• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

apple at it again

I dont think so. Say Pod in any college and every person that could hear you will raise an iPod. Similar to Mike Rowe Soft, IMHO.
 
Apple says this product may be confused with an iPod
Click to expand...

That's understandable, given the intelligence level of those who buy iPods

/applehate 🙂 have a nice day!

I agree with you though, apple has crossed the line here.
 
"Interestingly, Apple also claims that the Profit Pod bares physical resemblance to an iPod thereby confusing consumers on which one is which."

I was wondering why, instead of playing music, this thing I just bought seems to be counting coins instead.
 
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
I dont think so. Say Pod in any college and every person that could hear you will raise an iPod. Similar to Mike Rowe Soft, IMHO.
Click to expand...

people are going to assume, sure.. but the iPod brand is too iconic to be confused with something that not even marketed to consumers in the first place.
How come the company that makes those P.O.D.S. storage units not come under fire. Oh, because they aren't marketed the same and is easy to tell they aren't for portable audio.
so sure, its different.. but its the name none the less.

and no its not similar to Mike Rowe Soft.... Pod is a word, and has been used in products before iPod.... now it can't be used?
just like microsoft couldn't do anything when Lindows came out, simply because it had part of brand name Microsoft uses (Windows), but since its a common word it couldn't be trademarked. product names that are unique deserve fights like this... a word that is in the dictionary? Who is apple to say no one can use it? It's a word, and it can still be used for many things regarding audio or video because it is a word that can be switched around with hub.
 
Haven't there been movies and books with the term life-pod and things similar to this? I think Apple went overboard with this.


Perry
 
Originally posted by: jonessoda
"Interestingly, Apple also claims that the Profit Pod bares physical resemblance to an iPod thereby confusing consumers on which one is which."

I was wondering why, instead of playing music, this thing I just bought seems to be counting coins instead.
Click to expand...

:laugh:
What a joke.
 
There's a whole company/product called "PODs" Personal On-Demand Storage for people that are moving from their house.
How the hell can Apple say "you cant use that word"

I understand a compnay's right to their intellectual property and name recognition, but things liek this are simply retrded.
 
Originally posted by: jonessoda
"Interestingly, Apple also claims that the Profit Pod bares physical resemblance to an iPod thereby confusing consumers on which one is which."

I was wondering why, instead of playing music, this thing I just bought seems to be counting coins instead.
Click to expand...

Bears a physical resemblance to an iPod... IN THAT THEY BOTH PHYSICALLY EXIST!
 
Originally posted by: Homerboy
There's a whole company/product called "PODs" Personal On-Demand Storage for people that are moving from their house.
How the hell can Apple say "you cant use that word"

I understand a compnay's right to their intellectual property and name recognition, but things liek this are simply retrded.
Click to expand...

Hey, it's a white shape similar to a rectangular prism made out of metal and plastic. Probably plays music just as well, too. Apple has a better case there.
 
Originally posted by: Homerboy
There's a whole company/product called "PODs" Personal On-Demand Storage for people that are moving from their house.
How the hell can Apple say "you cant use that word"

I understand a compnay's right to their intellectual property and name recognition, but things liek this are simply retrded.
Click to expand...

But I could take a PODS container and load it up wit ha bunch of audio gear and a hard drive with music on it. Then it'd be JUST like an iPod!

And they're white, too!

Also, notice that every iPod accessory on the books uses either the i, or the pod component of the name. Naturally, they won't be going after those, even though they ARE likely infringing legitimately - but since they're complementary products, the lawyers don't see them as a threat - a sale of one of those means a sale of an iPod.
 
Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Darn Apple Records, darn them to hell.
Click to expand...

no.. damn Michael Jackson because I want to hear Beatles songs in movies and in games and online digitally, but Jackson won't give up the right to all the songs. bastard.
 
In the EU at least the claim would be rejected.
Whether the same rules apply in the US remains to be seen, but in similarly themed oppositions to trademarks, the verdict has been in favour of the applicant.
 
OK, I was expecting the product to be even remotely related, but their reasoning is a stretch. If it was an iPod accessory with Pod in the name, I'd agree with them. This is... just lame.
 
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I always thought of the apple thing as i "something." iBook, iMac, iPod.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was thinking too... I connect the "i" in iPod more to Apple than the "pod"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top