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?
Yup.. now they hope Apple will settle .. umm.. right.. like that will happen.
Shouldn't they sue Google instead? It's just keywords.
It's critically important to remember that Google deflects all blame. Also, rule of thumb is that you sue Apple for free publicity. Otherwise we wouldn't have heard about these people or their smartwatch.
As if they registered iWatch for any original reason other than trying to beat Apple to the trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
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?
Yup.. now they hope Apple will settle .. umm.. right.. like that will happen.
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark "iWatch"
No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
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
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, Bloombergremarked. 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.
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.
Good grief. If I pay Google enough (outbid others), I can show up first on any searches : Nazi party, BMV, Trojan condoms, etc, I can turn up on all those searches ;-) if I outbid whoever wants to show up on google when you search for this... And obviously, the Nazi party will be offended if I sell Hitler pinatas....
In natural searches, though your page has to be relevant to the search (in theory) for you to turn up. Though, if enough people type Iwatch when they want to find Apple, it could put Apple at, or near the top of the search results anyway.
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark "iWatch"
No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
As soon as Apple started using the iPrefix for anything more than just the iMac people started guessing at iName as the next thing they might make. Especially once the iPhone fixed iCommonName as an expected standard, anything named iThing post 2007 is trying to pass off as Apple's own device.
Good grief. If I pay Google enough (outbid others), I can show up first on any searches : Nazi party, BMV, Trojan condoms, etc, I can turn up on all those searches ;-) if I outbid whoever wants to show up on google when you search for this... And obviously, the Nazi party will be offended if I sell Hitler pinatas....
In natural searches, though your page has to be relevant to the search (in theory) for you to turn up. Though, if enough people type Iwatch when they want to find Apple, it could put Apple at, or near the top of the search results anyway.
Under EU policy Apple is freely allowed to purchase competitor keywords to push their ads. What they can't do is buy competitor keywords and use the iwatch name in those ads. From what I saw in other places. That is not the case here. Searching with iwatch brings up a listing for apple. No mention of iWatch.
Apple owns iWatch trademark almost everywhere else. In addition, iwatch has become synonymous with the rumors of an upcoming wearable a year+ before it was ever released. This was discussed on these forums, by people who live in the EU and tons of other sites. So makes perfect sense for Apple to use the iwatch name to direct traffic to their site.
Btw, you can go to any european google search site and run a search. I went to google.de and searched for iwatch. The Apple sponsored link(s) only refer to the Apple Watch and nothing in the presented ads says anything about iwatch. But... Amazon has an iwatch sponsored link and when clicked brings you to Apple Watches for sale. So in that case I would say Amazon is in breech of the EU law but not Apple. I also searched the Italy google search engine and the only sponsored listing is Apple and nothing referring to iwatch in the AD. The UK site also has Apple in the clear (no iwatch reference) but the same Amazon iwatch link appears, for apple watch sales.
Of course they can. But it isn't easy because Google tweeks its algo regularly (finding out how is the whole game of SEO..) and if they catch you, they can put you in a deep deep dog house were not even your mother will find you ;-).
I tend to agree. The term "iWatch" was already in wide use before Apple announced the Apple Watch.
This is the problem with i anything these days. Everyone is trying to copyright it in the hopes Apple needs it in the future. Which is why Apple is making things easier. Apple Watch, Apple Music, etc and this naming will continue. The whole i thing is done with for Apple. I think is Apple had to do things over again, we'd have the Apple Phone and Apple Pad.
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark "iWatch"
No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
If that is true, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be (I doubt they'd make a deliberately false statement to bolster their claim when it will be the first thing to come out if it goes to trial), then they ought to, after 7 years, have a working prototype.
Hell, they should have several, showing the development of the product. Even if it's not ready for market, they should have at least one that works, even if crashes after 30 seconds, and runs out of battery after 45 seconds. Or needs to be physically connected to the network, and a Cray 3 running the OS in emulation.
And that's the first thing I'd want to see, if I were representing Apple.
Also, even if they lodged it in 2008, it's still an attempt to trade on Apple's reputation. The "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products long before then, and claiming that it was anything but an attempt to cash in is implausible.
