News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users.

May 12, 2008

business

Apple®©™ patents 3D things

Posted May. 12, ’08, 3:00 PM PT by Dan Pourhadi
Category | Business

ipodBrand.jpgOkay, not so much 3D things, per se, but rather the shape and form of the iPod.

Protecting brand is hugely important in the business world — why do you think Google gets so miffed when the term “google” is used as a generic verb? — and Apple’s done a bang-up job fighting for its “i” nouns and shutting down flagrant knock-offs (Meizu, anyone?). As the Wall Street Journal points out, this trademark is one more step in Apple’s quest for image dominance.

The iPod shape trademark gives Apple a new weapon in the fiercely competitive market for media players. While competitors may eventually appropriate the iPod’s inner workings, as utility patents expire, they will risk litigation if their products come too close to the trademarked shape of the iPod, including its popular circular-touchpad interface.

The WSJ piece examines the importance of trademark in building and protecting a powerful brand, and how that can protect a business’s place in the market and the exclusivity and unique appeal of their products. Some companies fail to adequately enforce their band, and as a result lose sales and dominance to copycats — they may build a better product, but if the consumer can’t visually and perceptually distinguish it from the others, it doesn’t really matter.

It lists five strategical steps, inspired by Apple’s branding prowess, to build and protect a strong brand that include tips on naming, trademarking, advertising, and trademarking some more.

I’m already taking steps to protect my brand, trademarking “Dan” and patenting “a super awesome person who is just really, really awesome.” And I will use all legal options at my disposal to deter infringement. So watch yourself.


6 Comments

Anonymous said:

Don't forget to claim the rights to "Dan the Man"

May 12, 2008 3:49 PM
Dan Moren Author Profile Page said:

I’m already taking steps to protect my brand, trademarking “Dan” and patenting “a super awesome person who is just really, really awesome.” And I will use all legal options at my disposal to deter infringement. So watch yourself.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to claim prior art on this one.

May 12, 2008 4:26 PM
Dave-O said:

You do realize that patents and trademarks are different, right? The article you link to points out the important one (time limit). What's the antecedent of "this trademark"?.

Google gets upset about the verb "google"? That's news to me. I figured they were thrilled. I can understand not wanting, "I googled x and came up with a bunch of irrelevant crap," but in general it's a good thing for Google.

May 12, 2008 5:33 PM
Dan said:

I'm fairly certain I'm older than both of you, so back off... I will, however, give Moren credit for the secret league of Dans....

May 12, 2008 8:39 PM
Dave said:

How does one get rights to the shape of a bullnosed rectangle? Puzzling.

May 13, 2008 11:12 AM
Dan said:

That's not technically correct, Dave-O. The purpose of the trademark is to identify the source of the good/service, not the good/service itself. Accordingly, if the trademark becomes too ubiquitous, it ceases to identify the source of the good and, instead, merely refers to the product/service. Think, for example, of aspirin. Originally, that was the trademarked name given by Bayer to acetylsalicylic acid and could only be used by Bayer, as identifying their particular formulation of it. But eventually, the public ceased to use aspirin to refer to Bayer's formulation and used it to reference just the product. At that point, it ceased to serve the function of a trademark and Bayer lost the right to use that term exclusively. It's a process known as genericide and it's why companies such as Coke, Kleenex, and Xerox (and Google) fight to make sure the term still references them, not the product.

May 13, 2008 11:21 AM

Leave a comment

 



Visit other IDG sites: