Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Why have Apple not

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why have Apple not made the I only useable to them ( can not remember the exact term for it ) you get I music from Renault and then there is the I - candy pushchairs. To me the I belongs to apple. Sorry pointless rant really but i just do not understand why everyone can have I for their products.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    311
    Post Thanks / Like
    The term you're looking for is "trademark", and they can't do it because I is just a letter, and stands for many things in many walks of life. For instance, the I-something make of cars where the I stands for Intuitive, Injection etc. They also don't NEED to, as major competitors want to be seen as different, not a poor version of their already established product.

    The possibilities are too many for them to simply say "we want to trademark putting I at the front of ANYTHING". It wouldn't hold up in court.

    What they CAN (and DO) do is stop others using it when it infringes stuff they've already trademarked. For example, sony couldn't bring out a music player called the iPodd. The same way McDonalds stopped that Scottish cafe selling "Bigg Macs", or whatever it was called.

    As for I-Candy pushchairs? If you are in serious danger of getting the two confused, you really need help!! :)

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkE, post: 205768
    The term you're looking for is "trademark", and they can't do it because I is just a letter, and stands for many things in many walks of life. For instance, the I-something make of cars where the I stands for Intuitive, Injection etc. They also don't NEED to, as major competitors want to be seen as different, not a poor version of their already established product.

    The possibilities are too many for them to simply say "we want to trademark putting I at the front of ANYTHING". It wouldn't hold up in court.

    What they CAN (and DO) do is stop others using it when it infringes stuff they've already trademarked. For example, sony couldn't bring out a music player called the iPodd. The same way McDonalds stopped that Scottish cafe selling "Bigg Macs", or whatever it was called.

    As for I-Candy pushchairs? If you are in serious danger of getting the two confused, you really need help!! :)
    Not getting them confused silly was just trying to clear a question i had that had bugged me about the I, but i now get it

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    5,436
    Post Thanks / Like
    I often wonder if Apple wish they'd got iplayer before the BBC used the name.





  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    311
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well the iplayer was released LONG after the ipod etc, and seeing as how it's a way to deliver digital media, if apple HAD objected to it, they'd have had a strong case to block it. So I can only assume that they didn't mind. After all, it encourages people to watch TV over the internet. So you watch iPlayer on your iBook, or using the apple TV box.

    Michelle, I know YOU would never get them confused. But that doesn't mean some silly sausage won't. Apple could make it worse though - new mums could use the I-candy push chair, their iPod and the Nike+ iPod gear to get themselves back in shape by measuring how far / fast they can walk their newborn children!!

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Cumming, GA. A small suburb of Atlanta.
    Posts
    6,094
    Post Thanks / Like
    Actually, I think this is almost a self-answering question.

    Stop and think about it. When you see i-anything, what do you think. Quickly. Yep, you think iPod, Apple, etc. Doesn't matter if it's the iPlayer or an iBolt. You still think Apple.

    So, in my opinion, Apple doesn't need to trademark anything. Or even try to. They've already done that indirectly by creating a ubiquitous couple of devices that are so widely adopted, they've become a staple of the English language to describe their function. Specifically, the iPod, the iPhone, and now the iPad.

    I think Apple's exactly where they planned to be!

    Tom (... resident Apple bigot!)

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    9,138
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apple's marketing strategies are amazing simply the best.
    Follow Me on Pinterest
    Disney International College Program: May 2011 working in Attractions (Voyage of the Little Mermaid & Disney Junior: Live on Stage!)

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    2,697
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by catrancher, post: 205904
    Actually, I think this is almost a self-answering question.

    Stop and think about it. When you see i-anything, what do you think. Quickly. Yep, you think iPod, Apple, etc. Doesn't matter if it's the iPlayer or an iBolt. You still think Apple.

    So, in my opinion, Apple doesn't need to trademark anything. Or even try to. They've already done that indirectly by creating a ubiquitous couple of devices that are so widely adopted, they've become a staple of the English language to describe their function. Specifically, the iPod, the iPhone, and now the iPad.

    I think Apple's exactly where they planned to be!

    Tom (... resident Apple bigot!)
    After reading this i can see were they are coming from

    I know you would'nt Mark

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •