Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 10:01 AM

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3489
Another cease and desist letter from Apple regarding usage of "pod" turns up...

fxbezak · Aug 16, 2006, 10:14 AM

This is so much like Paris Hilton trying to Trademark "Thats Hot".

Stupid.

scaught · Aug 16, 2006, 10:18 AM

The third, unmentioned option, of course is to go to court and defend her trademark, which Wilson is prepared to do.

good luck.

kick52 · Aug 16, 2006, 01:53 PM

stupid.

Cody Dawg · Aug 16, 2006, 02:10 PM

Where are all the Apple knee-jerkers yelling, "It's NOT a cease and desist letter!"

Oh, wait - they're on the way right now!

Chuckit · Aug 16, 2006, 02:17 PM

No, that is a C&D. Nobody denied they exist.

And incidentally, unlike the Profit Pod, I think there's a chance that a TightPod (say it out loud) carrying case for a PowerBook or MP3 player is confusingly similar to Apple's trademarks.

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 03:12 PM

So what? Apple has to protect its trademark or it will lose it.

I tried to think of a name for it and, of course, available domain names is an issue. I had all kinds of names that were different combinations of words and I'd run them by my friends for their opinion. For example, a merger of "laptop" and "leotard." But my friends rejected most of them until I realized this was like putting a seed in its pod and that's when I came up with TightPod. I also realized that pod was a hot buzz word — a part of the vernacular. It was turning up everywhere else. So I went with that.

She couldn't think of a name (sure she went through a few), so she thought of some odd metaphor of a seed in a pod? And she admits wanting to use the "pod" name, since Apple has made it a buzz word. Yeah, Apple is right to fight it. She should just think of another name for it. Tightpod is really dumb sounding for a laptop case anyways.

mitchell_pgh · Aug 16, 2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

So what? Apple has to protect its trademark or it will lose it.

Bingo...

Cody Dawg · Aug 16, 2006, 04:04 PM

Chuckit - you were right on time!

Couldn't resist!

mitchell_pgh · Aug 16, 2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Chuckit - you were right on time!

Couldn't resist!

Good old Cody... sticking up for the little buy even when they are in the wrong

Rumor · Aug 16, 2006, 04:11 PM

Tightpod is better than LapTard.

Chuckit · Aug 16, 2006, 04:24 PM

But LapTard would be more appropriate.

Rumor · Aug 16, 2006, 04:31 PM

LapTard makes me think of the girl at the strip club that nobody wants a dance from.

torsoboy · Aug 16, 2006, 05:17 PM

I don't think ANYONE would think Apple made the TightPod. They have ONE line of products that use the word POD as a part of the name, and now they think they own the word POD and every use of it? I don't think they would win in a trial.... no consumer confusion.

Chuckit · Aug 16, 2006, 05:35 PM

So if, say, I make a calculator called the "Mac," do you think I'm the clear?

Eug · Aug 16, 2006, 05:35 PM

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3489
Another cease and desist letter from Apple regarding usage of "pod" turns up...

That's stupid.

P.S. The name "TightPod" is also stupid, but that's beside the point.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 05:46 PM

regardless of what people think of the name, some of you seem to be missing the point that Apple does not have a legal right to the word "pod". Pod was around before Apple, and will be around afterwards.

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 05:47 PM

How about "Ugly Looking Laptop Case from the 80's"

Descriptive, and catchy!

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by tutelary

regardless of what people think of the name, some of you seem to be missing the point that Apple does not have a legal right to the word "pod". Pod was around before Apple, and will be around afterwards.

And that's not what they're fighting. Its the whole name "TightPod". If someone were to make a product named "HiPod" or "ThighPod" or whatever Apple would fight that too.

Do you people think Apple likes wasting money on these sorts of things? They do it because they have to.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

And that's not what they're fighting. Its the whole name "TightPod". If someone were to make a product named "HiPod" or "ThighPod" or whatever Apple would fight that too.

Do you people think Apple likes wasting money on these sorts of things? They do it because they have to.

if apple were fighting a product named "iStuff" "iThink" "iWrite" etc, I would agree, but trying to grab the word pod for themselves is absolutely stupid. Next they will be sending out notifications to grocery stores over the word "Apple". Oh wait thats right, they had to fight the Beatles themselves over that, didnt they? What goes around comes around I guess.

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by tutelary

if apple were fighting a product named "iStuff" "iThink" "iWrite" etc, I would agree, but trying to grab the word pod for themselves is absolutely stupid. Next they will be sending out notifications to grocery stores over the word "Apple". Oh wait thats right, they had to fight the Beatles themselves over that, didnt they? What goes around comes around I guess.

So how is the letter "i" any different than the word "pod"? The letter "i" when put in front of another word is worthy of fighting in court. So is the word "pod" put after another word or letter worth fighting in court.

Do you think Apple's lawyers are bored or something? Do you think they just sit around looking for ways to waste Apple's money? Do you think you know the law better than they do?

