I think this comes down to the question: What is a POD? Sure there are pea pods for legumes. There are casings or housings like fuel pods on jet fighters. And 2001's pods. A really great definition on YourDictionary is "something resembling a pod." The general idea is that a pod is some sort of container holding something.

How do you get an enforcable trademark on a word? Ford, Vasoline, Nokia, and Compaq make sense to trademark. Even iPod. But to include car, lubricant, cell phone, personal computer, and pod does not make sense.

After seeing the picture of a Profit Pod there is no hope of confusing it for an iPod. First, you would have to find a way to hardwire the nice color wires into your computer. Then all its going to do is count quarters. Even if they called it a profitPod, I don't think there would be any confusion about it playing music.

After the revolution, the lawyers will be the first against the wall.

This reminds me of when those morons at Tigerdirect sued Apple for using the word Tiger. Now I agree that there are some stupid people in this world, but no one is stupid enough to confuse a computer operating system with a retail store.

"Profit Pod makes a device that compiles data from vending machines, while TightPod is a manufacturer for laptop covers."

The same thing can be said of this. No one can be dumb enough as to confuse an iPod with a vending machine data collector or a lapop cover.

To be stricken from a certain well-known movie: "Open the POD bay door, Hal."

And in other breaking news: A POD of whales has just reported receiving a C&D order from a POD of dolphins to stop singing for whale-watching tourists.

News Update: A POD of seals reports the combined legal teams (a POD of lawyers?) of the dolphin, whale, and seal PODs are discussing legal action against some apple-based fruitcake they've heard has a job selling music online for ninety-nine cents a song.

The whales, especially, are quite insistent on all songs being removed from any music playback device manufactured on land and which uses "POD" in its name. The whales feel those songs may be confused with the entirely natural songs of whales and whale PODs.

In addition, the mammals' POD of lawyers is requesting all profits from the sales of any POD-named and -related items not made entirely in the ocean by marine mammals be turned over to Greenpeace immediately.

By the way, ironically, Google has a similar problem because "google" is now considered to be a verb. In principle, that allows anyone to use the word "google" in their search engine.

Apple and Microsoft ... like two peas in a pod. Oops!

Yeah, I hope they concentrate on the important stuff instead. Everybody remembers iPod = Apple. Things might be different in the future but fight back with innovations, not lawyers.

Everyone only remembers BECAUSE of the branding/marketing that's in place. That's why the concept of a trademark exists and Apple's entitled to protect itself.

yes against anyone using the term ipod, not the word pod which existed before apples crappy mp3 players did.

hmmmm, not selling enough ipods anymore eh?
try lowering the price a little.
:-)

how about innovate or add some more features?

Apple is also suing the growers of beanPODs.

What about PODS the storage container people that bring a container to your house? They should sue them too.

:Rolleyes:

Dear Steve Jobs and Apple Board,
Get you heads out of your butts. If we all keep the litigation over things like the use the word of 'pod' up there wont be a word left in the english language that can be used in a commercial way. Besides it seems to me that there is a positive effect for Apple to the use of the word 'pod' since most people relate it to 'iPod' when hearing it used in relation to digital music and media. It seems it is never a bad thing to have folks think about your products name. I personally have do not own an iPod but was strongly considering the purchase of 2 for both my son and myself. After seeing this report I never will. So you have already lost 2 sales. There are simply too many good alternatives to your product out in the market place for me to do buisness with a commpany such as yours. After all did IBM ever try to own the words Think or Pad. Get real and get over it!

you are that easily swayed away from buying a product? thats just dumb, maybe try evaluating things based on quality and price? eh apple would still lose there on all fronts anyway...

ipod is old news, it's just that most people don't know it yet. If the masses want ipods then fine, let them eat cake.

Anyone here remember Windows Commander? Its Total Commander now because Microsoft thought that we're too stupid to tell the difference between Windows Explorer and Windows Commander.

I wonder what they're going to call escape pods now?

Total Commander and Windows Explorer a similar program. Only different is total commander is much more powerful. Few years ago, MS also sue "Lindows" because itself is an OS and rythm with "Windows". These alternates are selling similar product.

But on Apple's case, it's different, these to company are selling different products. And POD, it a word that exist for thousand of years.

I think Apple are getting a bit precious (as usual), along with Microsoft at times.
I seem to remember the term Pod was used in the Film 2001 A Space Odyssey.
"Open the Pod bay doors Hal... Dave, I can't do that..." I Don't hear the owners of that movie threatening, "I'm going to sue." the likes of Apple!
OK, I know! Those movie escape pods wern't exactly MP3 powered, but the use of English language words is increasingly becoming the subject of copyright, threats and law suites.

No whine with my bread but a mere comment. I love the flooding of the market with these over priced toys, of which they are not compatible with anything but their own little world. The bottom line I would not own one, don't care what the masses do, but believe other players that can play more than one format are worth looking into. Companies wanting to replicate this nonsense are looking for quick bucks without imagination.

So what company are we all whining about last week, or which one will the same folks be whining about next week?

As currently structured, trademark law places the onus on firms to vigorously protect their trademark from infringement, otherwise it becomes grounds to lose it.

Why not whine about the law and propose a more erudite law that does not require such actions, or one that more rigorously defines the scope and 'space' granted by a trademark?

Or would that actually require thought instead of the platform-centric whine that dominates this place? ;-)

(note: edited to swap the word copyright with trademark...)

Couldn't agree more.

You're confusing "copyright" with "trademark", which the owner is expected to show active use thereof in order to maintain claim during the lifespan. You can't copyright a name or logo, that's a trademark (or service mark, depending upon the intent), at least according to U.S. copyright and trademark laws (they are separate). A copyright does not place any explicit "onus" on the owner to protect.

http://www.uspto.gov/web...ac/doc/basic/addreq.htm

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/

you are of course correct, my bad
please swap the word copyright with trademark
the point remains

What about PodCast? I would think "i" was a more recognizable trademark prefix (e.g. iPod, iMac, etc.). I see iWash washing machines in Lowes and Home Depot, but I wonder if they obtained a license or just did it. Here we go again, hold on, strap in... weeeeeee!!

I'd claim prior art.

Just like two peas in a Pod.

Maybe the PODS Company should sue the crap out of Apple for infringement?

Let me get this straight: The Beatles can't win against Apple for stealing "Apple" but Apple can win against everyone else for using "pod"? WTF, indeed.

The logo and service class is totally separate. PODS does not sell small digital devices, obviously.

Yea, but as an idiot, I "might" become confused and buy a POD storage/moving unit rather than an iPod! I blame the conservative judges for not throwing these cases out.

Do you have a license to use the A word ?
You might get sued.

EXACTLY. APPLE WANTS IT BOTH WAYS. THE POD SAYS NOTHING, THE iPOD SAYS EVERYTHING. TIME FOR SOMEONE NOT ONLY TO QUESTION APPLE, BUT TIME TO MAKE APPLE PAY FOR ALL OF THE HASSLE IT SEEMS TO INFLICT UPON ITSELF AND OTHERS.

LOL uh..no

Apple sent out a C&D because they feel these companies are doing something which infringes on their TM. Why did these companies use 'Pod' in their names? ProfitPod clearly is a PDA which collects data, iPod is a PDA which stores music and videos. iPod came first (or at least was registered first). Thus, ProfitPod needs to be creative and find a new name.

Exactly right - you are not allowed to use a name (even if it's not exactly the same) that COULD cause confusion. That's a reasonable position for a business. Normally, the individuals who object to this kind of thing are not in business!

This reminds of of when TNN was renamed Spike TV and Spike Lee sued. haha

This is absolutely ludicrous!!! If the TightPod and/or the Profit Pod were MP3 players, I would completely agree with this action. However, a device that compiles data from vending machines and laptop or MP3 covers ARE NOT MP3 PLAYERS!!! No competition, no infringement. Mr. Jobs and Apple have joined the a******, frivilous lawsuit Club!!!

