[Jeff Campbell]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/video-pod/

"We assure ourselves that words will never hurt us, but they can cost a lot of time and money when it comes to trademark battles. Take the story of Daniel Kokin, who is continuing to fight Apple over a three-letter word: Pod."

This guy has been working on what he calls the "Video Pod" for over 9 years, a device that is designed to play video from DVD players and other devices but surprisingly enough not from iPods. Perhaps that is why Apple is so upset, he left them out of the loop. Seriously though, they think the name "pod" is going to confuse some people and that consumers believe anything with "pod" in it is made by Apple. That is a stretch, but at least Kokin will get his day in court as the summary judgement Apple requested was denied. This is just silly of Apple, and a waste of time and money. Or perhaps I'm off base. What are your thoughts? 

[Jeff Campbell]

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/video-pod/

"We assure ourselves that words will never hurt us, but they can cost a lot of time and money when it comes to trademark battles. Take the story of Daniel Kokin, who is continuing to fight Apple over a three-letter word: Pod."

This guy has been working on what he calls the "Video Pod" for over 9 years, a device that is designed to play video from DVD players and other devices but surprisingly enough not from iPods. Perhaps that is why Apple is so upset, he left them out of the loop. Seriously though, they think the name "pod" is going to confuse some people and that consumers believe anything with "pod" in it is made by Apple. That is a stretch, but at least Kokin will get his day in court as the summary judgement Apple requested was denied. This is just silly of Apple, and a waste of time and money. Or perhaps I'm off base. What are your thoughts? 

[doogald]

They actually need to protect their trademarks or risk losing them. From the article (emphasis mine):

A legal scuffle over a three-letter word may sound trivial to the average consumer. But Kokin’s lawyer David Herzog of Pinnacle Law Group told Wired.com it was necessary for Apple to take these actions in order to protect its trademark. He explained that Apple is concerned with Kokin’s usage of the word Pod to describe an electronic device. If Apple doesn’t challenge Kokin, then future companies will not hesitate to use the word “Pod” in their names to sell electronics similar to Apple’s. It’s a matter of insulating trademark protection by setting a precedent, he explained.

I can see Apple's point; my guess is that many, if not most, people who see something called a "Video Pod" will initially assume that it is made by Apple. And, if it is a piece of crap, it can create negative impressions of Apple.

I do think that the example of Apple pressing a company that makes book covers from calling them "TightPods" was ridiculous, though. An electronic device could definitely confuse people, but book jackets? C'mon.

[Jeff Campbell]

I agree to a point, product name becomes too generic and they lose it, like in the case of aspirin and yo-yo in the US. It just didn't seem enough to warrant all this legal action, but I understand your point