iLounge

1

Wow I am going to take a further notice into this and hope for a good outcome.  See whether or not Clint Curtis has a battle or not!!!  Not taking any sides though.

Posted by musik4life89 on February 9, 2007 at 1:01 PM (PDT)

2

This does nothing but promote Apple’s player, why would they care?

Posted by Marc on February 9, 2007 at 1:09 PM (PDT)

3

I don’t see what the big deal is.  I would compare it to the NFL telling bars that they can’t advertise “super bowl” parties.

Posted by Pugetsound in Tacoma, Washington on February 9, 2007 at 1:31 PM (PDT)

4

they care because of trademark dilution. they’ve invested millions in the ipod brand, and if they let the bar owner continue, that could help any potential trademark case against apple, presumably because the owner lets people use non-ipod mp3 players if they have them.

Posted by tom on February 9, 2007 at 1:35 PM (PDT)

5

Yeah, that would be like Apple calling their new phone an iPhone.  You just can’t use a brand that already exists.

Posted by timmy on February 9, 2007 at 1:37 PM (PDT)

6

This is an excellent example of why lawyers should be taken out, drawn and quartered, chopped into itty-bitty pieces, and have those pieces then shot with a .50 calibur Desert Eagle using hollow point, phospherous rounds.
It goes well beyond reasonably protecting a copyright and does nothing more than create an embarrassment for Apple. This will lose them customers.
I can understand going after the knock off manufacturers and even a few accsesory makers that use the name iPod. Petty things like this make you wonder if you can use the word “iPod” at all in any situation. Should you not call it a “iPod” givaway? Can you not say that this program or item works with an iPod?
Really…this is just childish. Rein in yours lawyers, Apple. I think they might be rabid.

Posted by MirandaKali on February 9, 2007 at 1:44 PM (PDT)

7

could you just like… call it “imp3pod mondays” or something like that?

“iPOOD mondays?”
“uPod mondays?”

~funkpod

Posted by funkpod on February 9, 2007 at 1:59 PM (PDT)

8

If you don’t defend your trademark you lose it. It’s part of trademark law, it’s not Apple lawyers being dicks.

Posted by John on February 9, 2007 at 2:42 PM (PDT)

9

Actually they need to do this to protect their trademark.

Since the guy is using a registrered trademark (iPod) if Apple does not take action, it can be interpreted by the court as if they are allowing the use of their trademark - if they then face a more serious trademark infringement (like another MP3 player called something with iPod in the name) they could loose the case, because they have not protected the trademark in the past.

So even though it sounds silly to take legal action against someone promoting your product, they NEED to do it to protect their right to the iPod name.

Regarding the iPhone, one of the things being discussed is if Cisco has indeed lost the right to the trademark because they owned it but didn’t use or protect it for a long time.

Posted by Peter on February 9, 2007 at 2:48 PM (PDT)

10

I think this is funny because I actually live here and have heard radio advertisements about this… I never thought I would see it somewhere like ilounge! I do agree that they should call it something else, though.

Posted by hi on February 9, 2007 at 2:52 PM (PDT)

11

There’s an awful lot of armchair trademark lawyers here…

All I see is Apple bullying the little guy yet again.

Posted by stark23x on February 9, 2007 at 3:09 PM (PDT)

12

How would people confuse the iPod (portable music device) with iPod Monday (event in IA bar)?  Should Delta (the airline) sue all the other deltas as well?  Apple really need to keep their lawyers on decaf.  This frivolous litigation is smearing their name in ways they don’t need.

Clint should call it Zune Monday, that’d show them.

Posted by anon on February 9, 2007 at 3:49 PM (PDT)

13

The issue appears to me to NOT be that there is an “iPod Monday” event, but that there is a website (selling branded Cafe Press t-shirts) called iPodMonday.

Remember what “iLounge” used to be called?  Seems to be the same issue, albeit delayed by a few years….

Posted by taffinito on February 9, 2007 at 4:01 PM (PDT)

14

Also Apple’s trying to protect the image of the iPod.  What if something bad happened at a bar that had an “iPod Night”?  All it takes is one hysterical news report along the lines of,

“Young teens sneak into bars and take drugs all because of iPod night.”

Then cut to Apple saying, “No comment.”

Sound like it wouldn’t happen?  Remember when the PSP first came out and kids were using the Wi-Fi to download porn?  Nearly every city had special reports on how Sony was to blame for kids getting porn on their “Playstation Pornables” while at school, when clearly it would have happened with any internet device and the real story was about parents who don’t teach their kids that looking at porn while at school is bad, or why the school had open Wi-Fi with no monitoring software in place.

All that’s needed is one reporter looking for a hook to sell a story and Apple’s being blamed for every bad thing that happens at a bar “iPod Night”.

Posted by Jeffery Simpson on February 9, 2007 at 4:32 PM (PDT)

15

Apple is the new Microsoft.  Seriously!

Posted by spaceboy27 on February 9, 2007 at 4:52 PM (PDT)

16

More on this on Boingboing:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/09/apple_sends_stupid_t.html

He makes a good point here:

Please, fanboys, don’t send me dumb notes averring that Apple’s failure to police this use of its mark will lead to the end of its ability to stop manufacturers from producing rival MP3 players and calling them iPods. That’s a fairy tale that trademark lawyers tell their kids when they want to reassure them that they’ll have a healthy college fund. Courts don’t declare trademarks generic because they’re used descriptively to describe an actual use of the actual product.

Posted by superape on February 9, 2007 at 5:23 PM (PDT)

17

Did any of you lawyer-bashers ever hear of Kleenex?  Thought so.

Posted by avocato on February 9, 2007 at 6:22 PM (PDT)

18

Ok, but it’s an EVENT, not a product. I don’t see the problem.

Posted by kloan on February 9, 2007 at 6:47 PM (PDT)

19

D’you think ‘Steve Jobs’ is trademarked?

If not, he could always call it ‘This used to be named after one of his products but Steve Jobs set his lawyers on me’ Mondays.

Posted by Step666 on February 9, 2007 at 6:59 PM (PDT)

20

> Did any of you lawyer-bashers ever hear of Kleenex?

Or Xerox?

NB—This posting is not to be interpreted as me having any positive regard for lawyers in any respect. Thank you. Good night.

Posted by Unipalmer on February 9, 2007 at 8:47 PM (PDT)