Apple Sued: Hearing Aid Hearpods vs. Earpods
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.
Yep. That and I don't plug mt headphones into my ipad in order to be able to hear what's going on around me. They might as well say all headphones are hearing aids then and sue everyone. I hope apple doesn't settle out of court on this and doesn't stop production, the most they should have to do is rename earpods and even that is generous.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012-11?op=1
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.
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.
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.
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.
This hasn't stopped Apple from suing grocery stores like a.pl and woolworths.
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!
Uh.. maybe that's why Apple lost the lawsuit? Lol.