Apple might actually intend for iPod to not just represent an MP3 player, but any PDA. The iPod as it is now is a PDA, not really solelyan MP3 player. I can store data on it, play games, play videos, etc

The ProfitPod is, guess what, a PDA.

> The ProfitPod is, guess what, a PDA.

Guess what, your wrong. That link points out to yet another article about this, but it also contains a picture of the device. Now, I've seen and used an iPod (although I wouldn't own one and much prefer my moto). They look nothing alike except for the barest similarity is shape and that is more due to the probable fact that the case looks like an injection molded plastic box which most often seem to have that shape in the corners.

http://arstechnica.com/j...e.ars/2006/8/12/4962/p2

So basically since the current iteration of the ProfitPod doesn't *look* like an iPod, Apple should let these guys potentially gain a large market share and then have a bigger fight later on down the road? Suppose ProfitPod does decide to sell an MP3 player? If you were Apple, wouldn't you solve the problem before it gets too big and protect your TM?

If they did make a MP3 player, I would think it would be called something different than ProfitPod. ProfitPod doesn't give me the impression of an MP3 player at all. So even with that idea, I don't see ProfitPod as a threat of any kind to Apples iPod name.

BTW. I agree with the others. Wouldn't own one anyways. Too costly, for less machine than you can get from an unknown brand.

A decade or so ago, there was a company marketing athletic shoes by the name Reebock using a very similar logo and color scheme. Reebok was able to successfully stop this company from operating because it created brand confusion with an obviously less superior product based on the name brand of Reebok.

Brand confusion in the marketplace is a huge deal. Its not about profiteering, but protecting your brand from others making cheap immitation or profiting off of your successful name. An individual who legitimately has no idea about MP3 players nor that Apple sold the iPod who is shopping off a wish-list for a niece or nephew could be confused by similar branded items sitting side-by-side in a store or by the presence of one and not the other. TightPod? That must be what Sarah meant!

I don't know the history of these other two companies (nor am I going to bother looking into them) but if they are start-ups post the iPod sensation and are capitalizing on Apple's product, then Apple has a valid concern to protect.

For those of you who are outraged by Apple's actions, ask yourself what you would do if you created something hugely successful and had to sit back and watch people copy your work and call it pneumonically the same thing, just tweak the spelling. Would you find yourself outraged that they are profiting off of your hard work? Off your well-earned and deserved name? Are you going to sit back and let it happen?

Absolutely and well put

First of all, a TightPod, as stated in the article, is a cover for laptops to prevent scratching. Therefore in no way represents something similar to the iPod (ie, digital storage, MP3 player, video player, etc). 2nd, the Profit Pod is no way looks or even operates like an iPod. It is, again, as stated in the artcle, collects profit data from vending machines. Further investigation shows that it collects profits, via infrared, on "games, vending machines, and anything else that you need accurate and easy data collection" and then exports them into an excel like spreadsheet. In no way does it represent anything in likeness to the iPod device nor does it attempt to collect proceeds off an iPod. What mom or aunt or grandma would be walking through a companuter store (only not to find the Profit Pod first of all) and wonder if a kid wants a music player versus the profit counter for vending machines? Who can mess that up?? I can see the potential for confusion on the TightPod maybe... But if it was a choice between "I want the iPod to listen to music" or "I want the TightPod to cover my laptop from scratches.", I can't get that confused either. If something comes along more clearer to dispute, let it come, but I can't even see this as a infringement on trademarks.

What you seem to be missing is that Apple may be issuing C&D orders for future products, like the TightPod mp3 player cover. In order for the TM to be approved, it has to go through a process with the US TM office. Any TM that is submitted for approval is published so that other vendors get a chance to contest any possible infringements.

Apple may see that TightPod is expanding their goods\services class to include accessories for digital music devices.

But forgetting about all that, Apple's lawyers said this:

"We believe there is confusing similarity between Apple's iPod mark and the Profit Pod mark"

So something about the mark has Apple upset. I don't know what it looks like, nor do I know what the product itself looks like, so how can we judge how close the mark is for ProfitPod?

That's up to the USPTO.

Basically this is FUD being spread around the 'net to knock out support for Apple and make them appear litigious.

Below is a link to an Apple iPod case (one of many from the Apple store) which could be found hanging in a store near you... right next to a brand new TightPod case.

http://store.apple.com/1...B09&nplm=M9758G%2FA

So yes, Virgina, Brand Confusion does exist. And again, Apple has a right to protect its products. The brand name is iPod, the product category is "carrying cases" or "protective cases" or "athletic cases".

I would debate any merit on an "iPod-look-alike device that performs a completely unrelated function" cease-and-desist order but this article does specifically make mention of the MP3 cases.

However, before casting judgment on Apple based on this entry, you should do some research. I'm sure the cease-and-desist order specify exactly how Apple perceives its products and brands are being infringed upon.

The point I'm trying to convey and to me the importance of this lawsuit is that brand confusion is a valid concern in product marketing and Apple is doing its part in protecting itself. Apple is not trying to "stick it to the smaller company" as it sounds like respondents are suggesting here (if so, every product out there with a lowercase "i" in front of it would have been served a cease-and-desist order).

Perhaps if this article had been written to fully document the cease and desist all of this would be apparent.

Toodles.

So you evidently spent a bit of time writing that lengthy comment yet you obviously didn't actually look to see what the items truely are. And unless the store is stocking thier merchandise inside a vending machine (not on display), the niece or nephew is shouldn't have difficulty.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a third party company making an MP3 cover or any other iPod accessory with the word pod in the product name as long as the third party accessory does not have the Apple logo. Pod is NOT an Apple owned trademark like iPod may be.

Just like there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone making an operating system that runs on x86 computers, does NOT use the Windows kernel at all and has a name that rymes with Windows. Both of these examples are completely legal.

You might think theres nothing wrong with that, but its because you don't know how things work in the TM world. Time and time again these kinds of things have happened and companies lost their trademarks because they failed to act.

Theres a stipulation in TM law that says if you do not fight a TM infringement and say, 5 years down the road once the company infringing got bigger you decided to take them to court, you'll be told that you had "co-existence" and guess what, you lose.

Apple has a right to fight for things it feels could *potentially* infringe on their TM.

Brand confusion.

That is a powerful concept and you need to keep it in mind. If Apple can prove that another company is creating brand consfusion with their new product by name, by style, by design, a combination of said product concepts, etc, then Apple's cease and desist has merit.

Remember, the cease-and-desist has not been published here. Arguments that Apple doesn't own the word "pod" really have nothing to do with the C&D. Apple has a trademark on "iPod" (regardless of what the title for this article is wanting you to believe). Its not the use of "Pod", its the use of things similar to "iPod". Apple has a concern that whatever these companies are attempting to do will create brand confusion with their own established products. And again, we do not know what that "whatever" is yet, this write-up doesn't paint for us an entire picture.

For the readers out there still stewing over Apple's actions, ask yourself whether or not these companies could compete in this market under a name entirely dissimilar to Apple's. If your answer is "yes", then the next logical question is, "then why wouldn't a company wanting to build a respectible brand and compete in this market do it under a name that is iconically their own, not at all associated to the name of the market leader".

Is there a chance a company whose name is very similar to Apple's mega-hit product is making an entry into a market they have never entered before due to its own naming similarity?

Is it possible that Tightpod is hoping to make a quick return in the hopes it does cause brand confusion and consumers buy their product, more by accident, than the leading name brand?

If you answered that there is a CHANCE or a slight POSSIBILITY that either of these could be true, then Apple has a valid concern to pursue.

It is also important to note that if Apple were to take this to court, there are some tough precedents against them. Microsoft lost its lawsuit againt Lindows on the basis that 'windows' and 'windowing' were generic terms and that XEROX and Apple had implemented windowing technology years earlier. Apple trademarked "iPod" not "pod" so not an apples-to-apples comparison but worth noting nontheless.

