Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Apple Sued: Hearing Aid Hearpods vs. Earpods

By - Source: CNET | B 28 comments

Apple being sued by Randolph Divisions and Hearpod Inc. for similarities in product function and name; paperwork demands damages and ceased production.

The lawsuit war continues with Apple, this time it being on the receiving end of one. Last week the paperwork was filed that stated that Apple's new headphone dubbed "Earpods" is infringing on the product of Randolph Divisions and Hearpod Inc. and its trademark "Hearpods".  

The company manufactures hearing aids under the name Hearpods, which was trademarked back in February of 2005, removing any doubt of who came up with it first. The lawsuit complains: "Both Plaintiffs' Goods and Defendant's Goods are similar in nature in that, among other things, they are inserted into the ears of their users and are used to facilitate and enhance the transmission of sounds to the users."  

The company demands that Apple not only pay damages, but also cease the sale of its Earpods headphones. Hearpod Inc has spent $625,000 promoting its product since the patent was filed in Hawaii, results in $1.7 million in sales so far.  Earpods were introduced along with the iPhone 5, and is the first line of headphones that Apple have given a brand name. This is not even the first time Apple have received lawsuits concerning its headphones, with previous allegations of patent infringement of audio transfer techniques and another lawsuit complaining about the volume of its headphones, which led to a software limiter to be implemented.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 29 Hide
    house70 , April 8, 2013 2:09 PM
    Hearpods have a case here. Since a Galaxy Tab with a big SAMSUNG logo on it and entirely different screen ratio can be mistaken for an iPad (in some judge's opinion), it's much easier to hear "earpods" when actually saying "Hearpods" and viceversa. They should take their case to the same judge.
  • 27 Hide
    rohitbaran , April 8, 2013 2:26 PM
    So apple gets a dose of their own medicine. Hmm.
  • 22 Hide
    slomo4sho , April 8, 2013 3:20 PM
    What goes around come around...
Other Comments
    Display all 28 comments.
  • 5 Hide
    Spooderman , April 8, 2013 2:07 PM
    Who really cares except the companies involved? Just a thought.
  • 29 Hide
    house70 , April 8, 2013 2:09 PM
    Hearpods have a case here. Since a Galaxy Tab with a big SAMSUNG logo on it and entirely different screen ratio can be mistaken for an iPad (in some judge's opinion), it's much easier to hear "earpods" when actually saying "Hearpods" and viceversa. They should take their case to the same judge.
  • 27 Hide
    rohitbaran , April 8, 2013 2:26 PM
    So apple gets a dose of their own medicine. Hmm.
  • 9 Hide
    Jayson Morrow , April 8, 2013 3:03 PM
    umm didnt apple patent "rounded corners"?????? so absurd patent and apple go hand in hand.... where its their patent or someone elses :) 
    http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012-11?op=1
  • 15 Hide
    thecolorblue , April 8, 2013 3:10 PM
    pacomacThis is just plain stupid. They both serve a different purpose, and are spelt differently. You can hardly accuse Apple of trading off this company since practically nobody has heard of them!

    FAIL

    In order to prove trademark infringement, the owner of the trademark must show that there is a “likelihood of confusion” between his or her trademark and the allegedly infringing mark. Over many years and many cases, the courts have set forth a list of eight to 13 elements that are relevant to this determination. The most important element of the likelihood of confusion analysis is a comparison of the appearance, pronunciation, meaning, and commercial impression of the respective marks. Obviously, if the marks are exactly the same in spelling and how they are pronounced, there is a greater chance of likelihood of confusion between the marks. It is important to note that slight misspellings or changes in an established mark will not enable a competitor to use his proposed mark. For example, a beverage manufacturer could not adopt the mark “Koka Kola,” because although this mark is spelled differently from the famous Coca-Cola mark, it is still pronounced the same.
  • -9 Hide
    royalcrown , April 8, 2013 3:18 PM
    Quote:
    pacomacThis is just plain stupid. They both serve a different purpose, and are spelt differently. You can hardly accuse Apple of trading off this company since practically nobody has heard of them!

