Apple sends cease and desist order to makers of "iPed"
By Barb Dybwad 
posted Jun 7th 2005 6:11PM
posted Jun 7th 2005 6:11PM
Ruh roh, Raggy, the lawsuits are flyin' again — Apple is now after Thought Out, a company with a line of iPod
accessories under the name "iPed." Apple's attack hounds lawyers sent a letter to the company
yesterday, saying that the line of iPed iPod stands (pictured, right) "could confuse consumers." Thought Out says the
name is derived from the word "pedestal," as in, an altar upon which to place your little white god. They're holding a
neutral stance on how to respond to the order. Well, maybe there is a silent minority of folks somewhere rushing out to
pick up these iPeds and being very confused when they realize that iPod stands themselves don't actually make any
sounds. Maybe. But dude, Apple, you gotta know this is such
bad karma.
Maybe they should have "Thought Out" the name a little more.
Fishes,
narco.
I agree. Apple is going too far. The Super Shuffle was one thing, but this is definitely another. If it was a DAP that looked like the iPod, I could see their reasoning. This makes no sence, though.
Suing a company that's only helping you sell more product. Smart.
OOOOOH! I had never heard of these before. I LIKE! ME WANTEE! (and no, I'm not confused, I have an iPod and want a cool stand for it)
iThinktheselawsuitsareweak.
Look, it's not like Apple enjoys spending the money on lawyers hassling these companies. The fact is that if a company has a registered trademark, they have to defend it against anything that could reasonably be confused with it. If they don't, then they lose the trademark protection altogether.
So, what Apple's lawyers tell Apple is: "Look, these guys named iPed have this line of iPod accessories. When we look over past court cases, we see that a naming situation like this happened in the past, the company let it slide, and then lost all trademark protection on their original name. So, if we want to have trademark protection, we have to get these guys to change their name."
If you want to blame someone, blame the trademark law, not Apple. Apple is just protecting its financial and stockholder interests.
"The fact is that if a company has a registered trademark, they have to defend it against anything that could reasonably be confused with it. If they don't, then they lose the trademark protection altogether."
Not if they give written permission to the company in question.
#3 Brian:
So Apple's resorting to the frivolous-lawsuit-attraction-getter in order to make money nowadays? I guess they would have to resort to that... considering their old business model of actually advertising the product has worked so well for them.
...mmm...BWAHAHAHA!!
/Windows user that had to get an Apple jab in there somewhere, considering the Intel news shocker yesterday : )
Seriously though, hasn't Apple had a lot of these crazy useless lawsuits lately or is it just because I'm new to Engadget/tech news?
Hmm Apple isnt my favorite company as of late. Tiger is nice but seems a little more buggy than Panther. Now their going to Intel. Then they start suing iPod stand manufacturers. I am sure lots of people mistake the iPed for the iPod and dont buy the iPod for their iPed so I guess I can understand it.......uhhh.....not....
^^^ Well said, and on target... how much are you getting?
Actually, the name doesn't really make sense since a pedestal is actually something you put your feet on. Since the iPod is propped upright for ease of use and readibility, it is in fact a lectern (I got schooled about this in college when I inadvertently referred to the lectern as a pedestal). So therefore, "Thought Out", you should change the name to the iLec.
iPed
http://www.ba.no/multimedia/archive/00108/Michael_Jackson_108752a.jpg
This is from Tigers new Dictionary app.
No feet anywhere here.
pedestal |?ped?stl| noun the base or support on which a statue, obelisk, or column is mounted. figurative a position in which one is greatly or uncritically admired : the heroes they have created and placed on pedestals. each of the two supports of a kneehole desk or table, typically containing drawers. the supporting column or base of a washbasin or toilet bowl.
lectern |?lekt?rn| noun a tall stand with a sloping top to hold a book or notes, and from which someone, typically a preacher or lecturer, can read while standing up.
Calbear81,
Whoever 'schooled' you in your college, did not do a very good job. A pedestal has nothing to do with where one puts ones feet. It is either "the base or support on which a statue, obelisk, or column is mounted" or "a position in which one is greatly or uncritically admired". I would follow the definition of the OED over someone who 'schooled' you. Hence, iPed is quite apt given the mindless, uncritical admiration the iPod receives.
Then again, to call a lectern a pedestal is fairly well, just wrong, too ...
if someone is dumb enough to mistakenly buy an "iPed" when they thought they were getting an "iPod", I think they shouldn't have the iPod in the first place.
