Apple accused of trademark infringement over use of iAd name
A new lawsuit filed in California takes aim at Apple's forthcoming iAd mobile ad network, alleging that the name is in violation of a registered trademark and will deceive consumers.
Innovate Media Group LLC sued Apple last week, accusing the iPhone maker of two counts of trademark infringement, two counts of unfair competition, and one count of common law injury to business reputation. Innovate Media has alleged that it coined the term "iAds" in 2006, a name it uses for its video delivery technology.
Founded by John Cecil, a Yahoo alumni, in 2002, Costa Mesa, Calif., company produces online video advertisements for delivery over the Web. Innovate Ads, or "iAds," became the delivery mechanism for the company since 2006. The suit claims the company's product used by "Fortune 500" clients including Canon and Experian, though neither company appears on this year's list from Fortune.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that the company filed for the "iAds" trademark on Oct. 25, 2007, and it was registered less than a year later, on Oct. 14, 2008.
The lawsuit makes mention of the fact that Apple vigorously defends its own trademarks, and engaged in "aggressive pursuit" of the Gizmodo journalist who published photos of a lost prototype iPhone.
Innovate Media said it contacted Apple co-founder Steve Jobs after he introduced the iAd platform in April. Innovate also reached out to Quattro Wireless, the mobile advertising company Apple purchased to kickstart its iAds product.
"Neither Apple nor Quattro Wireless has responded to Innovate Media," the complaint reads. "Instead, Apple has continued to use the infringing mark in commerce, including on its website www.apple.com; on iadtoday.com, a new website dedicated to providing news and information updates on Apple's iAd service, and in connection with its promotional materials for the upcoming Worldwide Developers Conference."
Innovate Media's suit contends that Apple's use of the iAd name has done "irreparable harm" to the company, as Innovate owns the trademark for iAds but Apple did not seek to license it before it revealed the name of its product.
"Given the obvious disparity in resources and market power between Apple and Innovate MEdia, the launch of Apple's 'iAd' application will effectively, and immediately, undo Innovate Media's substantial investment of time, energy and resources since 2002 to build its internet marketing and advertising business, and will completely overtake Innovate Media's use of its 'iAds' marks, and the substantial goodwill and reputation those marks have generated due to Innovate Media's efforts."
Innovate Media seeks to protect its 'iAds' trademark and has asked the court for damages from Apple, on the grounds that Apple's product is confusingly similar to its own. The suit, filed in the Central District of California, Los Angeles, asserts that Innovate Media is entitled to a jury trial.
Innovate's claims wouldn't represent the first time Apple introduced a product before it owned the name. In January, electronics maker Fujitsu revealed they owned the name iPad. In March, just weeks before the iPad was released in the U.S., Apple acquired the iPad trademark from Fujitsu.
Similarly, in 2007, Apple was sued by Cisco over the use of the name iPhone, just days after Apple introduced its handset. Just over a month later, the two companies settled their dispute, with both retaining the rights to use the iPhone trademark on products throughout the world. Terms of the deal were confidential.
Innovate Media Group LLC sued Apple last week, accusing the iPhone maker of two counts of trademark infringement, two counts of unfair competition, and one count of common law injury to business reputation. Innovate Media has alleged that it coined the term "iAds" in 2006, a name it uses for its video delivery technology.
Founded by John Cecil, a Yahoo alumni, in 2002, Costa Mesa, Calif., company produces online video advertisements for delivery over the Web. Innovate Ads, or "iAds," became the delivery mechanism for the company since 2006. The suit claims the company's product used by "Fortune 500" clients including Canon and Experian, though neither company appears on this year's list from Fortune.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that the company filed for the "iAds" trademark on Oct. 25, 2007, and it was registered less than a year later, on Oct. 14, 2008.
The lawsuit makes mention of the fact that Apple vigorously defends its own trademarks, and engaged in "aggressive pursuit" of the Gizmodo journalist who published photos of a lost prototype iPhone.
Innovate Media said it contacted Apple co-founder Steve Jobs after he introduced the iAd platform in April. Innovate also reached out to Quattro Wireless, the mobile advertising company Apple purchased to kickstart its iAds product.
"Neither Apple nor Quattro Wireless has responded to Innovate Media," the complaint reads. "Instead, Apple has continued to use the infringing mark in commerce, including on its website www.apple.com; on iadtoday.com, a new website dedicated to providing news and information updates on Apple's iAd service, and in connection with its promotional materials for the upcoming Worldwide Developers Conference."
Innovate Media's suit contends that Apple's use of the iAd name has done "irreparable harm" to the company, as Innovate owns the trademark for iAds but Apple did not seek to license it before it revealed the name of its product.
"Given the obvious disparity in resources and market power between Apple and Innovate MEdia, the launch of Apple's 'iAd' application will effectively, and immediately, undo Innovate Media's substantial investment of time, energy and resources since 2002 to build its internet marketing and advertising business, and will completely overtake Innovate Media's use of its 'iAds' marks, and the substantial goodwill and reputation those marks have generated due to Innovate Media's efforts."
Innovate Media seeks to protect its 'iAds' trademark and has asked the court for damages from Apple, on the grounds that Apple's product is confusingly similar to its own. The suit, filed in the Central District of California, Los Angeles, asserts that Innovate Media is entitled to a jury trial.
