Apple Sues Over iGasm Ads 342
funkeymonkeyman writes "Apple is less than pleased with an interesting new peripheral for the iPod which promises to 'take your appreciation of music to a whole new level.' Legal action has been taken against Ann Summers, the manufacturers of the new device, specifically for the similarity of the iGasm advertisements to the iconic iPod silhouette ads. The CEO of the adult retail chain replied to the threat cheerily, 'Perhaps I can send them an iGasm to put a smile back on their faces.'"
Only suing vibrators? (Score:5, Informative)
The iGasm is ok, but.... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget the tv ad (Score:5, Informative)
Aaaarrrrrragggg! (Score:1, Informative)
Clikc
It !!!!
Youll be sorry
Re:Let me correct the headline for you... (Score:1, Informative)
It isn't a parody. It's a direct rip-off intended to sell a product.
Re:I don't know about you (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anybody here try it? (Score:2, Informative)
The multisex one is called R-fuss. (Say it over and over if the name ain't click at first.)
Ann Summers (Score:5, Informative)
If you haven't spent much time in the UK, you may not realize that Ann Summers is a major retail chain, with hundreds of sex shops. It's like Victoria's Secret in the US, but harder-core.
Re:Don't forget the tv ad (Score:3, Informative)
TM details FWIW (Score:5, Informative)
Some clarity on TM, at least in US...
You can trademark almost anything that creates a connection in a consumer's mind between a product/service and its origin. Historically this has included logos, words, sounds (Harley Davidson's engine noise), images, even colors (Corningware's "pink" insulation), shapes of products (Weber Grill), type of decoration in a restaurant, called "trade dress" (Taco Cabana).
If whenever you see commercials of a certain "style" and you think "Apple/iPod", then the style is likely trademark material. If another company's using the same style to sell a similar/related product (as opposed to engaging in satire or public comment which is more protected) then I'd put my money on the trademark holder.
Wrong again, at least in the US. Most trademark rights come from using the trademark, not from applying for it. The Trademark office register the mark for you, which gives you some considerable procedural advantages (hence there is a process sort of like patent application that you need to go through), but there's no requirement to register your mark in order to have a trademark. All of which is probably beside the point in this instance, since I bet Apple registered something related to whatever they're suing over.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Fortunately, Chub Mackerel is mostly correct. You don't actually have to go to court to defend a trademark every time, but it's a good idea. Your lawyer will tell you to, and your lawyer is usually right. But to reiterate - The purpose of trademark law is to avoid consumer confusion. Any form of commercial speech which might confuse the consumer as to whether some commercial entity was involved in some way in the production or distribution or whatever of some product is going to raise trademark issues, as long as the commercial entity in question wasn't actually involved with that product.
Here's the image (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Darth Vader says "Do Not Want" (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Ann Summers is English, so it's no wonder they corrected it.
> That Ann Summers site is cheesier than a Swiss cheese factory, too.
Again, Ann Summers is English, so Cheddar would be more appropriate, since that is English also.
Re:I don't know about you (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't know about you (Score:5, Informative)
Re:TM details FWIW (Score:4, Informative)
Re:TM details FWIW (Score:3, Informative)
You're right that it's easier for Apple to win if iGasm is something that competes directly with iPod. But my understanding is that the touchstone is simply "consumer confusion" in a broader sense. Example: The iGasm is obviously designed to be used WITH the iPod. The commercial looks very much like a commercial for the iPod. It has music and people dancing. In fact the folks in the commercial have iPods as well, along with their dildonics. Since the ad looks so much like Apple's, and it's clearly hawking an iPod accessory, it's not beyond imagining that some people might be asking for these things in Apple stores. That would be direct, and pretty damning evidence of confusion.
Lots of other factors involved, obviously, and I'm not saying who I think is right... just trying to clarify how TM law handles these things.
To others in the thread: I think US law and UK law are relatively comparable on general principles of TM. One recent area of possible divergence is the whole mess of "dilution" law, which we haven't really talked about here.
Re:iFuck (Score:3, Informative)
Mr S would be better. Surgical grade silicone is widely acknowledged as the premier sex toy material.
Copyright, not trademark (Score:4, Informative)
A recent UK Court of Appeal case has significantly narrowed the scope of Trademark protection, essentially stating that the public are savvy enough to recognise that the use of the same trademark in two different markets is not "passing off". However, this defense may be slightly scuppered by the ad, which does attempt a form of "passing off" and association.
The main complaint really seems to be blatant copying of the ad, and is therefore a Copyright issue. As others have stated, parody is not (officially) a defense in UK Copyright law, but taking the mickey has long been recognised unofficially. A classic example was the "Made In Wales" series of adverts which was parodied by the "Not the Nine O'Clock News" comedy show. The parody was so good , that it was alleged the Welsh Development Agency showed them to real potential clients alongside the original adverts. Also the term "Fair Use" does exist in UK law, and this may perhaps be construed to include parody.
Re:Anybody here try it? (Score:1, Informative)
The "innovative" part is that it's music driven, but plain ones have been around for a while. OK, take note, guys:
For most women, the nerves inside the vagina are much less sensitive than the clitoris. This means two things:
The key is that it's very subtle. It builds and recedes, builds and recedes, until you just can't hold back anymore. This isn't something you'd use for two minutes before bed, but something you'd spend an afternoon with.
Re:I don't know about you (Score:2, Informative)
Good thing it wasn't really NSFW. Even the advert in question isn't NSFW in my opinion: advert [product-reviews.net] (possibly NSFW)