Forums | MacLife

Can't use the term Pod? Then whatever will the poor peas do?

Similarly, Apple has put a copyright on the letter "i" and therefore, any porducts with a name starting in a lower case "i" are now the property of Apple............

test wrote:

As I recall, they tried the same thing with McDonald's re the BigMac. I like some of Apple Computer's products but the company itself verbs groin and smurf to the max sometimes.

I remember them trying that with the "nothin but net" slogal from some of their commercials with Larry Bird and Michael Jordan.  Give me a break please - you can't trademark something as basic as that slogan or anything with "pod" in it!

That being said, Google and Apple are setting an important precedent for themselves - to protect themselves from becoming "generic" names (google and iPod).  Haven't there been bases where a product name becomes so mainstream, that the company loses trademark?  I know it happened with the "586" processor, but I think that was because it was a number.  Are there any others?  I think jello and kleenex are more or less used as generic names, but those companies still own the trademark, don't they?

Czachorski wrote:

[snip]
I think jello and kleenex are more or less used as generic names, but those companies still own the trademark, don't they?

Yes, and if you use these terms generically in a commercial work you will get a letter from their respective companies asking you to correct your usage to "Jello (tm) Gelatine" and "Kleenex {tm) Tissues" if you meant to use those specific products--otherwise you should have used gelatine or tissue in place of the brand names. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the correct action that these companies should take, just predicting probable the legal action.

And test: you're right--Bayer once did hold the trademark name of Aspirin but lost it by not "vigorously" protecting their trademark.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

And test: you're right--Bayer once did hold the trademark name of Aspirin but lost it by not "vigorously" protecting their trademark.

Makes sense - Apple and Google probably have a legal need to be so persnickety about their trademark for fear of not being able to show that they are "vigorously" protecting it.  It reminds me of the adverse possession laws with respect to land.  When you first hear about them, they seem odd, but they actually make a lot of sense.

Last edited by Czachorski (2006-08-17 7:00 pm)

What about podcasting software?

podner the software was renamed.  It was a utility to convert videos to the iPod.  They also received a cease and desist a long time ago.

Damn. I was working on a digital music player calle an eyePod.
I guess I'll have to contact my lawyer. The name is not chosen to copy Apple's product, it was independentally thought of and just happens to share 3 letters. Three freaking letters.

I swear, these big companies are starting to get out of hand.

I was at a construction site and notice a big metal 20ft container that is use to carry all the left over construction material, the name of the container is something like garbagepod!

I wonder will they receive a nice form letter from Apple soon, and if they actually use that name before iPod, maybe they should send Apple a nice letter.

Fair is fair, 2 can(should) play the same game.

bratboy wrote:

It's probably relates only to electronic items with the word 'pod' in them.

bratboy wrote:

Macskeeball wrote:

What about podcasting software?

They appear to be devices.  Podcasting relates to ipod use (and don't they use the term)?

Thank God these storage devices are safe!

Last edited by mtpalms (2006-08-28 12:09 pm)

resedit wrote:

Damn. I was working on a digital music player calle an eyePod.
I guess I'll have to contact my lawyer. The name is not chosen to copy Apple's product, it was independentally thought of and just happens to share 3 letters. Three freaking letters.

I swear, these big companies are starting to get out of hand.

Change it to 'eyePawed.'