Will Apple face trademark infringement with Creative over the iPod nano?
posted September 10th 2005 12:01PM
Well, you knew this was only a matter of time. The speculations have begun regarding whether Creative will stake a
claim on the "nano" trademark, as they popped out the
Zen Nano several months in advance of Apple's
birthing of the iPod nano in the market (which, in the
end, does seem just a tad bit cruel). As such legal mumbo jumbo goes, it's never a cut and dry case — merely because
the words in the devices are identical does not an infringement case make. Apple could argue that the term "nano" is a
commonly used term (much like, say, tiger) that shouldn't
be afforded copyright protection. They could also appeal to the fact that "iPod" and "Zen" are the more salient terms
in the product names of the respective devices than "nano." Whatever happens, you gotta know Sim Wong Hoo is stewing in
his boots right now.
[Thanks, Gabe]
#50, you said what i was thinking.
- the owner of 5 mp3 players, one of them the true original (rio pmp300) and none of them the iPoser.
> "Those that think Mac users are idiots rivaled in rhetoric only be the liberal leaders they worship. "
You got issues, bro'. Cool it.
This just goes to show how arrogant stevie jobs has become ever since his overrated disposable 18month lasting ipod has become the biggest iTrend for iWhores.
I hope apple goes down in flames for this.
As a unit of measurement "nano" cannot be trademarked or copyrighted. Creative is just wasting their time with this.
if true, apple should have known better... if anyone cared to remember, didnt some record company by the name of "APPLE" sue apple multiple times for the use of the word "APPLE"?
this is pretty clear cut in my book, use of the trademarked word 'nano' within the same market, apple has painted a large sign on its back saying 'sue me please'
You guys are ridiculous. Apple and Creative should do all the "internet bitching". you guys are just a bunch of materialistic fanboys. That goes to all you apple and creative fans.
#4+#5, you do realize that both of those screenshots only show when the wordmarks "MADE FOR IPOD" and "CREATIVE ARTS MACHINES." Both have nothing to do with "nano" in any way...
>>>if true, apple should have known better... if anyone cared to remember, didnt some record company by the name of "APPLE" sue apple multiple times for the use of the word "APPLE"?>>>
Yeah, and is Apple any worse for it? I don't know what the settlement was on that case but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the damage to Apple had they had to cange the name of their company. No different here. Apple isn't a new company; they get sued all of the time. What better way to beat down your competitors than to steal a trademark and drive them into a legal battle which they probably don't have the money for, meanwhile you gain marketshare on them and are flush with enough cash from it to outspend your competitor into legal oblivion. A brilliant business move IMO.
If there is one company, in the history of business, that has had more intellectual property 'stolen' from it, it is Apple computer. It is about time they had their recompense.
The name of the Macintosh beep is called 'Sosumi' for a reason.
You can't take the name Nano in a literal sense. That is stupid. The "Nano" in iPod Nano does not indicate anything 10^(-9). It's a name, not an adjective.
Both products having Nano in the name does in my book, qualify for a legitimate lawsuit. The factthat they are both mp3 players furthers the argument. (Tiger, on the other hand, is a much broader term and in entirely different product categories. That lawsuit was a bit silly and never had a chance.)
lol...look at all the haters come out of the woodwork. i can't wait till apple sells 10 million of these things and how pissed off all you wankers will be then when you see even more of the white earbuds walking around and even more people talking about them. please continue to be upset, you bring me great pleasure and satisfaction.
who cares if a lawsuit happens? this is taking place in the USA!! money buys everything, apple coulda named the new product the Creative iRiver Nuvo Muvo nano banana and still gotten away with it. apple could buy out creative and make their ceo scrub the basement of cupertino with a toothbrush if they wanted.
Face it Apple fanboys, if Apple gets sued they deserve to lose.
Apple could have chosen any name in the world for the iPod, but they chose nano.
Don't give me this description bs. #31, said nabisco sells Yummy-Mini biscuits.. that's a biscuit! Not an dap player.