This is the problem with i anything these days. Everyone is trying to copyright it in the hopes Apple needs it in the future. Which is why Apple is making things easier. Apple Watch, Apple Music, etc and this naming will continue. The whole i thing is done with for Apple. I think is Apple had to do things over again, we'd have the Apple Phone and Apple Pad.
If that is true, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be (I doubt they'd make a deliberately false statement to bolster their claim when it will be the first thing to come out if it goes to trial), then they ought to, after 7 years, have a working prototype.
Hell, they should have several, showing the development of the product. Even if it's not ready for market, they should have at least one that works, even if crashes after 30 seconds, and runs out of battery after 45 seconds. Or needs to be physically connected to the network, and a Cray 3 running the OS in emulation.
And that's the first thing I'd want to see, if I were representing Apple.
Also, even if they lodged it in 2008, it's still an attempt to trade on Apple's reputation. The "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products long before then, and claiming that it was anything but an attempt to cash in is implausible.
What's funny is they claim they intended to make an Android watch before Android was mainstream and much before Android Wear was even discussed as a platform.
What's funny is they claim they intended to make an Android watch before Android was mainstream and much before Android Wear was even discussed as a platform.
There was a lot of excitement about Android in tech circles before it really became "mainstream". Before anyone actually had anything running it on the market, even. Not that implausible that they would have picked it as their OS. And wasn't there an early Android watch that came out before Android Wear was announced?
I'm giving them as much benefit of the doubt as I can, but they still don't come out as winners. Or particularly ethical. The "i" was either an attempt to trade on Apple's name, or an attempt to get Apple to buy them off.
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark "iWatch"
No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
If that is true, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be (I doubt they'd make a deliberately false statement to bolster their claim when it will be the first thing to come out if it goes to trial), then they ought to, after 7 years, have a working prototype.
[…]
Also, even if they lodged it in 2008, it's still an attempt to trade on Apple's reputation. The "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products long before then, and claiming that it was anything but an attempt to cash in is implausible.
Agreed, it's unlikely that they would make a false statement. I also think they should have a working prototype, and I think patents should be that way too. But IIRC the company that won the iPad case didn't have any selling "IPAD" anymore, had legally sold the name to Apple (through a deliciously astute proxy scheme) and were within weeks of bankruptcy hanging tooth and nail fending off creditors at the time … and incredulously they won … of course that's China !
Indeed the "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products but then again Apple sorta bulldozed Cisco for "iPhone" as well as "iOS" a bit later, both shipping trademarked products at the time. They settled that among themselves without going to court but I'm sure Apple wasn't trying to cash in on Cisco's naming, they just wanted to extend they own. The only point I was trying to make was that I doubt very much that these yahoos could have foreseen an "iWatch" in 2008 well before any distant rumours of an Apple Watch, and there have been other "i" products out there by other companies in the interim. That being said I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try and cash in on the "iWhatever" phenom.
Comments
They likely never, ever, had any intent to build an Android watch.. it was just for show.
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?
Yup.. now they hope Apple will settle .. umm.. right.. like that will happen.
It's critically important to remember that Google deflects all blame. Also, rule of thumb is that you sue Apple for free publicity. Otherwise we wouldn't have heard about these people or their smartwatch.
As if they registered iWatch for any original reason other than trying to beat Apple to the trademark.
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?
Yup.. now they hope Apple will settle .. umm.. right.. like that will happen.
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark "iWatch"
No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
I tend to agree. The term "iWatch" was already in wide use before Apple announced the Apple Watch.
I tend to agree. The term "iWatch" was already in wide use before Apple announced the Apple Watch.
Hell, it slipped out of Schiller's own mouth a couple times!
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.
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.
Good grief. If I pay Google enough (outbid others), I can show up first on any searches : Nazi party, BMV, Trojan condoms, etc, I can turn up on all those searches ;-) if I outbid whoever wants to show up on google when you search for this... And obviously, the Nazi party will be offended if I sell Hitler pinatas....
In natural searches, though your page has to be relevant to the search (in theory) for you to turn up. Though, if enough people type Iwatch when they want to find Apple, it could put Apple at, or near the top of the search results anyway.
...the project was in "standby," and his company's iWatch webpage currently only mentions the dispute with Apple.
LOL. "Standby"
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark "iWatch"
No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
As soon as Apple started using the iPrefix for anything more than just the iMac people started guessing at iName as the next thing they might make. Especially once the iPhone fixed iCommonName as an expected standard, anything named iThing post 2007 is trying to pass off as Apple's own device.
