Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Apple Vs Pod
Entil'Zha
I see famous people
in Zocalo v2.0
Apple cracks down on use of the word 'pod'
[url]http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2164984/apple-goes-pod-makers[/url]
Apple has stepped up its legal crackdown on businesses using the word 'pod' in product and company names.
The company sent a cease-and-desist order last week to Podcast Ready, which markets an application known as myPodder that lets users download podcasts directly to a portable music player.
***
Next Up, Apple to sue Arthropods, and to petition the Government to force everyone in the world to stop eating pea pods, flowers must also stop producing seed pods.
[url]http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2164984/apple-goes-pod-makers[/url]
Apple has stepped up its legal crackdown on businesses using the word 'pod' in product and company names.
The company sent a cease-and-desist order last week to Podcast Ready, which markets an application known as myPodder that lets users download podcasts directly to a portable music player.
***
Next Up, Apple to sue Arthropods, and to petition the Government to force everyone in the world to stop eating pea pods, flowers must also stop producing seed pods.
Comments
[B]I actually believe they have. On top of that, they do have some legal grounding to persue derivative works even if it lacks the 'i.' hell if I can cite why at this freakin' hour :P [/B][/QUOTE]
If it's a competitor in the same market, they do.
For Apple to have grounds to pursue those using the word Pod, they need to be in the same industry, or there has to be intent to leverage Apples trademark or IP to sell products.
Example of two products existing with the same trademark, say a Chevy Impala and and excersize machine called the Impala. In that instance, the word Impala could be trademarked by both manufacturers. Now if the company making the excersize machine were to attempt to mimic the Impala logo, the GM would have grounds to persue...
Jake
[B]A trademark is not the exculsive rights to a specific word, its the right to use a specific word in a specific context.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
So my question becomes, how did Apple get away with their Nano, when Creative had the Zen Nano out first ( i believe)
1. It could be that creative never licensed the word Nano
2. It could be the word nano, in the context of small portable electronic devises was in fair use prior to Creative, and therefore it could not be trademarked
3. A third party had trademarked nano prior, but did not "defend" or use the trademark and therefore it became a fair used word.
Jake
[B]What about the pod people? What will happen to them now? :S [/B][/QUOTE]
They'll have to go back to Mars and stop their snatching.
Jake