iPod touch vs. HTC Touch: Apple trademark dispute, round 2?
Peter Chou, CEO and president of HTC, was just reminding the press that HTC has registered "Touch" as a worldwide trademark and is "proud to share the same vision as Apple over touch screen functions." While he would not comment on whether HTC would take legal action against Apple, HTC's Marketing Manager Ching-hung Wang was happy to talk around the issue by noting Apple's and Cisco's ability to "reach a mutually satisfactory agreement" before, while footnoting the need for "further observation" around the "Touch" trademark rights question. Translated: Hey Apple, we think HTC is waiting for your call. Maybe you should make it a party line too so that Creative can bring their Zen Touch?
Filed under: Cellphones, Portable Audio, Portable Video
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Mischa Lockton @ Sep 7th 2007 1:41AM
What's next, lawsuits over the word "the"?
xiln @ Sep 7th 2007 7:33AM
Yeah, but let's start with the word "pod" first..
johnnyg0 @ Sep 7th 2007 8:31AM
Didn't Apple already sued many companies for using "Pod", like the ProfitPod, TightPod and others?
.. and didn't they also sued people for using the word "Podcast"
.. and for using "i" in front of their product when they launched their player?
I guess thinking you own a word can be very profitable.
(If you were sarcastic, it was too early for me to get it :)
Macinjosh @ Sep 7th 2007 9:46AM
@johnnyg0, yes Apple did that. But, only to protect their trademark. I remember reading that in order to keep a trademark like that, you have to show that you are willing to protect it every once in a while when these things come up or you could risk loosing it. Therefor, you have to sorta put out these little lawsuits to defend it, even though you dont REALLY intend to sue the pants off these people.
Its all business & legal crap.
Nick @ Sep 7th 2007 10:31AM
But there is a bit of a difference....HTC (company name) Touch (product name)
iPod Touch (product name). If it was the Apple Touch I could see a problem but its not. It is called the Apple iPod Touch. So, unless HTC exclusively owns the rights to the word "touch" for electronic data communication devices, I dont really see a case. And technically the iPod touch isn't a "data communication device" because it doesnt have any Mail,Voice,or Messaging. I have no idea how they are going to possibly argue that Apple's iPod Touch is going to confuse consumers that are looking for HTC's Touch.
db @ Sep 8th 2007 6:13PM
I agree with Nick above. I mean, if I was going to talk to someone about the HTC Touch, I would just come out and say "HTC Touch". Most people would know that HTC makes mobile phones. If I was going to talk to someone about the iPod Touch, I would just come out and say "iPod Touch". EVERYBODY should know what an iPod is. I don't know, but this does not sound very confusing to me. I really don't understand how someone could easily mix up an Apple and an HTC product with each other. I'd like to think that as a consumer, our intelligence should get more credit than this.
Kax02 @ Sep 8th 2007 2:22PM
Well that really is interesting at least.
"And technically the iPod touch isn't a "data communication device" because it doesnt have any Mail,Voice,or Messaging."
Yet it has Wifi and Safari running on it, of course the internet isn't about data communications right? If they want to make a case for it, they have one with little trouble thanks to what doors have been left open on the device.
Nick @ Sep 8th 2007 5:18PM
With a web broser it makes it a data device... but you need to have the ability to make it easy for the user to "COMMUNICATE" via Messaging, Mail or Voice. there is none.. If that is true you by definition would say that for at least the past 20 something years every computer sold should be called a "data communication device".
Geometry lesson:
A Square is a Rectangle, but a Rectangle is not a Square.
Data communication devices have web browsers, but not everything with a web browser is a data communication device
Tim @ Sep 8th 2007 5:35PM
I think "the" is already trademarked by Ohio State University...
Mischa Lockton @ Sep 8th 2007 7:36PM
Words like touch that already exist are fair game. In My Opinion they should be anyway.... also preexisting phrases that are popularized such as "you're fired" and the latest lawsuit over "That's hot" seem bogus to me.
iPhone is a "new" word, "Touch" has been around the block a few times.
Kax02 @ Sep 9th 2007 12:22AM
"but you need to have the ability to make it easy for the user to "COMMUNICATE" via Messaging, Mail or Voice. there is none.."
Yeah because using the wifi is impossibly hard, even worse would it be for a user to manage to access their webmail system or play with various java applets. I forgot, the internet takes about 5 hours to access because of how complex it is.
Of course I don't have the device, I don't know the exact limits of the software, but if it's like what people are touting with the iphone then it seems to be that it would be easy for people to do these things. Do they have to hack a router to get on the internet? Is Safari now a DOS based command system of browsing plain text documents?
nowhere @ Sep 7th 2007 1:43AM
Can I register the word "apple" and go after basically every person in the world?
Dave @ Sep 7th 2007 2:30AM
Well, Apple the music company (as in the Beatles) pretty much did that already.
nowhere @ Sep 7th 2007 2:35AM
They trademarked "Apple Corps", not a generic word like "Touch".
Krazie00 @ Sep 7th 2007 1:44AM
'Touch' trademarked? What has the world gone to?
giuliop @ Sep 7th 2007 6:38AM
Careful, I trademarked "World".
Le Master @ Sep 7th 2007 10:05AM
giuliop, you had me lawling for a good two straight minutes there.
Alex @ Sep 7th 2007 1:44AM
They need to get over themselves.
AdamC @ Sep 7th 2007 1:45AM
Maybe they should have called it IProd
LordFarkward @ Sep 7th 2007 2:08AM
or iPoke
Pumapayam @ Sep 7th 2007 8:44AM
No no no. . .iSue!