More recently for you car buffs, DaimlerChrysler had its claim against GM on the dispute against the similarity of the Hummer H2 grille and that of the Jeep thrown out due to DaimlerChrysler having sold the rights, and thus the grille design, of the Humvee to GM years earlier.

Peregrine,

I don't make a habit of responding to antagonistic posts but I will give this one more shot at explaining...

I don't need to look in a store or in a vending machine to know that Apple has a right to protect its trademark.

Its up to Apple to prove that these companies are creating brand confusion and are trying to infringe on its own trademark for their own benefit.

If you read through other posts, I think you'll be enlightened to the notion that we a) don't know the extent of products or services these companies offer.. all we know is what the author has provided to us and b) I (and I imagine most readers) aren't readily privvy to products under development. The C&Ds may very well be about products this article doesn't mention. Apple spends a ton of money annually on lawyers combing through trademark filings and patent filings and probably SKU requests to learn when a companies are releasing products on their home-turf.

This article is written with the purpose to get its constituents to jump on the anti-apple or pro-apple bandwagon. Its cleverly written to make you think Apple is targeting the word, "pod". As DigitalSin has informed us, TM law doesn't work that way. There is much, much more involved and you cannot form an educated opinion based on this article alone.

Reading my most recent post, you'll also be informed of me not being a pro-Apple or against Apple, I'm pointing out that Apple has a right and in some regards (cuz I'd probably do the same if it were my products and my name being mimic'd) a responsibility to take some action IF IT DEEMS its rights are being infringed upon (note: that doesn't mean Apple is in the right... it means that if Apple is in the right, then they absolutely should).

If you are passionate about this issue, I encourage you to find a copy of the C&D, read it, find out for yourself what the actual extent of the claim is and decide for yourself if it has merit. This article does not provide to us that information.

Good luck with that.
Toodles.

"I encourage you to find a copy of the C&D, read it, find out for yourself what the actual extent of the claim is and decide for yourself if it has merit."

Wait a minute...are you saying people ought to actually read all the information and make an educated opinion based on facts? Are you so mad as to suggest folks should not make opinions based on media bytes?? Well if you are sir, that is just absurd! There's no fun in that!

Excellent post. Unfortunately I think most readers on here would much rather get hyped up about the mythical possibility that English vocabulary words will one day be corporate property. It's far more fun to do that you know. ;)

Agreed completely.

remember what happened to lindows? microsoft sued them now they are linspire.

Apple does not own the word pod. They really need to get over themselves; my respect for this company is growing smaller all the time.

It really has nothing to do with the word 'pod'. Pod is a noun, trademarks are not nouns. Apple is not trying to own a word, they own a trademark for a brand and they have to protect that trademark.

They can't do that either. Just because some completely unrelated product has pod in the name doesn't mean Apple should be able to sue them. If someone were selling a similar music product on the other hand with a name like MyPod then Apple could sue. A "device that compiles data from vending machines" has nothing at all to do with them though and it should be thrown out of court.

ProfitPod = PDA.
iPod = PDA.

Since when is the iPod a PDA? Anyway the iPod is not used to gather data from vending machines, Apple has nothing to stand on as far as that is concerned.

Windows is a trademark owned by Microsoft and it is a noun.

That was up for legal debate, with Windows being deemed a generic word (well sent to trial to determine it):
http://www.law.com/jsp/a...le.jsp?id=1076428297954

Microsoft paid Lindows err Linspire off before they actually lost it.

http://www.linspire.com/...es.php?id=140&all=1

I remember that and I agree with the reasoning of Windows being too generic.

No, window is a noun, the stylized Windows logo is not a noun, it is intellectual property.

