Apple's lawyers at it again

Apple's lawyers at it again

Summary: Apple's lawyers are apparently at it again as iPod enthusiast site iPod Garage has announced that it will "voluntarily" change its name to iProng next week.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
23

Apple's lawyers are apparently at it again as iPod enthusiast site iPod Garage has announced that it will "voluntarily" change its name to iProng next week. Publisher and founder Bill Palmer maintains that iPod Garage wasn't his first choice and that he settled on it "at the last minute while I was in the shower" after a squatter took his first choice, "iPodLand."

When I asked him if the change to iProng was prompted by a request from Apple legal, he said:

I've come to realize that as long as we were called iPod Garage, a rather large segment of the user base (and of the general public) was never going to see us as anything more than Apple fanboys or cheerleaders, no matter how sophisticated our content might be. We've worn that particular set of shackles for long enough. Now we want to take our shot at the mainstream. There are fifty million iPod users out there, and we want all of them. 

Pardon my cynicism here but the change appears to be the result of Apple's well-known legal strategy of asking anyone with the word "iPod" in their domain name to change it. iPod Garage, er iProng, is another in a long string of iPod-related entities to remove the word "iPod" from their name following a number of name changes on the part of iPod accessory makers over the past year.

In July 2005 iPodLounge changed their name to iLounge. According to a post by publisher Dennis Lloyd they changed their name because they "believe that the next stage of this phenomenon will be bigger than any one product Apple may produce." Hmm...

In September 2005 Wired reported that Apple has sent legal notices to accessory vendors Everythingipod.co.uk and iPodLife.co.uk demanding that they stop using the word "iPod" in their names and URLs. It has also been reported that Apple also threatened legal action against iPod retailer iPod Essentials who changed their name to MP3 Essentials.

Apple's trademarks and copyrights guidelines regarding domain names explicitly states that "You may not use an identical or virtually identical Apple trademark as a second level domain name." So it would appear that , despite what the sites say, the latest round of name changes is a result of Apple's legal department.

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

23 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Why would you be against free advertisement?

    An !Pod advocacy site could only be good news, Steve ... STEVEEEE! Pay attention, the lawyers are out of control again....
    An_Axe_to_Grind
    • True...but

      WHile I am sure Apple appreciates the enthusiasm of iPod advocates, the laws related to this stuff are clear: if APple does not enforce its right to the name "iPod" and simply permits anyone to use it for commercial purposes, the end result will indeed be that Apple has NO right to the name at all. Failure to enforce your rights results in a loss of them. Not Apple's fault but a reality.
      esqyre
    • Grinding axes

      Julian hasn't provided the slightest shred of evidence to
      support his claim that the lawyers had any involvement at all in
      the site's name change, and the owner actually says that the
      change was made for other reasons, Axe Grinder.

      Still, never let the facts get in the way of a bit of an Apple bash
      here, eh!

      Cheers

      Rod
      Rod Hagen
  • Let me get this straight

    First you posted:
    When I asked him if the change to iProng was prompted by a request from Apple legal, he said:

    I've come to realize that as long as we were called iPod Garage, a rather large segment of the user base (and of the general public) was never going to see us as anything more than Apple fanboys or cheerleaders, no matter how sophisticated our content might be. We've worn that particular set of shackles for long enough. Now we want to take our shot at the mainstream. There are fifty million iPod users out there, and we want all of them.

    Then you posted:
    Pardon my cynicism here but the change appears to be the result of Apple's well-known legal strategy of asking anyone with the word "iPod" in their domain name to change it.

    No where in the gentleman's response to your question did he say that Apple legal REQUESTED or MADE him change it? He didn't even imply it. I think that YOU are still upset that Apple went after you for posting something in your blog without their consent. IE: You are still eating sour grapes.
    Shelendrea
    • True enough

      he didn't resolve the question, did he. But lets face it, these guys at
      'the Loop' are sending their 'vermin' after everything it seems --
      big or small. It's getting ridiculous.
      999ad9
    • why would this be different

      having worked in a newsroom at a large news paper, the editorial staff had a saying "never let the facts get in the way of the story". When it's Apple and trademark protection I guess ignoring the facts is not the end of the world, but it would inspire a whole lot more confidence in ZD net as a news source if there was some evidence of editorial oversight.
      afisk
    • Jason's "Jihad"

      He's attacking Apple on every front. It's all part of his [b]Holy war!
      [/b] Any chance to attack Apple is what Jason must do. He wants to
      sway the minds of Apple users. No better way than to pretend to be
      one, then use [b]F.U.D.[/b] to attack them from within.
      Rick_K
      • LOL, Jihad! Now THAT'S Funny

        First I'm a terrorist, now I'm on a "Jihad."
        Be careful Rick, your Apple badge is showing.