Totalfixation @ Sep 7th 2007 1:45AM
I don't get how they can have a trademark dispute. Apple would trade mark it as "iPod Touch" not just "touch." it's like saying you cant trade mark "Del Taco" because Taco was already used in "Taco Bell."
nikster @ Sep 7th 2007 4:19AM
Yup. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Phil @ Sep 7th 2007 5:23AM
But Taco isn't a trademark, Taco Bell is, ergo, you can safely use the word Taco.
Also remember that trademarks are limited to their field of application, therefore Apple Inc.(the computer company) was allowed to use their name because Apple Corps (the music company) trademark was to do with music. That's why when Apple Inc. started putting sound cards in their computers and selling them as ideal music production platforms, Apple Corps sued Apple Inc. And when iTunes came out, the same thing happened.
The Touch trademark will apply to digital handheld computer devices - the new iPod falls into this territory.
zeek112 @ Sep 8th 2007 1:54PM
That doesnt even make sence. It is HTC Touch vc Apple iPod Touch. So it would be like Taco Bell vs Del Taco Bell.
Totalfixation @ Sep 8th 2007 1:56PM
I think your missing the point zeek, its the fact that they cant trademark the word "taco" similar to apple or htc trademarking the word "Touch"
Alex @ Sep 7th 2007 1:47AM
They might as well trademark the word "Apple" and go after every fruit vendor out there.
Doc Justice @ Sep 7th 2007 1:51AM
Did you say "ladies in gentlemen?"
Isn't it normally the other way around?
Mike @ Sep 7th 2007 11:40AM
no they said "ladies AND gentlemen", what are you 12
rex @ Sep 7th 2007 1:52AM
From the looks of it... Creative should be suing both HTC and Apple for using the word Touch on thier product... And i'm judging this on by which product came first.. and it was the Zen Touch
LordFarkward @ Sep 7th 2007 2:11AM
exactly my thought also
ANNNND the fact that the zen touch is ALSO an mp3 player while the HTC touch is a phone?
c'mon creative, show us wot u got :) *fight fight fight*
keithwwalker @ Sep 7th 2007 4:22AM
I might point out that not only is the HTC Touch a phone, but of course it has an mp3 player on board, and stereo bluetooth which every iPhone and iPod inexplicably still don't have...
LordFarkward @ Sep 7th 2007 6:01AM
yes, keith, you're right, but when it comes to these trademark disputes the plantiff's argument would be that consumers would be confused by the same name for the device designed for the same (or VERY close ie. mobile phone vs VOIP phone)
the HTC touch's obvious major function is the phone while the ipod touch an mp3 player (like the zen touch). what i'm saying is that while the HTC touch has an 'mp3 playing function', this is not what it's mainly used for. if so i might as well point out other similarities (ie. both have screens, battery, buttons etc)
Brad @ Sep 7th 2007 9:23AM
Isnt it funny how while everyone else is fighting, trademarking things, etc...it always comes out that Creative did it first. The whole player interface that everyone uses was originally done by them in their players, they have made players with optical audio in ports (NJ3), full EAX fun, and other features while everyone else is coming out with substandard players and suing eachother.
ark_v2 @ Sep 7th 2007 8:08PM
That shows that creative, even when coming with this first and making so much better products than apple, aren't bitches as them; but I would have worked if they did.
Philip V. @ Sep 7th 2007 2:04AM
Exactly the first thing that came to my mind when I heard the news.
grjohnston @ Sep 7th 2007 2:15AM
How many ladies do you know of that are inside of gentlemen, and reading this article? I don't even know any ladies outside of gentlemen reading this article, especially not alongside any gentlemen.
***This is apparently only applicable if you read the RSS version.
ryan @ Sep 7th 2007 2:19AM
so basically what HTC is doing is going "hey apple, about that new ipod touch, we're not saying...we're just saying.."
captain obscurely obvious, signing out.
moje @ Sep 7th 2007 2:25AM
I'm suprised Creative don't have anything to say about the matter, with their Zen: Touch
David @ Sep 7th 2007 3:53AM
I'd suggest Apple did what ever patenting and copyright stuff before that Creative thing was launched/Creative did that themselves.
Tony @ Sep 7th 2007 6:29PM
especially since they no longer make a 'zen touch'
i dont think there has ever been a situation where someone confused the two anyway.
Musketeer @ Sep 7th 2007 2:34AM
Well I'm not a big Apple fan, but come on, touch is just a word in the english language. Any touchscreen device should be able to use touch as PART of their name.
woody_net @ Sep 7th 2007 2:34AM
Hmm who really cares what they call it !! the HTC touch looks like crap compared to the shiny gem its next too :)
schlomo @ Sep 7th 2007 2:42AM
"Marketing Manager Ching-hung Wang"
Oh God, please tell me you made up that name. I literally have tears running down my face I'm laughing so hard...
aron @ Sep 7th 2007 7:06AM
WTF is so funny about that?
vippydom @ Sep 7th 2007 2:42AM
In all honesty, Apple has gone after people for using the word "Pod" in product names (see http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/14/no-pod-for-you-apple-keeps-close-tabs-on-brand-name/ for example), so it would be like Apple getting a taste of their own medicine.
*shrug*
Either way, I think it's silly to do so.
JBirk @ Sep 7th 2007 2:49AM
I live in Denmark. 10 years ago, McDonalds made a lawsuit against a man selling sausages from a wagon out in the middle of nowhere, because he called himself McAllans. As I remember, luckily he won the case in Supreme Court.
ilh @ Sep 7th 2007 3:57AM
Surprised they didn't sue every Scot with a McName.
AdvWar @ Sep 7th 2007 3:54PM
Woot McNames!!!! (Not just limited to Scots either....)
Matt G @ Sep 7th 2007 3:02AM
Get that HTC peice of junk outta here and leave room for the companies who are actually willing to innovate. There should be a default judgment because their product sucks balls. LOL