What I'm saying is, now that iPod Nano is released... Creative Muvo Nano has just lost any name it had with Nano...
lets run thru a conversation:
- Have you got a Nano?
- I have a creative muvo nano...
- wtf is that ?
all im saying is: APPLE DECIDED TO BE A BITCH
they deserve to lose
Creative would likely loose in a lawsuit unless Apple just decided to settle to avoid the high cost of litigating it through. Even if (and I assume they did) Creative filed the trademark registration for Nano first, since Nano is a generic and descriptive (but not suggestive) name, they would have to demonstrate that "Nano" has achieved secondary meaning (or that it is a fanciful term...which is slightly unlikely, especially considering both companies' history of naming schemes)... meaning plainly that when people hear "nano", they automatically attribute it to Creative. If in fact people automatically attribute it to Apple even though Apple introduced their Nano second, it is more than possible that Creative will lose their trademark registration and Apple can then file and claim it. Currently, Creative's Nano trademark is probably not filed in the USPTO's primary reference catalog (since it is only descriptive and not suggestive) and most likely in the supplementary catalog.. meaning it is subject to revocation.
#60 jxj, that's not the point, the argument is, WHY? why did apple have to choose the name 'nano'? without having to discuss the validity of the trademarking the term 'nano' nor who owns what, it's simply unacceptable for a company, in the eyes of its investors, to choose 'litigation' simply for the heck of it like you seem to suggest.
what if companies with unlimited resources such as Sony owned the trademark? or even Microsoft?
either apple doesnt have IP lawyers, or is simply dumb for inviting trouble.
I'm sure nano will be a success, there's no doubt about that.
"For instance, what people generally refer to as nanomachines are not generally the size of a nanometre."
Let's not encourage this blatant abuse of the term nanotechnology. Nanotechnology strictly refers to technologies dealing with machines and materials in the nanometer scale. Very small machines can be more precisely called NEMS, in the nanometer size, and MEMS, in the micrometer size. Nanomachines can only refer to the nanometer scaled devices, not micrometer scaled ones. In the case of the iPod Nano, we have yet another abuse of this flegling field. It brings to mind the "nanotechnology" used in Docker's Stain Defenders.
"or is simply dumb for inviting trouble."
or maybe having a lawsuit is=== an easy way to get the name out.
To #50:
I love to record high quality audio. In fact, I generally record to AIFF or WAV. I use ProTools and use my 60gig iPod as a firewire drive so I can use my files both in the studio and at my protools le setup at home. Thats the only way to use an MP3 player to record "high quality" audio.
iPod whiners sound just like Mac users do when Mac users talk about Windoze.
Funny how that is, isn't it?
Except Windows really does suck. Even Microsoft realizes how bad their OS is. The iPod, well, hmm. Although it dominates its category, it actually works, mostly.
Oh, and the public doesn't seem to want an FM tuner. It's funny, the same people who say "radio sucks" are the same ones lambasting Apple about the lack of an FM tuner. What's with that?
"The user interface on the iPod is better than anything that Creative has ever designed, period."
Of course, that's why Apple applied for the same patent and was rejected. Everyone KNOWS that Creative ripped off Apple's GUI and shipped it on players a year before the iPod was even announced.
As for the whole Nano issue. Read the article. "The SPECULATIONS have begun regarding whether Creative will stake a claim on the nano trademark, as they popped out the Zen Nano several months in advance of Apples birthing of the iPod nano in the market (which, in the end, does seem just a tad bit cruel)." there hasn't been any press release nor did they even say they got this from a source inside Creative OR Apple. It was a slow news day on Engadget and they just wanted to post something that would keep us busy while they goofed off. (Sorry Barb but I check Engadget pretty regularly every day and there's been only 4 new articles since Noon.) I doubt Creative will sue for Nano as it's a pretty flimsy suit. However, if their lawyers are good enough, they could easily make a case out of the GUI.