Believe it or not, if I say "Get me a Coke" I have actually misused a trademark. Technically the non-TM-abusive way to say that is "Get me a Coca-Cola brand soda" :)

Look at packages next time you're at the grocery store. Companies properly using their TM (Johnson & Johnson is a company that has good TM use). You'll see a logo, then see a description beneath it. This is because a logo cannot describe the product, because not only is a tm\logo not a noun, its not an adjective, verb, or anything else :)

Well, Apple just now lost my business.

So are they going to sue peas? Since they are grown in a pod?

cool, 1 less r3tard clogging up the help desk at the apple store. Thanx dirt

Its sad you have to spend time at the help desk. ;x All the rep about Apples not having problems, and wooosh, lately being Intel based, the rep is in the hole. I maintain my own problems without the reliability of a help desk. Or is your reference intended on bashing in an enlightened detail to make someone else feel small. Shut up.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/12

I don't own anything from Apple but was considering purchasing a new Mac from them. Not anymore. I don't need to clog the help desk as I am an IT guy you big dummy.

Oh yeah, learn to spell you lummox.

This is retarded. That's like the Mercury car company suing chemistry for having an element named Mercury. Sounds to me that Apple is getting nervous or something. They might as well send cease-and-desist letters to all linux companies and microsoft as well as the rest of the word. "Apple was not publicly commenting on the situation." because they know this is stupid in the first place. Thats just my opinion on it.

"That's like the Mercury car company suing chemistry for having an element named Mercury"

Apples and oranges. The 'mercury' element is not owned by any single person or company - no one profits.

Apple isn't nervous, they are simply keeping their trademark from becoming common use. It's kind of like how people say "I'd like a Coke" when all they mean is a soda, be it pepsi or actually coke.

A better example would be how a lot of people look at an SUV and say "Look at that nice jeep". It's not a jeep, jeep is a registered trademark, but people have used it generically for many SUVs that look similar to an actual Jeep brand SUV. Eventually Chrysler will lose that trademark if they don't protect it and prevent it from becoming generic. As a matter of fact, a trademark itself is not a noun. There's no such thing as a Jeep. It's actually a "Jeep brand motor vehicle" :)

My wife is a trademark paralegal for a large company with hundreds of thousands of brands, and this happens very very often.

This whole thing is very similar to Tiger, where TigerDirect sued Apple because creating Apple OS X Tiger was too much like their company name. TigerDirect lost with an early victory for Apple. TightPod and Profit Pod and what about "Pods" the storage/moving company out there. None of these make me think of Apple or iPod in ANY way when I read it. It brings little Anikan Skywalker and his pod raceing to mind way before I think of iPod.

So as far as saving their iPod "trademark" I think this should be an easy loss for Apple in trade for their Tiger win.

"say "I'd like a Coke" when all they mean is a soda, be it pepsi or actually coke."

Speaking of this, did Coke (Coca Cola) sue Pepsi Cola?

"Apples and oranges. The 'mercury' element is not owned by any single person or company - no one profits."

Btw there is a car insurance company called Mercury. I dont think Ford sued them.

Ford wouldn't sue them. Trademarks fall into different classes of categories. It's like a Mac truck, an Apple Mac, and a Big Mac hamburger. Totally unrelated service\goods category. It becomes an issue when 2 trademarks are within the same category.

"I think this should be an easy loss for Apple in trade for their Tiger win."

I disagree. Mainly because of this:

"TightPod was also preparing to make covers for MP3 players that would have been marketed under the same name"

Now we get into serious conflicts in the same goods\services class. It's not so apparent right now, because the 2 companies sell products not related to a digital music device. However Apple of course sells iPod accessories, and there is going to be a case of:

1. Consumer confusion
2. Trademark infringement

Because TightPod will be an accessory for a digital music device.

Apple has a strong case and will win.

I believe that if and UNTIL TightPod puts works into trying to go forward with an iPod cover, then it can become an issue, but until they show signs or production of such product, I don't think theres a case for it.

The problem is you cannot try and register a TM with the USPTO unless you plan to use it. You have to show how you will use it, photos, etc.

So if they indeed sent the TM into the USPTO, they do intend to use that TM.