No POD for you: Apple keeps close tabs on brand name

Sure, we're as sensitive to brand rights issues as the next guy, but it seems like Apple might be going a bit too far on this one. Apparently a small company named Mach 5 is stepping on their toes with a new "Profit Pod" device that can track arcade machines for money put in and tickets spat out, and then wirelessly transmit the information to a PDA or notebook computer. It sounds like a boon for arcade owners, who won't have to manually inspect each machine, but Apple seems to think differently. "We believe there is confusing similarity between Apple's IPOD mark and the PROFIT POD mark," says a recent letter from Apple legal to Mach 5. They go on to say: "we must ask that Mach 5 Products immediately abandon the pending application for PROFIT POD, agree to cease all use of the PROFIT POD." Apple seems to think the word "Pod," plus the similar functionality of transmitting data to a computer, use with video games, and the fact that, in their words, "the PROFIT POD product is a small, flat, round corned rectangular device with a display screen," (see picture above), make the Profit Pod a threat to that nifty brand name of theirs.`We wouldn't call it an iPod killer per se, but maybe these Mach 5 folks are on to something.

[Via Techdirt]

[Nick @ Aug 14th 2006 4:09PM]

Ha! Their industrial design is terrible, compared to Apple's. Nice try, but like any other POS I think I'll have to pass.

(I kid, I kid)

[daniel @ Sep 24th 2006 10:37PM]

does it play MP3's???

[Vertigo @ Aug 14th 2006 4:09PM]

I guess the only thing they learned from being sued by Apple Corps was not to be the little guy.

Jerks

[TeleCustom @ Aug 14th 2006 4:14PM]

I don't like to do this to you guys, but this is the 2nd or 3rd post I've seen today that I saw a day or two prior on Ars Technica.

[umrain @ Aug 14th 2006 4:18PM]

Aggressively defending your trademarks is one thing, but this is just asinine. Come on, Apple: People are stupid, but not THAT stupid. No one will look at that hideous italicized logotype and think of an Apple digital music player, I assure you.

[mazola @ Aug 14th 2006 4:23PM]

Well, to be fair, in Apple's eyes iPod == Profit Pod

[BandB @ Aug 14th 2006 4:29PM]

I'm a fan of apple and I must say that this is rediculous, It doesn't even have anything to do with music, not to mention the fact that there is no way someone would confuse to 2.

What next sueing farmers growing Peas

really disapointing but mabey it's like that girl requesting info and got a nasty letter a couple of months back and this is just some brainless legal intern's work.

[daniel @ Aug 14th 2006 4:31PM]

"It sounds like a boon for arcade owners, who won't have to manually inspect each machine, but Apple seems to think differently."

haha, isn't it "think different"?

[tehshitz @ Aug 14th 2006 4:32PM]

If I were Mach 5, I'd trace a picture of my hand giving the middle finger over the top of the letter and mail it back along with the "Po" page from the dictionary that has "pod" on it.

[oh please @ Aug 14th 2006 4:35PM]

In other news, grocery stores everywhere receive cease and desist orders from Apple for selling the popular fruit carrying a similar name and image.

[Jeff Foster @ Aug 14th 2006 4:36PM]

if you do not actively protect your patents, you loose the right to protect it later.

I'm not saying this makes any sense, but according to patent law, NOT going after these guys may set a precedent that would bite Apple in the butt later. (keeping them for protecting their patents against legitimate infringements down the road.)

You'd have to verify that with a patent lawyer, but i'm pretty sure that it works like that.

... this is still pretty silly.

[John @ Aug 14th 2006 4:41PM]

The shoe is on the other foot now...didn't they just conclude their own legal problems with Apple Records? It would be funny if Line 6 (maker of the POD guitar effects device) went after Apple for trademark infringement....

[Rob @ Aug 14th 2006 4:45PM]

I'm an Apple fan as well, but this is just ridiculous. I wonder if the guys over at Line 6 ever thought about going after Apple for using "Pod"? After all their product was out before the iPod and it is a "music" device.
http://www.line6.com/products/pods/

[David @ Aug 14th 2006 4:47PM]

iPod = (i, because why not?) Portable On Demand

In case anyone cares to know...

[Loque @ Aug 14th 2006 4:49PM]

Sue them for a non-music device, yet the iRiver stands?

HAH!

[Tnyc @ Aug 14th 2006 4:53PM]

This is so fucking rediculous. No wonder there are a lot of Apple haters out there. Apple thinks it owns the world with their Ipoos. I mean how does this product present any threat to Apple? But Apple is so paranoid as a company that they will go after anything and anyone that come remotely resembling the Ipoo in anyway shape or form. It's stupid incident like this that makes Apple looks like a dictatorial regime in the world of business.

[Ultim8fury @ Aug 14th 2006 4:59PM]

Or it could be that a computer program runs off matches of potentially infringing devices and some one failed to really read what it's about.