Nick
I cant put my girlfriends iPod Nano down... it's so cool.... like some device from the future. It defies internet description. Oh, and it plays music too.
Creative still exists?
"lets run thru a conversation:
- Have you got a Nano?
- I have a creative muvo nano...
- wtf is that ?" (#61)
The conversation would have ended in a "wtf" even before iPod nano was released. I heard about Creative's nano after I heard about iPod nano.
u heard about creative muvo nano becos u r obviously a biased apple fanatic who doesn't research into the dap player they buy...
if u knew anything about dap's ud know creative released their muvo nano months ago as another successor to their popular muvo series.
i'm not dissing ipod, in fact i think ipod nano is a awesome product, but the fact is most people when lookin for daps dont even consider the other products anymore, and just go for the ipod. that's clever marketing on apples part.
what i dont like is people boasting about ipods about stuff that they are not, i mean:
build quality - ipod's do break, and cost almost as much to replace as to fix
sound quality - a feature which iRivers and Creatives are superior
battery life - you can't even replace them on an ipod
sorry for my apple ipod rant, went a bit off topic but...
as i said, the apple ipod nano looks to sell millions, just off the name itself.
nobody, nobody at all, will want a creative muvo nano... just because of the name. I mean who the hell would want a product (which i agree is much inferior to the ipod nano)... that has the same as an ipod nano... for fear that people would recognise it as an imitation
lets run thru another conversation:
- hey guys i just bought a creative muvo nano!
- a creative muvo what?
- nano!
- *laughs* so u couldnt get a real ipod
lifes cruel, apples cruel
Uh guys. The "Creative Zen Muvo Nano" is accually named the "Creative Zen Nano Plus," it's your basic/standard flash based MP3 player.
Also guys what is your freaking problem with Creative shipping a player with the word Nano in it's name, before the iPod Nano?
If Creative wants to protect what they made before, let them. I'm sure all of you would have loved Apple to win that one lawsuit against Microsoft on their OS's GUI.
Also on top of that, it doesn't matter if the iPod Nano is better than the Zen Nano.
Creative Exec 1: "Hey did you see? Apples called their new player the iPod 'nano'"
Creative Exec 2: "Oh shit! It's much better than our product of the same name, and will easily outsell it to the point that we'll have lost money on researching and developing it"
Creative Exec 1: "So, time to put some money into developing a product that will oushine Apple's?"
Creative Exec 2: "Nah, lets just sue them and get a huge settlement, then get out of this race that has already been won"
Creative Exec 1: "Word - then I can afford an iPod nano"
By the way, if Creative does win this case, then I think apple should definitely have a case against every company that have tried to hijack the sucess of their products by making them white and putting 'i' at the front of their names.
Its really sad that when a company/person/idea becomes sucessful on its own merit that people feel the need to belittle the achievement.
And P.S. I am NOT an iPod owner, im waiting for the first decent mp3 phone, probaly the n91 seing as the itunes phone turned out to be ass.
#66 "Thats the only way to use an MP3 player to record "high quality" audio."
No it ain't... Heard of the Nomad Jukebox 3? It can record uncompressed WAV, and has some pretty nifty recording features as well...
Heck even the Jukebox 1 can record, and that came out in what, 2000?
Hey fanboys (and girls). I know you're busy riding on Jobs' tip right but try getting your heads outta your asses for a while. Just try a competing product that's not completely tied to their software and store.
Unfortunately Apple-heads are easily brainwashed. Go ahead and keep spending your hard earned money on crap.
And #38, STFU. You don't know me. I won't waste my money on crap from Apple. I believe in useful products, not flushing my money down the drain.
"By the way, if Creative does win this case, then I think apple should definitely have a case against every company that have tried to hijack the sucess of their products by making them white and putting 'i' at the front of their names."
Apple was not the first company to put an i in front of their players name. Iriver and Iaudio were around before that.
"u heard about creative muvo nano becos u r obviously a biased apple fanatic who doesn't research into the dap player they buy..."