Innovate's claims wouldn't represent the first time Apple introduced a product before it owned the name. In January, electronics maker Fujitsu revealed they owned the name iPad. In March, just weeks before the iPad was released in the U.S., Apple acquired the iPad trademark from Fujitsu.
Similarly, in 2007, Apple was sued by Cisco over the use of the name iPhone, just days after Apple introduced its handset. Just over a month later, the two companies settled their dispute, with both retaining the rights to use the iPhone trademark on products throughout the world. Terms of the deal were confidential.
Comments
After checking their site out it appears that Apple is not even making anything similar to the product thar Innovate have. innovate make those stupid marketing flash vids that have a recording of a marketing actor reading out some marketing crap.
The suit, filed in the Central District of California, Los Angeles...
Why didn't they file it in East Texas? This sounds fishy to me!
bla. bla. bla.
http://scoopertino.com/high-court-up...reduced-to-25/
This latest Supreme Court ruling makes this a moot issue:
http://scoopertino.com/high-court-up...reduced-to-25/
Thanks for the link to that site. I've never seen it before and it is hilarious.
Apple will either buy it from them or change it to something else. No harm done as Apples iAd doesn't even exist in the wild.
After checking their site out it appears that Apple is not even making anything similar to the product thar Innovate have. innovate make those stupid marketing flash vids that have a recording of a marketing actor reading out some marketing crap.
Yep. Trademarks are often very specific and as such it is possible to have the same term granted to one company for X realm and another for Y realm and it's totally legal.
and I love how everyone brings up Cisco but doesn't mention that they actually let the 'mark lapse via non use and at the 23rd hour of their grace period announced a new product (likely just so they could sue Apple).
I'm not going to go so far as to say that Apple owns the letter "i", but for all intents and purposes, it is associated with them in consumers' minds, and isn't that why these trademark suits exist? Because one person names their product in a way as to confuse the customer as to who is providing that product?
Right or wrong, he's going to get stomped by Apple's legal team, and maybe if he shells out for some good lawyers himself he'll get a nice little settlement out of it (which elevates him to the level of people who trip on the sidewalk so they can sue for damages).
But to anybody who some time after, let's say, 2003, named a product "iSomething": I see what you did there, and even if the law is on your side, I have no sympathy.
This latest Supreme Court ruling makes this a moot issue:
http://scoopertino.com/high-court-up...reduced-to-25/
Thank for the link, I have been falling off my chair laughing at the articles.
I know it's dumb to think Apple can patton the letter I, but the reality is these company's are doing it to make people think Apple, in which case the lower case "i" followed by the product becomes a symbol of Apple.
This company could have just as easily made their logo "I. Ad" or "I-Ad".. They aren't stupid, they chose to have it iAd so it visually made people connect it to Apple.
Innovate Media's suit contends that Apple's use of the iAd name has done "irreparable harm" to the company, as Innovate owns the trademark for iAds but Apple did not seek to license it before it revealed the name of its product.
Innovate Media seeks to protect its 'iAds' trademark and has asked the court for damages from Apple, on the grounds that Apple's product is confusingly similar to its own. The suit, filed in the Central District of California, Los Angeles, asserts that Innovate Media is entitled to a jury trial.
.."irreparable harm".. Hey, I think I heard a line close like that in Apple's complains in the Gizmodo affidavit..
Steve Jobs persistence to use a name that he like, even though it's already been taken, is once again causing Apple's lawyers a headache (although they love the money coming out from the law suits). Seriously, someone joked before about this habit insertion of "i" letter in Apple's products names, the company should have trademarked and license all the other possible names that Jobs would like. That would save time, and especially tons of money spent on the lawyers..
The lawsuit makes mention of the fact that Apple vigorously defends its own trademarks, and engaged in "aggressive pursuit" of the Gizmodo journalist who published photos of a lost prototype iPhone.
WTF!
What does a criminal investigation by the DA has to do with a trademark infringement lawsuit?! Are we going to blame the victims now (Apple or not) for "aggressive pursuit" of punishment?!
Case settled!!!
This is silly. The guy trademarked a technology product with the prefix "i" in 2007. What the hell did he think would happen? Who exactly was trying to confuse their product with who's? The name of his product is Innovate Ads anyway, and if I were him I'd stop trying to steal another company's marketing gimmick, and make up my own damn name and let my company succeed on its own merits.
I'm not going to go so far as to say that Apple owns the letter "i", but for all intents and purposes, it is associated with them in consumers' minds, and isn't that why these trademark suits exist? Because one person names their product in a way as to confuse the customer as to who is providing that product?
Right or wrong, he's going to get stomped by Apple's legal team, and maybe if he shells out for some good lawyers himself he'll get a nice little settlement out of it (which elevates him to the level of people who trip on the sidewalk so they can sue for damages).
But to anybody who some time after, let's say, 2003, named a product "iSomething": I see what you did there, and even if the law is on your side, I have no sympathy.
Turns out you made the same arguement as me, and explained it alot better. I withdraw my comment and just attach myself to yours
I find it all rather ridiculous on both sides. But don't forget this gem... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE
Wonderful! Especially the end!
Let's not forget that Apple Corps owned the "Apple" trademark until "Apple Computer" purchased it in 2007. Until then the licensing deal Apple Computer had with Apple Corps included a clause that Apple Computer could not enter the music business.