[.625 @ Aug 14th 2006 5:01PM]

Brilliant strategy for Mach 5. Build a device, throw the name "pod" on it and let Apple's lawyers take care of your marketing/advertizing. Without spending a penny, pictures and descriptions of their product are getting picked up by various news/blog sites.

[daaper @ Aug 14th 2006 5:02PM]

John, you have an awesome point there. that would completely make my day if Line6 sent Apple a similar letter...

[WareWolf @ Aug 14th 2006 5:10PM]

Yeah, they sent me a mean email back in the day over the 'style' of a theme hosted by my website. They thought it looked too much like thier OS X. After a brief call to their lawyers, I explained that they didn't own the rights to my website & I'd post whatever I wanted there. Their threats were all empty, no further communication from them was received. It is just an idle threat, I'd say.

[kleger @ Aug 14th 2006 5:14PM]

does it play ogg?

[Mr. B @ Aug 14th 2006 5:14PM]

...even the lawyers must think this is stupid. Apple didn't invent the 'pod' or the circle.

[Slash @ Aug 14th 2006 5:16PM]

Next thing you know google wont let you use google it anymore.


oh wait...

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2162290/stop-googling-things-google

[Patrick @ Aug 14th 2006 5:21PM]

Jeff, patent != trademark. Apple's logo and the iPod brand are trademarked.

-p-

[stens @ Aug 14th 2006 5:24PM]

This does seem ridiculous.

Of course, based on my extremely limited knowledge of patent law, it seems that if you do not defend your trademark aggressively, it becomes public domain, and the trademark is gone. The problem is that no lawyer or court will tell any company (and this is not just an Apple issue) what the limit is, where aggressive defense becomes ridiculous. Some companies, Apple included IMO, therefore go overboard just to be safe and defend trademarks of high-profit items. They're willing to trade negative publicity for safety of their trademark.

[Juaquin @ Aug 14th 2006 6:10PM]

@tehshitz

"mail it back along with the "Po" page from the dictionary that has "pod" on it."

Genius. Absolutely genius. I want to do this.

[Foobert @ Aug 14th 2006 6:15PM]

Does this mean that crappy alterna-metal band P.O.D can expect an injunction any day now?

[Jeff Foster @ Aug 14th 2006 6:16PM]

that Google article proves my point. (TM, not patent, that was a typo on my part. sorry.)

"It has happened to once-trademarked products including yo-yo, trampoline and nylon. Trademark lawyers call it 'genericide'."

you can LOSE the right to defend your trademarks if you do not protect them.

[Chris @ Aug 14th 2006 6:21PM]

Should the U.S. Postal Service sue Apple for infringing use of the name "Mail" for their e-mail application especially since it boundaries on a similar line of business. Maybe H.G. Wells foundation will sue over the name "Time Machine"? How about "Safari", "Preview", "Spaces", "Calculator", etc.?

Geez...ironic that its usually the Mac fanatics that throw stones at Microsoft for be the big corporate thug!

[Chris Robinson @ Aug 14th 2006 6:27PM]

Loque, the iRiver brand preceeds the iPod brand.

[Ian Jardine @ Aug 14th 2006 6:49PM]

Clearly Apple Corporate Lawyers should be spending more time administering correctly their internal shop re Apple Share Options and less time dumping on another company's reasonable use of the word "pod" in a product description.

[az1324 @ Aug 14th 2006 6:50PM]

Hey Apple, don't forget to sue the bands POD or the site www.pods.com, makers of tripods, and the site trypodnetwork.com.

[pff1029 @ Aug 14th 2006 6:52PM]

That's the most innocuous threat to Apple's trademark. What's with this "i" prefix on everything? Shouldn't that be brought to their attention!?

[catboy17 @ Aug 14th 2006 7:03PM]

Chris, I assume you know this already, but none of those things are trademarked, whereas iPod is, so the argument doesn't really make any sense. If Apple's mail program was called Fedex, for example, that'd be a different story. Still, I think it's pretty easy for Apple to argue that they can reserve their trademark on pod in a consumer electronics setting without having it entirely stricken from the dictionary.

[scwtte @ Aug 14th 2006 7:17PM]

I always thought the "iPod" name was a ripoff since it came a year after the "iPAQ," which was a Compaq desktop line which shared its name with a very successful Pocket PC line. A portable audio player is very similar to a PDA too...I don't know if Compaq/HP worked something out with Apple, but it seems like they should've gotten some money for that name.

iPAQ=2000, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipaq
iPod=2001, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod

[I,Robot @ Aug 14th 2006 7:35PM]

Wait… the company’s name is “Mach 5”, and Apple is getting their panties bunched up over the word POD. Someone better call Speed Racer, and tell him to get his lawyers on top of this problem.