I already own a DAP therefore I don't waste time to find out what other mp3 players did Creative released this week.
"if u knew anything about dap's ud know creative released their muvo nano months ago as another successor to their popular muvo series."
Maybe I just don't care what Creative releases any more. Last time I went to their website to look for DAPs, I got confused. Too many products did the same thing.
Anyway, the major problem with Creative when comes to compete with the iPod is not exactly how it looks and how good is the interface. It's the price. When you make an ugly DAP with a bad interface and you ask only 5-15% less than the iPod, don't expect people rush to buy your player! If it's half the price, I bet a lot of people might give it a try, and find out how great is the sound quality in a Creative product.
And more - the iPod is not that expensive any more. When iPod Shuffle was released ($99 - 512MB and $149 - 1GB), Creative tried to sell its 128MB mp3 players for around $100.
Now, Apple released a flash mp3 player that costs about the same as a compact flash card of the same capacity.
I can't believe it is already out:
Get a free iPod nano in Canada, the Us and the UK:
http://ipodnanos.freepay.com/?r=22230341
Creative won't sue Apple over the nano name because:
A) They do not have as much $$$ to spend on lawyers as Apple.
B) Doing so will only give Apple's new product more free publicity.
C) They will probably lose, since the official name of the Apple product is "iPod nano," not merely "nano," and thus differentiates itself in the marketplace as simply a differently-sized product in the already-accepted "iPod" family of trademarked products. The only thing a suit could possibly accomplish is establishing that Apple cannot trademark the name "nano" alone either.
Creative probably won't sue Apple over their recent interface patent for the following reasons:
A) See "A" above.
B) See "B" above.
C) They will almost certainly lose, as the patent only covers a "music player," and due to the fact that each and every iPod has some capability to do much more than play music, (like viewing photos, managing contact info, managing calendars/scheduling, playing simple games, use as a storage device, ect.) Apple can reasonably argue that their device is a handheld computer, not a mere music player, and they have "prior art" going back to the Newton, for handling the organization of computer data in a similar fashion on a handheld computer.
You do know that most of you don't have any point, right? The name of the product is Ipod nano, not ipod, and under our current rules, whether nano is used as a scientific measurement means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the arguement of whether it violates creative's rights in useing the nano name.
Apples releases OS X, the M$ comes out with XP and then X-Box. Didn't see apple trying to sue anybody. It also so funny to see people paranoid about Apple's success. LOL. Apple Won the MP3 War.... get over it.
No issue.
Creative (manufacturer name, trademarkable); Zen (product name, trademarkable); Nano (description, not really trademarkable)
Apple (manufacturer name, trademarkable); iPod (product name, trademarkable); Nano (description, not really trademarkable)
look at "GT" (just a description, not a manufacturer name nor a product name) in the auto world
Mustang GT
Nisan Skyline GT
PT Cruser GT
Ferrari 250 EUROPA GT
Lamborghini Murci?go GT
Lamborghini Diablo GT
Ferrari Dino 206GT
MGB GT
Porsche 356 GT
Toyota Celica GT
etc., etc.
And don't worry about any legalities re: the Apple Mac Mini and the OB Comfort MINI - tampon!!
Ipod Mini 3rd generation.
Nano may be a generic word but it's use in this case isn't. If that were so, we'd be seeing Apple ipod nano all over the media instead of Apple "nanos". There may be no lawsuit but apple takes and does whatever it wants with impunity. I doubt most mp3 owners have even checked out other brands given the cult status of ipods.
I'm always surprised that Microsoft is seen as the evil empire. Apple has it beat.
#60, I'm with you on that.
Many People buy iPods in part to piss off aggressive Apple haters they personally know :) You know the type of PC bullies that kept many people from switching to the Mac because of their aggressive Apple bashing. People that relied on these Apple-haters for their technology choices are now fed up with their own virus and spyware infested Windows boxes, and it's their way to say "Look dude, I've had enough with your hate, and this time I'M giving Apple a chance".