        :)
        Jason D. O'Grady
  • www.eyepawed.com is available

    If you want to have a sound-alike site, www.eyepawed.com is available.
    archerjoe
  • Yet another case of...

    ...Jason just making stuff up. He's starting to sound more and
    more like George Ou every day.

    He says that he interviewed the site's proprietor and the guy told
    him flat out that the name was a passing thought, and that he
    thinks the digital music player market is bigger than just iPods.

    That's when Jason jumps in and sets the record straight.

    I mean, c'mon, the guy just said that it had nothing to do with
    Apple legal and Jason goes on to say in the next line that the
    change is due to a request by Apple legal. Were you not paying
    attention during the interview you just conducted or while you
    were writing the previous paragraph?

    It's a good thing we have investigative reporters like Jason who
    can read between the lines in an interview and give us the real
    information.

    Can someone explain this phenomenon of bloggers thinking
    that just because they write something that it's fact and
    protected by the First Amendment? I'm really trying to get a grip
    on this...
    Mixotic
    • Missing the point

      I think you're missing the point. Jason only expressed scepticism about the given reason. I think the scepticism may be justified considering that the guy didn't deny that involvement of the Apple legal team either. ( Do you believe politicians when they "...retire for health reasons..." ? )
      Loggies
      • missing the point

        the guy also did not deny the involvement of little green men from mars, he did not deny that the name change came to him in an drug induced vison. If fact we could sit here all day and list the things that the owner of the company did not say were involved, or we could just think that maybe he knows how to run his business, phone companies change their names every 2 weeks and and no one blames Apple's lawyers.
        afisk
      • Missing the point

        You forget Jason is involved in a [b]Holy war[/b] against Apple. His
        claims are nothing more than a [b]mud-slinging[/b] attack. Apple
        went after his ISP to disclose an Apple employee violating their
        NDA. Now Jason has declared a [b]Jihad[/b] on Apple. He will take
        every chance to slander the company, much like his buddy George
        Ou.
        Rick_K
        • Missing the point!

          No sale. Jason is only p!ssed at Apple's legal department for the
          sleazy treatment he has had from them. And as an extension of
          that, he is seeing the same forces attacking others out there who
          are supporting the platform but are using some form of Apple's
          product trade names as a descriptor. Read the article again. His
          point is the legal department is running rampant enforcing
          oppression much like the Soviets did. For many years previous,
          Apple has been thankful for the free pubicity. Now they reward with
          a lawsuit.
          999ad9
          • You read....

            The article. No where dies it state that Apple's legal Department is
            doing anything. It's jason's [b]ass[/b]umption that they are!
            Rick_K
  • I See you got you Check, from MS!

    With your recent [b] Anti-Apple[/b] F.U.D. You must have sold your
    soul to the devil.
    Rick_K
  • Public finally getting a clue

    The general public is finally getting a clue that the iPod isn't the best at what it's sold for, playing music. There are much better solutions for music than the iPod, much better. Apple's short popularity is finally ending. Why would anyone look for music out of a company that is not music related?
    Narg
    • Re: Public finally getting a clue

      "Apple's short popularity is finally ending"

      Yeah, they've only been the dominant hard disk based music player for, oh, 5 years now. Thats pretty short.

      "Why would anyone look for music out of a company that is not music related?"

      So you're saying Microsoft would be a better company to buy music from? Where's their connection to 'music'? How about Sony? They're connected to music, should we buy stuff from them? Oh wait, they put software on our (windows based) computers that opens them up to exploits by hackers and malware.

      Not to mention that an extremely large majority of musicians use Apple computers paired with Digidesign Protools software to create a LOT of the music you've heard in the last 5-10 years.

      Is that the clue you're talking about?
      pir8matt
    • Public finally getting a clue

      What does this post have to do with (what seems be) an on-line URL copyright issue???
      SomeoneOrOther
  • I've seen the light!

    All your negative articles about Apple have made me realize how
    much they suck. I'll never by an iPod or mac again. Anyone wanna
    buy a MacBook Pro?
    berniemac_z