Originally posted 2006-09-27 17:22:15. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The Daily Mail:

Apple is waging war against companies that use the word “pod” in product and company names, arguing customers will be confused by what brand they are buying.

Etc. This is now a regular news story. You… you don’t need LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION for this any more.

If you love a trademark story, set it free. This story is bigger than any blog, bigger, certainly, than my blog. Go, Matt Drudge! Go, Associated Press! Go, go, go Daily Mail!

Fly like the wind, Apple-suing-everybody-over-pod-product-names story! Fly like a bird! Like a bird in the wind! A windy bird!

In other words, we are bored of this story. You’re on your own at this point, unless someone finally gets a judge to say something about it.

UPDATE:  I lied.  Here’s a very good, insightful article from Wired.

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

3 thoughts on “More pod plays”
  1. Hi Ron,

    What you can add to the discussion are the “podcasting” trademarks that are pending and appear to be unscathed. Apparently the PTO believes that the word “podcast” is merely descriptive and by itself cannot be owned by anyone. Apple let this term be used generically for years, so much that it became a dictionary word for broadcasting audio programs online. One mark I reviewed is PODCASTGO (Ser. No. 78758800), which appears to be cleared for takeoff once they specify the nature of the audio content.

    So there is plenty to this story left for you to write, and it might even bolster some trademark attorney out there to give their client more accurate advice in the POD Department.


    John Huff

  2. If you loved it, let it go.

    Seriously though, this seems to me to be likely Apple attorneys telling Apple that if they don’t “aggressively pursue” their trademarked name, it will fall into the public domain. I don’t see how this is any differnt from other trademark cases, particularly those like Kleenex or Xerox who had to fight doubly hard to get their trademark BACK after it had been left unguarded for too long.

    Is that a possible explanation for Apple’s vigorous treatment here?

Comments are closed.