So please Apple bashers, continue with the iPod-hate, it sells more iPods! Paint yourselves into a corner, with white paint :)
And one last thing to counter the ever going disinformation train, the battery in iPods is replaceable and lasts up to 24 months. The battery is also covered by warranty the first year. As any consumer electronic products, some will fail after the warranty period and before the intended life of the product. The replacement batteries cost as low as 29.99$ for something that in the worse case will need to be changed after 18 months, but most probably after 24 months. Apple doesn't make the batteries, they use the same kind of batteries cellphones and other portable products use.
Guys. A few points, after reading the entire 85 posts.
1. Please, anyone who reads just a couple then tries to post his own opinion, don't, because its most likely that you'll just be repeating something that is already covered in a later post
2. Disregarding the quality/rights of Apple, have a look at the sales statistics of their products, what percentage of the market they hold.
-iPod shuffle: 58% of the flash based players
-iPod(normal and mini): 90% of the disk based DAP's
Doesn't this speak for itself? 90% is an absolutely incredible amount, where normally a balanced, successfull product would hope to hold maybe 20-40% of the respective market.
3. The Creative stuff is ugly!
4. Yet another conversation(s)
-have you got a nano?
-ive got a creative muvo nano
-a what nano?
5. Visit this site for more info on the topic:
http://spaces.msn.com/members/jameszimtuson/
If this situation were turned around and Creative named their
next player Creative Shuffle or The Shuffle by Creative, mac fans would be
outraged and calling for lawsuits and criticizing Creative. Mac fans love the double standard.
As a side note - Creative would be stupid to sue over this. If anything they will benefit from having the same name as the new ipod. People who search for nano will most likely come across Creative's player. I don't really think people will go for the Creative player over the Ipod nano, but there is a chance the price might lure some and it at the very least gives Creative some extra exposure.
Quote #53:
This just goes to show how arrogant stevie jobs has become ever since his overrated disposable 18month lasting ipod has become the biggest iTrend for iWhores.
1. Steve Jobs has always been arrogant. It has nothing to do with iPods.
2. I have a first-generation iPod from 2001. Four years and x months after my purchase, my iPod still gets 7-8 hours of battery life. That's almost 100% of what it got four years ago.
3. "iWhores"? Nothing like a good dose of name-calling to stimulate useful conversation.
Have a nice day.
out of both teams, Apple and Creative, if they have a huge fight.....well....lets just say I personally think Apple makes better products and whoever decides about Apple changing the name and everything...well lets just say they most likly just HATE Apple
LONG LIVE APPLE
Then came Nanocasting and the plot thickens:
What Separates Podcasters From Nanocasters? You'll Know It When You Hear It.
By: Errol Smith
Business Reporter, KTLA Los Angeles
Wondering what all this Nanocasting talk is about, and what separates podcasters from Nanocasters? Well...let me first offer a definition, and then draw a stark line in cyberspace.
"Nano" means very small and Nanocasting refers to the programming produced for the most narrowly but clearly defined target audience. This is the audience that is most interested in the type of programming, and from a marketing standpoint, the audience that is most likely to buy related products. Where the term podcasting casually evolved from vanity internet radio delivered via iPods, Nanocasting is an established model for commercial podcasting based on media and marketing science. Those interested in the marketing science behind nanocasting should read the TCI white paper.
http://www.nanocasting.org/mediasavvy20.htm
Uhhhhh #75....... I've owned a 5gb windows iPod since they were release and I have yet to load songs onto it using iTunes. Do a google search for 'ephpod'. I really doubt creative's patent on the interface would hold up to a challenge in court - just becuase you are granted a patent does NOT mean that you will be able to effectively defend it. Regarding the nano naming - if a company cannot or does not defend a trade mark then it will become public domain - such as the word 'aspirin' and prompting Xerox's ad campaign to stop people from calling photocopying 'xeroxing' because it could potentially nullify their trademark.