Chris, you beat me to it :) ... ah well
Apples's next lawsuit will read : staff being sued - too many bad apples.
> Then again, to call a lectern a pedestal is fairly well, just wrong, too ...
Perhaps the word you were looking for was "podium"...
..maybe they can change the name to the iPodium!
Ehhh.. that makes more sense. Yes, I did mean podium.
Ummm....wasn't the "iPod" name ripped off from the name "iPaq"?
Wow...that thing looks exactly like an ipod. Even the little wheel and the color of the screen is the same. No wonder Apple's suing. Too bad it has that big stand attached to it--sure makes it bulky for carrying around. What's their slogan, "10,000 semi-portable songs on your desk"?
I think I'd just buy an ipod.
i have never heard about an Iped but the thing looks pretty nice i can see where it could fit on my desktop nicely and stay out of the way. screw apple and there sue fetish
@ 21...
I hope youre joking. The product is the stand for the iPod, not an iPod clone attatched to a stand.
" it might confuse consumers" first who hasnt heard of an ipod 2nd the only way someone will get these things confuse is if they buy it sight unseen people are so stupid!!
#20 you're joking aren't you? The i-names started with the iMac and i originally stood for internet because he iMac was really easy to get on the internet.. Apple has used it for many products and so have other companies. The iPaq came after the iMac. By the time of the iPod apple named many things i-product.
I like how no one reads any of the previous comments. #6 makes a good point, and all the rest of you idiots just ignore it and keep yapping.
So Apple's resorting to the frivolous-lawsuit-attraction-getter in order to make money nowadays?
---
It's one letter away from being called the iPod you tool..
If they called it the iStand, do you think Apple would do anything? No. So shut up.
#6, "it's not like Apple enjoys spending the money on lawyers hassling these companies."
Not too sure about that. They seem very passionate about their legal team, and appear to enjoy utilizing them whenever possible. So just for the record, Apple officially owns the color white & the lower-case i prefix now?
It Would Be Funny If The Lawsuit Would Increase The Sells On iPed.
#29 -- I hope you can understand that the difference between "iPed" and "iPod" is much smaller than the difference between "iTrip" or "iGuy" and "iPod"... and neither Griffin nor Speck Products have been sued by Apple.
I'm just assuming that you are rhetorically being hyperbolic by saying that Apple "owns the color white" and the "lower-case i prefix". If not, then you could use some finer lessons in logic.
Also, I don't understand your point that "Apple ... appears to enjoy utilizing [its lawyers]". Apple presumably deploys its legal team where it needs to protect its rights. Do you have evidence that Apple has this type of perjorative "enjoyment" you attribute to them? By all accounts, wasting time and money needlessly on lawsuits just to piss people off is a profoundly stupid business move, and I much doubt that Apple does this. At the very least, it would make sense to first assume that Apple is not wasting money just to piss people off, and then wait for evidence to the contrary, as opposed to just assuming it.
Finally, it seems clear to me that Apple's claim does not need to be "customers will be confused about whether an iPed is an iPod." Rather, the claim could simply be, "iPed is close enough to iPod in name to make a reasonable customer assume that Apple has manufactured or supports the iPed." Remember, reasonable customers have thought that computer mice were pedals, cd-rom drives were drink holders, and have called technical support to learn that they need to "turn the computer on."
Again, if this news angers you, it is very unlikely that your anger is a direct result of some attitude within Apple. Instead, I would suggest you direct your ire either at (a) trademark law, or (b) consumers who can be quite easily confused. Apple is merely acting to protect their rights and the interests of its shareholders.
I'm glad you guys took care of that "Pedestal" guy. I was laughing when I read his post.
Apple stuff is cool, but man, the more Jobs sues people, the more I think he's just a whiny little 4 year old girl.
I'm honestly surprised he hasn't figured out someway to get the rights for the color "white" so no one else could make anything white.
He makes me a little sick. All the M$ preachers, talking all kinds of shit about M$, with the little "$" sign. Give me a break...
Apple is hardly better.
I just realized that I was too mean...
I apologize to 4 year old girls everywhere...
Apple thinks its customers are idiots. I think they might be right.
I agree that Apple is a lil quick to rush to the lawyers, but I think that the real morons are the people who thought they could get away with the name 'iPed' in the first place. Given Apple's history with lawsuits, its a pretty stupid move. Don't ask for trouble.