    FAIL

    In order to prove trademark infringement, the owner of the trademark must show that there is a “likelihood of confusion” between his or her trademark and the allegedly infringing mark. Over many years and many cases, the courts have set forth a list of eight to 13 elements that are relevant to this determination. The most important element of the likelihood of confusion analysis is a comparison of the appearance, pronunciation, meaning, and commercial impression of the respective marks. Obviously, if the marks are exactly the same in spelling and how they are pronounced, there is a greater chance of likelihood of confusion between the marks. It is important to note that slight misspellings or changes in an established mark will not enable a competitor to use his proposed mark. For example, a beverage manufacturer could not adopt the mark “Koka Kola,” because although this mark is spelled differently from the famous Coca-Cola mark, it is still pronounced the same.


    True, but in actual real life, no one is going to walk into an apple store, or best buy, or go the the headphone section of Wal Mart because they need hearing aids. Hence, no REAL confusion to any appreciable degree.
  • 22 Hide
    slomo4sho , April 8, 2013 3:20 PM
    What goes around come around...
  • 0 Hide
    Steven Choi , April 8, 2013 3:24 PM
    hahaha, no wonder why they are maunufacturing hearing aid.
  • 0 Hide
    hoobastanky , April 8, 2013 4:10 PM
    what's spelt got to do got to do with it?
  • 14 Hide
    house70 , April 8, 2013 4:20 PM
    royalcrownTrue, but in actual real life, no one is going to walk into an apple store, or best buy, or go the the headphone section of Wal Mart because they need hearing aids. Hence, no REAL confusion to any appreciable degree.

    Would have loved to hear the same argument when Apple strong-armed a Polish small grocery store into changing their name because it had "apple" in it. True story, happened a few years ago; not to mention the fact that they (Apple) thought that people will walk out of a store with a big SAMSUNG box under their arm thinking they bought an APPLE product. Same argument could have applied there, as well. Same "principle" applied back when Apple tried to steal the official Swiss Railroad Company watch dial design, only to get busted by the Swiss watch manufacturer Mondaine, who had the rights to that design.
  • 0 Hide
    Buck Virga-hyatt , April 8, 2013 4:51 PM
    Those comparing the Apple v. Samsung cases to this one need to understand the difference between a trademark and a patent. Apple never thought that someone buying a Samsung device would think it's an Apple device but that Samsung was using Apple's intellectual property that was protected by patents. This case is a matter of confusion between the products. Not that I think they have any real case.
  • 3 Hide
    Tran Khanh Vinh An , April 8, 2013 5:09 PM
    I love to see Apple news here, to see the comment section lol
  • 0 Hide
    royalcrown , April 8, 2013 5:10 PM
    Quote:
    umm didnt apple patent "rounded corners"?????? so absurd patent and apple go hand in hand.... where its their patent or someone elses :) 
    http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012-11?op=1


    Seriously ?!?! Well this'd be karma then...lol. I never knew that, but then again that is too STUPID for me to think of.

  • 5 Hide
    Vladislaus , April 8, 2013 5:12 PM
    pacomacThis is just plain stupid. They both serve a different purpose, and are spelt differently. You can hardly accuse Apple of trading off this company since practically nobody has heard of them!

    This hasn't stopped Apple from suing grocery stores like a.pl and woolworths.
  • 3 Hide
    tobalaz , April 8, 2013 5:27 PM
    Well I guess Hearpod Inc. just wanted to get the party started before Apple rolled in and tried to muscle out their trademark with an army of lawyers, aka "innovators."
  • -4 Hide
    maddad , April 8, 2013 5:31 PM
    "Both Plaintiffs' Goods and Defendant's Goods are similar in nature in that, among other things, they are inserted into the ears of their users and are used to facilitate and enhance the transmission of sounds to the users."

    Based on this description, if they win; they would be able to sue all other ear phone makers. But since Apple has been making ear phones since like forever along with everyone else; not likely to happen. Also if you go to their website and look at their product of course they look nothing alike. The most they can hope for is to get Apple to change the name. Good luck with that!
  • -1 Hide
    excella1221 , April 8, 2013 5:42 PM
    house70Would have loved to hear the same argument when Apple strong-armed a Polish small grocery store into changing their name because it had "apple" in it. True story, happened a few years ago

    Uh.. maybe that's why Apple lost the lawsuit? Lol.
Display more comments