Cody Dawg · Aug 16, 2006, 06:10 PM

I agree with tutelary 1000%.

Apple sucks for this behavior.

Are they going to claim "intellectual infringement" for every single freaking word in the English language?

Because it sure seems that way.

Moronic.

Oh, and this deserves honorable mention:

rumor

LapTard makes me think of the girl at the strip club that nobody wants a dance from.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

So how is the letter "i" any different than the word "pod"? The letter "i" when put in front of another word is worthy of fighting in court. So is the word "pod" put after another word or letter worth fighting in court.

Do you think Apple's lawyers are bored or something? Do you think they just sit around looking for ways to waste Apple's money? Do you think you know the law better than they do?

the difference is that pod was a pre-existing word which Apple is trying to corrupt as its own identity. "iWhatever" is an Apple-centric marketing ploy used nowhere else. There is a clear and distinct difference here.

I didnt say "i" I said, "iWhatever"

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 06:14 PM

Ahh the armchair lawyers come out in droves.

Me, I trust Apple's lawyers to make rational decisions based on the many many years of experience they have. I guess just because you think its dumb, that makes Apple's lawyers dumb too.

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by tutelary

the difference is that pod was a pre-existing word which Apple is trying to corrupt as its own identity. "iWhatever" is an Apple-centric marketing ploy used nowhere else. There is a clear and distinct difference here.

I didnt say "i" I said, "iWhatever"

You still haven't answered me on how you think you know more about the law than Apple's lawyers.

Show me how this C&D isn't warranted. Not just your opinion on the matter.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Ahh the armchair lawyers come out in droves.

Me, I trust Apple's lawyers to make rational decisions based on the many many years of experience they have. I guess just because you think its dumb, that makes Apple's lawyers dumb too.

yes, especially when Apple's lawyers are taking action over the arcade "profit pod" because it "has a screen and rounded corners". This is a product the general public NEVER SEES. "Armchair lawyers" or not Apple has lost before, and will again. They are not right in this.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

You still haven't answered me on how you think you know more about the law than Apple's lawyers.

Show me how this C&D isn't warranted. Not just your opinion on the matter.

show me apples trademark on the word Pod? ok then, stfu.

::maroma:: · Aug 16, 2006, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by tutelary

show me apples trademark on the word Pod? ok then, stfu.

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A TRADEMARK ON THE WORD POD.

You don't even know what they are fighting against.

Go back and figure out what they are fighting and then maybe you can form an intelligent argument.

Until then, why don't you stfu.

Rumor · Aug 16, 2006, 06:31 PM

The C&D letter is because Apple beleives that there could be consumer product confusion, which would lead Joe Schmoe to think that the TightPod is endorsed by Apple. Makes sense.

Cody Dawg · Aug 16, 2006, 06:38 PM

I always thought the name "pod" for their music device was stupid anyway.

tutelary · Aug 16, 2006, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A TRADEMARK ON THE WORD POD.

You don't even know what they are fighting against.

Go back and figure out what they are fighting and then maybe you can form an intelligent argument.

Until then, why don't you stfu.

Defeat is a bitter pill, isn't it?

"APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A TRADEMARK ON THE WORD POD." - maroma

Yet they are acting like they do. They are threatening legal action like they do. You lose.

torsoboy · Aug 16, 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A TRADEMARK ON THE WORD POD.

You don't even know what they are fighting against.

Go back and figure out what they are fighting and then maybe you can form an intelligent argument.

Until then, why don't you stfu.

The letter states that they are in fact trying to register POD as their own. But keep defending it.

Apple also owns registrations for POD in the European Community and elsewhere, as well as a pending application in the U.S. (serial No. 78/459,101) for the POD mark

Spliffdaddy · Aug 16, 2006, 07:40 PM

I'd say Apple's lawyers are stupid.

Heck, their 'top lawyer' quit a few weeks ago - after it was decided that Apple needed to re-fudge their books because of the stock scandal.

loki74 · Aug 16, 2006, 09:28 PM

whatever....

Seriously, why is everyone bitching about this? All this type of **** is routine, as far as I know. Face it--ANYTHING that is CamelCased and has the second word "Pod" IS strikingly similar to iPod. Apple has a right to defend against ANYTHING they feel is similar enough to their mark. If they are wrong and it is not, then a court will decide that.

And this has NOTHING to do with big business-small business. There is a bank here in Vegas... specifically, the bank I go to. They had to change their name from BankWest to Bank of Nevada. Why? Because a new guy, Bank of the West, was moving into town. Both are fairly large operations. Granted, Bank of the West and BankWest are much more similar than ProfitPod, TightPod, and iPod, but the point stands--if the names are different enough, then a court will say so...

Just chill out guys, seriously.

Chuckit · Aug 17, 2006, 01:56 AM

Bank of the West and BankWest are actually not a whole lot more similar than TightPod and iPod. Profit Pod (note: not CamelCase) I still don't get, though.