The word POD is in the dictionary, it is a noun – meaning; “An elongated seed vessel of a leguminous plant such as the pea, splitting open on both sides when ripe”. You CANNOT copyright a noun in the English Language, no matter how much of a lexicon it has become. This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard… inside of a week, and it ONLY Monday.

[undeadsoldier @ Aug 14th 2006 7:45PM]

Oh no.. I can't escape in my escapepod... apple has sued the shuttle and removed all escapepods.. NOOOO

Fcukers

[eLi in Japan @ Aug 14th 2006 8:12PM]

Oh dear Ah-poo,

1.) Don't forget to sue all the publishers of dictionaries for having a "Po" page (or an "i" for that matter). OHnooooo~ ah-poo is going to sue EVERYONE who calls themselves "i" from now on, so be carefuLofSh*t!

2.) Here is also the page from the dictionary containing words begining with "Ho," as in HOG (or just HO)!

R i d i c u l o u S h i t !!!

[danj3ris @ Aug 14th 2006 8:25PM]

Hey Hey! Sega did the pod thing too!

http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Misc/SegaPods.htm

[crescentdave @ Aug 14th 2006 9:33PM]

This Apple lawsuit should be entitled: iDIOCY. Only an iGNORANT iDIOT would defend this action.

[Zak @ Aug 14th 2006 9:35PM]

That's such crap. I'm starting to really hate Apple.

How come they sue Mach 5, when I see infomercials with 'i' in front of everything? iPastaStrainer, iMugWarmer, iShoe, ect...

[Recifer @ Aug 14th 2006 9:57PM]

What about Ween's THE POD?... They had it first!

BOOGNISH FOREVER!

[Bweetza @ Aug 14th 2006 9:59PM]

Finally, the hammer in the coffin. I'm definitely getting a Zune now. Apple, you have fallen far from the tree.

[Nathan M @ Aug 14th 2006 10:07PM]

Ha, and everyone says MS is evil. MS owns numerous patents and rarely sues or even notifies about infringment. :P

And yeah, this is crazy. It's not even the same type of device, and in no way a thread to the iPod. I'd been thinking about getting a MacBook for a while but things like this turn me more towards what I know best.

[Teddy O @ Aug 14th 2006 11:34PM]

What is the big deal here...that it's apple or that it's about such an unrelated device? This sort of thing go on all of the time, but aren't made public. Letters from corporate lawyers are not the same as lawsuits and do not necessarily mean that one will happen either.

(1) Anyway, if you think this is ridiculous, you should look into how vigorously the USOC and IOC defend their trademark rights to the word "Olympic". That is some seriously heavy handed trademark protection.

(2) Anyone that let's this determine what product they buy is a ignoramus...or had made their decision already but just found this a convenient excuse. I'm all for supporting corporations that have a positive social impact, and shunning those that don't. But it seems quite hypocritical to make this an issue while actively buying products from Microsoft, Intell, AMD, Dell, IBM...etc...etc...etc.

[Sailorleo @ Aug 15th 2006 12:44AM]

"You CANNOT copyright a noun in the English Language, no matter how much of a lexicon it has become."

Like someone already mentioned, it's not copyright law we're dealing with. This is a trademark issue, and trademarks have to be strigently defended.

Trademark law specifically states that if a trademark holder does not when they had reasonable knowledge of the potential infringement then they lose all rights to the trademark, which becomes public domain property.

The problem is that, unlike Copyright and Patent law, Trademark law never defines what qualifies as 'similar,' more or less forcing a C&D on any usage whatsoever or face the possibility of a Judge deciding that it's not theirs anymore.

[Scott Spinola @ Aug 15th 2006 3:09AM]

Jeff Foster and stens are absolutely correct here: current trademark law virtually DEMANDS that Apple and other companies "overreach" on their infringement claims and aggressively defend their brands. Failing to do so could be disastrous by transforming a valuable brand into a generic mark that anyone could profit from. "A generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be commercially exploited by anyone" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark in the "Legal Concepts" section).

Cartainly no sane person will confuse the "Profit Pod" with an Apple iPod, but every time Apple (or any other company) fails to defend its brand is one step closer they are to losing it.

I doubt Apple even cares to win this suit (and likely knows it won't). It is the fight that matters. The more ubiquitous the brand (iPod is nearly generic in common use) the more aggresively a company needs to defend even tangentally smilar names such as this.

Don't bash Apple for the legal world they live in.

[greenlight @ Aug 15th 2006 4:51AM]

@scwtte: I thought that everyone knew that the "iPAQ" was a shameless rip on the iMac, which came out 2 years prior to Compaq naming a like of desktop computers "iPAQ", and later making iPAQ PDAs as well.

[Joe @ Aug 15th 2006 10:38AM]

I'm surprised Line 6 isn't suing Apple. They used the name first.

[JM @ Aug 15th 2006 10:50AM]

meh..no ogg support, no fm receiver...next.