vigorously defend their trademark.

This is definitely a case of "don't blame the player, blame the game."