Interbrand IQ: The Best Asian Brands Issue

rss

make it stop

Is Apple Defending Its Brand Into The Ground?

Posted by Abe Sauer on March 15, 2010 06:37 PM

Last October, we reported on a brewing Apple trademark battle in Australia. Apple was suing Woolworth, an Australian supermarket, over its use of an apple for its brand logo. Apple claimed the logo would compete for market share and create confusion in the minds of consumers.

Well, it seems Apple's trademark adventures Down Under continue. In a new ruling, the tech giant has been told that it has no exclusive use of its vaunted "i" prefix. More than just another trademark lawsuit loss, reports of questionable legal action on Apple's part is beginning to pile up and the brand that "thinks different" is beginning to look a lot like...*gasp*... 1990s Microsoft.

The brand that came into Apple's legal crosshairs this go-around is DOPi. Apple argued, "The emphasis given to the letter 'i' results in the consumer’s attention on seeing the mark being immediately deflected to that particular part of the mark. The eye thus having been drawn to that particular part of the mark will perceive the very different treatment given to the letter 'i'... The manner of that depiction would immediately bring to the consumer’s mind the association of the mark 'i' with [Apple] and its family of 'i' products, especially the iPod musical player..."

In rejecting Apple's claim, the trademark officer noted, "Apple has not therefore demonstrated to my satisfaction that the person of ordinary intelligence and memory would be caused to wonder, or be left in doubt, about whether the Goods come from Apple merely because the Trade Mark terminates in the letter "i," however that letter may be presented. Nor do I think the fact that the Trade Mark is made up of the letters of the Apple’s IPOD trade mark in reverse order would cause a significant or substantial number of relevant consumers to wonder whether the Goods were those of the Apple."

Essentially, if you have a device and want to put an "i" suffix or prefix on it, go for it (in Australia anyway).

The bigger concern for the Apple brand here is the seemingly increasing pettiness of its actions in the name of defending its brand. It is understandable, and likely, that Apple's legal team is simply being diligent and puffing its chest as a show of seriousness about its trademarks. Yet, the brand's PR team should realize that Apple is not just any other brand; its actions, however routine, make the press and everyday consumers see such actions not as those of a meticulous brand, but as those of a bully.

More about: , , , , ,

Comments

Deepti Menon India says:

I think the beginning to look like Microsoft happened ages ago. My feeling is they'll be worse than Microsoft.

March 16, 2010 04:05 AM #

Steve Russell Spain says:

Well Abe, not quite.

There is an irritating side to trademark ownership, that is not well known in the public sphere. That is, if a TM owner does not use the mark, or defend it vigorously against infringement, it will be lost to the public domain. Then, anyone can use it or something very similar and nothing can be done to avoid confusion in the marketplace.

Most folks think that once you obtain a mark, then you're done with the process. The rule of the road, unfortunately, is: Use it or lose it.

The Beatles, having reached a settlement years ago over the use of the "Apple", tried to stop Apple again from using the "Apple" in their iTunes/iPod products. Didn't they. Are the Beatles Microsoft-esque or money grubbing? Nope. Just doing what they have to do to protect their brand.

Is Apple being heavy handed in the DOPi deal? I don't know all of the particulars, but only in the context of your article would I have put together that DOPi is iPod backwards (DOPi) unless the PODi guys are trying to market a similar product to iPod.  To me whatever the gizmo the not-Apple TM applicant is trying to protect is not an iPod. But, ya gotta admit, it is pretty lame and a transparent play on a very famous brand.

I am involved in the legitimate trade of domain names, and the bottom feeders of my industry think nothing of what is called "trademark squatting", by registering domains that are just a hair inside the legality of non-infringement. For example, some dope in Shanghai owns channelbrand.com and is selling it for $999, but in the meantime is making a few pennies a day (enough to pay the annual renewal fee) with a pay-per-click advertising company. Someone will hear about this website, say, through word-of-mouth, but not remember if it's brand channel or channel brand. They type in channelbrand.com, and click a few adverts.  Shanghai dude makes a little off your back, and good reputation.