Troll retort: "so Apple invented the letter i now?"
"Natural searches" can be gamed too. Have you ever heard of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism
So the problem is.....
Under EU policy Apple is freely allowed to purchase competitor keywords to push their ads. What they can't do is buy competitor keywords and use the iwatch name in those ads. From what I saw in other places. That is not the case here. Searching with iwatch brings up a listing for apple. No mention of iWatch.
Apple owns iWatch trademark almost everywhere else. In addition, iwatch has become synonymous with the rumors of an upcoming wearable a year+ before it was ever released. This was discussed on these forums, by people who live in the EU and tons of other sites. So makes perfect sense for Apple to use the iwatch name to direct traffic to their site.
Btw, you can go to any european google search site and run a search. I went to google.de and searched for iwatch. The Apple sponsored link(s) only refer to the Apple Watch and nothing in the presented ads says anything about iwatch. But... Amazon has an iwatch sponsored link and when clicked brings you to Apple Watches for sale. So in that case I would say Amazon is in breech of the EU law but not Apple. I also searched the Italy google search engine and the only sponsored listing is Apple and nothing referring to iwatch in the AD. The UK site also has Apple in the clear (no iwatch reference) but the same Amazon iwatch link appears, for apple watch sales.
"Natural searches" can be gamed too. Have you ever heard of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism
Of course they can. But it isn't easy because Google tweeks its algo regularly (finding out how is the whole game of SEO..) and if they catch you, they can put you in a deep deep dog house were not even your mother will find you ;-).
Hell, they should have several, showing the development of the product. Even if it's not ready for market, they should have at least one that works, even if crashes after 30 seconds, and runs out of battery after 45 seconds. Or needs to be physically connected to the network, and a Cray 3 running the OS in emulation.
And that's the first thing I'd want to see, if I were representing Apple.
Also, even if they lodged it in 2008, it's still an attempt to trade on Apple's reputation. The "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products long before then, and claiming that it was anything but an attempt to cash in is implausible.
This is the problem with i anything these days. Everyone is trying to copyright it in the hopes Apple needs it in the future. Which is why Apple is making things easier. Apple Watch, Apple Music, etc and this naming will continue. The whole i thing is done with for Apple. I think is Apple had to do things over again, we'd have the Apple Phone and Apple Pad.
Next up... Apple House™, Apple Car™, Apple Pie™?
What's funny is they claim they intended to make an Android watch before Android was mainstream and much before Android Wear was even discussed as a platform.
I'm giving them as much benefit of the doubt as I can, but they still don't come out as winners. Or particularly ethical. The "i" was either an attempt to trade on Apple's name, or an attempt to get Apple to buy them off.
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.
Or pretty much any product with a lower case "i" at the start since the original iMac and iPod... That's what, 1998ish?
That's what I thought as well but their website claims :
If true that timeline puts this line of thinking improbable or very forward thinking. The latter seems quite unlikely.
If that is true, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be (I doubt they'd make a deliberately false statement to bolster their claim when it will be the first thing to come out if it goes to trial), then they ought to, after 7 years, have a working prototype.
[…]
Also, even if they lodged it in 2008, it's still an attempt to trade on Apple's reputation. The "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products long before then, and claiming that it was anything but an attempt to cash in is implausible.
Agreed, it's unlikely that they would make a false statement. I also think they should have a working prototype, and I think patents should be that way too. But IIRC the company that won the iPad case didn't have any selling "IPAD" anymore, had legally sold the name to Apple (through a deliciously astute proxy scheme) and were within weeks of bankruptcy hanging tooth and nail fending off creditors at the time … and incredulously they won … of course that's China !
Indeed the "i" was well established as a prefix for Apple products but then again Apple sorta bulldozed Cisco for "iPhone" as well as "iOS" a bit later, both shipping trademarked products at the time. They settled that among themselves without going to court but I'm sure Apple wasn't trying to cash in on Cisco's naming, they just wanted to extend they own. The only point I was trying to make was that I doubt very much that these yahoos could have foreseen an "iWatch" in 2008 well before any distant rumours of an Apple Watch, and there have been other "i" products out there by other companies in the interim. That being said I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try and cash in on the "iWhatever" phenom.