Oh, and where can I get one of those?
It's not the name that is the big issue here I guess. It's the fact that people may buy it and think that Apple made it or endorsed it - when that is clearly not the case.
As for changing the name, maybe they should call it the iRaq. This whole i-somethingorother marketing thing is getting too ridiculous/successful.
they should change the name to sosumiPED with the iPED in different color. :)
What? You mean the lawyers won't see the irony in that?
Hmmm. I guess I fail to see the negative effect this product will have on a household name like the ipod. These people should be on your side folks why the hostility? They are providing a product that enhances the usability of your product. Who cares what it's called.
How many "Geniuses" have posted here by the way, because most of these posts look little more than an Apple press release. But seriously Apple your hounds are a little riled up, this is only helping to alienate your customers when you pull out the big legal guns everytime someone whispers your name, whether that is your intent or not this pisses people off.
Love the product hate the company
The funny thing is that this little legal threat of Apple's will most likely spark the iPed's sales.
You guys taking Apple's side on this issue are Apple apologists. There are actually some lawsuits that Apple filed that made sense. This is not one of them. Apple is hoping this company don't have the deep pockets to fight them. Why don't Apple sue every company that uses "i" in front of everything?
Wait... could it be because the original "iTools" belonged to another company and Apple had to stop using that name? Maybe Apple needs to pay the company that really started the whole "i" thing.
*Free Advertising* Just come up with a product that slightly infringes on somthing that Apple makes.
You instantly get Apple haters and fans all jumping in to find out what it is, and we all know there is no such thing as bad advertising. With any luck, your extra sales easily cover your lawyer charges.
Think Different.
#40 - Apple apologists? Interesting term, and interesting technique. You can't refute the logic of what I'm saying, so you resort to name-calling. Try debating me on the merits.
Funny how Apple is suing over "trademark infringement" via a company name, when their whole company name was STOLEN from the original Apple -- a MUSIC company by way of the Beatles. C'mon Steve, remember where you came from!
iThink therefore iAm.
iSue because iCan!
Hey, for all we know... maybe Apple is sueing because they already have a "music playing shoe" coming down the pipe and trademarked iPed for this music-shoe.
Down the road they could come out with sandles and call it the iPed mini.
(sorry for the puns, but it felt like everyone was becoming too serious)
#32, So by your reasoning - iPoo is infringement, while iPoop (being two letters different) is not? Thanks for schooling me in logic. My opinion of Apple "enjoying" the use of their legal team: they have every right to pursue legal action regardless of how insignificant the matter may be, they do this often, they're not actually "wasting" money and resources if they're successful in creating publicity like this for themselves. Honestly, I think this guy (iPed creator) wouldn't have a problem if he paid for the "Made for iPod" licensing like Griffin did for the iTrip.
Note: no offense intended to iPod owners by the iPoo example.
#46: My reasoning does not imply what you've said about the one-letter difference. Did I ever say that the one letter difference was what mattered? No.
Let's check what I actually did say: "iPed is close enough to iPod in name to make a reasonable customer assume that Apple has manufactured or supports the iPed."
If you want a general rule, the rule should be: Is there a company making products with a name such that reasonable consumers could be confused about whether or not Apple is sanctioning the product?
In response to your other points... First, I'd very much doubt that publicity like this is worth the cost of laywers, but maybe it is. I'd like some evidence of that. Second, while it might be possible that if they're paid for the "Made for iPod" program, they wouldn't be sued, although it could also be possible that if they'd applied for the program, Apple still would have said that their could be cause for confusion.
At any rate, it's all speculation on our parts, no evidence. I prefer to view Apple as a company pursuing its own financial interests, whereas the vast majority of your people here seem to think that Apple is a vicious, capricious, lawsuit-happy bastard of a company.
Frankly, based on Apple's recent financial performances, I'd say my interpretation has more empirical evidence.
(Also, it's possible that we could all be right, but I'd assume that the "capricious" aspect would be capricious in spite of financial stupidity)
FYI "Made for iPod" is only available to products that supply electrical connections.
Am I the only one noticing that the iPed looks too similar to the stand used for the iMac and their displays? Could that be another reason why they're suing?
I have an idea for a new product it's a dildo, painted white, plugs into an iPod for power. I call it the "iPoke" Think I'll get sued?