So, what's fair?

But, hey, that's just my $0.02.

March 16, 2010 04:59 AM #

Steve Russell Spain says:

Ooooppps... even I got confused, by writing "PODi" when I meant to say "DOPi" in my 4th paragraph. See how easy it is?

March 16, 2010 05:03 AM #

ROGER BU;; United Kingdom says:

Is a "PiDO" a brand preditor?

March 16, 2010 06:21 AM #

Jack Vrooman United States says:

Good article, Abe. Is Apple right to vigorously defend it's Trademark? Certainly! Will being complete dicks about it enhance their Brand? I don't think so.

March 16, 2010 06:56 AM #

MSGDS United States says:

If you have a well established product, such as iPOD, it's certainly understandable for Apple to defend its brand. Are they hurting their image by taking these actions, I don't think so.

March 16, 2010 10:28 AM #

WriterGuy United States says:

There's a huge difference between a predatory monopolist (Microsoft, by forcing computer makers to pay for Windows even for machine on which Windows wouldn't be installed, among other illegal ploys) and vigorously defending your intellectual property.

Apple as Microsoft is a meme that's being spread around a lot lately, but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Frankly, Apple has a spotty record of defending its IP, and I, for one, am glad they're going to court against HTC (and others) to define what's theirs and what's not.

As for losing their "i" prefix (and I quote: "the tech giant has been told that it has no exclusive use of its vaunted "i" prefix"), you're absolutely wrong. What the case in Australia said is that they can't claim the "i" suffix. Big difference.

March 16, 2010 12:47 PM #

Abe Sauer United States says:

The authority did address the prefix issue as well, saying, "By way of example, iSoft, iSkin, IBOX, iPORT,  iJOG,  IWAKE,  iDrive and iListen, all in separate ownership, are but a small selection of current third party registrations covering relevant class. A check of Apple.com reveals many third party accessories for the Players are advertised, including accessories bearing the trade marks iSkin, iClear and iSee. Apple has not therefore demonstrated to my satisfaction that..."

March 16, 2010 01:17 PM #

Mickey Australia says:

Personally I am a little surprised at the outcome of the 'i' debate.
In my mind at least Apple have every right to defend this territory.
Who ever added 'i' as a 'tech brand prefix' before Apple?
As for the Woolworths issue - now thats petty and Apple should have backed off straight away.
How on earth a tech company can be taken seriously challenging an iconic Australian grocery chain whos tag line has been "The Fresh Food People" for using a fresh apple as a logo is beyond me!
Mounting such a ridiculous challenge stood to cause far more damage to the Apple brand than Woolworths could ever have inflicted - even had they wanted to!

March 16, 2010 06:32 PM #

cheap replica handbags People's Republic of China says:

4444  
Personally I am a little surprised at the outcome of the 'i' debate.
In my mind at least Apple have every right to defend this territory.
Who ever added 'i' as a 'tech brand prefix' before Apple?

April 12, 2010 11:49 PM #

Repair Outlook United States says:

Yes, its right they can not use "i". if we find the letter, the first thing comes in our mind is Apple.

April 13, 2010 08:36 AM #

Comments are closed

Brand Chatter on Twitter

elsewhere on brandchannel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
brandcameo2013 Product Placement Awards
Which brand is most bullish on Hollywood?
Coca-ColaIt's the Journey That Matters:
Coca-Cola Opens Up With Story-Based Web Refresh
debateJoin the Debate
What makes a great brand?
BPBP
Branding Comeback Challenges
Denise Lee YohnLance Armstrong’s Brand
Denise Lee Yohn Weighs In
Digital Watch: WahlAT&T
Rethinking Possible With Transmedia Storytelling
paperGlobal Competitive [Ad]vantage
The latest from GeoEdge
Sheryl Connelly
Sheryl Connelly

Meet Ford's Resident Futurist
Marketing to the New MajorityBranding 123
A primer by Barry Silverstein