Lawsuit targets Apple for directing 'iWatch' Google searches to Apple Watch page
A new lawsuit accuses Apple of improperly using Google ads to guide "iWatch" searches to its page for the Apple Watch, abusing a trademark it doesn't own, a report said on Tuesday.
An June 26 an Irish software and network services company, Probendi, filed a motion in an Italian court complaining about the ads, Bloomberg remarked. The firm owns rights to the iWatch trademark in the European Union, and a lawyer acting on their behalf noted that Apple never replied to requests or objections, while Google denied responsibility for such links.
Last year, Probendi co-founder Daniele Di Salvo claimed that the company was working on an Android smartwatch that would use the iWatch name and beat the Apple Watch's price. On Tuesday Di Salvo reportedly said that the project was in "standby," and his company's iWatch webpage currently only mentions the dispute with Apple.
A estimate commissioned by Probendi indicated that that the iWatch trademark is worth ?87 million ($97 million), according to two Bloomberg sources. An initial hearing for Probendi's case has been set for November 11.
The firm's chance of success are uncertain, since a number of corporations have attempted to sue Google or its advertisers over trademarks with mixed success. Officially, Google examines such issues individually, and may or may not impose restrictions.
An June 26 an Irish software and network services company, Probendi, filed a motion in an Italian court complaining about the ads, Bloomberg remarked. The firm owns rights to the iWatch trademark in the European Union, and a lawyer acting on their behalf noted that Apple never replied to requests or objections, while Google denied responsibility for such links.
Last year, Probendi co-founder Daniele Di Salvo claimed that the company was working on an Android smartwatch that would use the iWatch name and beat the Apple Watch's price. On Tuesday Di Salvo reportedly said that the project was in "standby," and his company's iWatch webpage currently only mentions the dispute with Apple.
A estimate commissioned by Probendi indicated that that the iWatch trademark is worth ?87 million ($97 million), according to two Bloomberg sources. An initial hearing for Probendi's case has been set for November 11.
The firm's chance of success are uncertain, since a number of corporations have attempted to sue Google or its advertisers over trademarks with mixed success. Officially, Google examines such issues individually, and may or may not impose restrictions.
Comments
The case should be thrown out.
There is no device on the market called iWatch at this time and the search results clearly states Apple Watch.
Nice use of Star Trek font in your logo.
Oh, right. Because they're piggybacking on the success of Apple's trademarks and the likelihood that the iWatch name will confuse consumers into thinking their device is made by Apple.
Hopefully even an Italian court can see through this sham, and send these squatters packing.
Shouldn't they sue Google instead? It's just keywords.
That would be my thought.
Depends on who is adding the keywords. If I read it correctly, Apple set up keywords including iWatch.
However, any company that, since 2007 (conservatively), adds a lowercase "i" to a product to name it, clearly are trying to use the Apple halo.
How could a trademark for a product they're not even making be worth $97 Million?
Oh, right. Because they're piggybacking on the success of Apple's trademarks and the likelihood that the iWatch name will confuse consumers into thinking their device is made by Apple.
Hopefully even an Italian court can see through this sham, and send these squatters packing.
How the ... did I do these lines? Looks cool
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/60974/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Tim Cook's reaction:
He looks like it's a gay day.
As if they registered iWatch for any original reason other than trying to beat Apple to the trademark.
I thought the same thing. Apple owned both names. This law suit is horse shit.
Depends on who is adding the keywords. If I read it correctly, Apple set up keywords including iWatch.
However, any company that, since 2007 (conservatively), adds a lowercase "i" to a product to name it, clearly are trying to use the Apple halo.
what about iDick?
In response to a complaint, we will do a limited investigation to see whether the use of a trademarked term as a keyword in combination with particular ad text is confusing as to the origin of the advertised goods and services (such as a keyword and ad that falsely imply affiliation with the trademark owner). If the combination of a keyword and ad text is confusing, we will disapprove the specific ad mentioned in the complaint so that it can't run.
Under our EU and EFTA policy, the following types of ads may use a trademark as a keyword, provided that the combination of the keyword and ad is not confusing (as described above). The following are examples, and not an exhaustive list:
I think this falls under Fair Use based upon the term becoming common vernacular. It's wasn't Apple that promoted the term iWatch to refer to its smartwatch. This came from the public and therefore should be considered fair use of the term, even though it is trademarked.
Here are some other trademarked terms that have become part of the common vernacular and are therefore available to use under Trademark law Fair Use, followed by the generic terms the trademark holders would prefer we use. The issue is that a company cannot use the trademarked term to name or advertise their products. This latter bit, the advertising of products, is likely where this company is taking issue. But I think there is a line that needs to be drawn in the case of a search. First, a search returns multiple results. Should no results other than references that point directly to the trademark owner be returned? This is not the model used in offline search, such as if you ask a friend a question and he interprets your query to mean something less than a literal reference. Search engines should be allowed this same capability to interpret queries and give appropriate results based upon common use of terms, whether trademarked or not.
Search Google for Ping Pong, for example. This trademarked term returns, as the first search result, the Wikipedia page for Table Tennis. Should Wikipedia be sued for purchasing that trademarked search term to bring users to their page, effectively using the trademarked term to draw traffic to their service? And if Wikipedia didn't purchase that trademarked search term, then should Google be sued for its interpretation of the trademarked term to mean the generic term, thus sending users to a site not owned by the trademark holder? A slippery slope when fair use is trumped in favor of a trademark holder.
Bubble Wrap - Air bubble packaging
Dumpster - Mobile garbage bin
Ping Pong - Table Tennis
Escalator - Conveyor transport device, moving stairway
Thermos - Vacuum flask
TV Dinner - Frozen meal
Popsicle - Frozen ice treat on a stick
Laundromat - Coin laundry shop
JumboTron - Large-screen television
Taser - Stun gun
Aspirin - Blood-thinning drug, acetylsalicylic acid
Yo-Yo - Toy on a string
Chapstick - Lip balm
Kerosene - Combustible hydrocarbon liquid, parrafin
Frisbee - Flying disc
Jacuzzi - Hot tub
Jeep - Sport utility vehicle
Pogo Stick - Spring stilts, hopping vehicle
Velcro - Tiny hooks that attach to loops and stick together
Plexiglas - Moldable plastic
Zipper - Separable fastener
Band-Aid - Adhesive bandage
Kleenex - Tissue, disposable handkerchief
Xerox - Copy machine, photocopier
Another aspect of this is that, as a business owner, it is critical to ensure that your trademark does not become a part of the general vernacular. When the trademark is used it should always be used to identify your products or services. This company did not ensure that the term iWatch was association with their product, or even their company. Until today, likely almost nobody knew of this company's association with that term, so the company did little, or nothing, to promote its trademark in the public eye. On that basis, at least here in the U.S., the trademark might be considered to be abandoned, or it might be considered to already be part of the common vernacular and therefore available for use under the Fair Use aspect of trademark law.
Excellent work.
Do I understand right that this company chose the name iWatch IN ORDER TO COMPETE with the upcoming ?Watch, and now sues Apple for being the competition, pretty much?