Apple Is Getting Sued Over the Name iWatch, Even Though That’s Not What Its Product Is Called

[jos]

Type “iWatch” into Google’s search engine, and the top result is likely to be an ad for the Apple Watch. Apple pays Google for the advertisements so it doesn’t miss out on potential customers who entered the wrong product name. But a small Dublin-based company, which owns the iWatch trademark in Europe, is hoping the ads will cost Apple a lot more.

Probendi, an Irish software development studio, filed an urgent procedure with a court in Milan protesting Apple’s use of the term in its ads, according to the tribunal filing obtained by Bloomberg. “Apple has systematically used iWatch wording on Google search engine in order to direct customers to its own website, advertising Apple Watch,” the document says.

 

They should not have paid google for redirecting it.

 

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-14/apple-is-getting-sued-over-the-name-iwatch-even-though-that-s-not-what-its-product-is-called

[1Scotty1]

[Enderman]

so its apples fault, because they are stealing traffic from the people who own iwatch...

stupid apple...

[AlwaysFSX]

so its apples fault, because they are stealing traffic from the people who own iwatch...

stupid apple...

Google search "iWatch -Apple" and you still don't see them pop up. It's not Apple, it's them.

[ZetZet]

Google search "iWatch -Apple" and you still don't see them pop up. It's not Apple, it's them.

Google iwatch software and you still don't see them. They don't exist. If you Google probendi iwatch then it pops up.

[AlwaysFSX]

Google iwatch software and you still don't see them. They don't exist. If you Google probendi iwatch then it pops up.

Their other problem is choosing a naming scheme that is so obviously Apple-esque that they have no one to blame but themselves. Why name it "iWatch" in what is essentially the era of Apple? Anyone else remember all of the "i-" devices that were named as such simply because Apple "i-" products were popular?

[jos]

Their other problem is choosing a naming scheme that is so obviously Apple-esque that they have no one to blame but themselves. Why name it "iWatch" in what is essentially the era of Apple? Anyone else remember all of the "i-" devices that were named as such simply because Apple "i-" products were popular?

It was 1 year after launch of iphone before that i think only i product was ipod apparently they have trademarked Critical Governance too

[ZetZet]

It was 1 year after launch of iphone before that i think only i product was ipod apparently they have trademarked Critical Governance too

Well the best solution for them now is to sue apple and then do a quick rebrand  :lol:

[DigitalHermit]

[Ekpyrosis]

It even supports 5G. Wow, so ahead of it's time.

[jaggysnake57]

it seams clear that apple are getting copyright trolled and yet everyone is laughing at apple. if apple was doing the trolling what would your reaction be then!

 

this is stupid......they havent breached copyright

[ImBleu]

I wonder if corporate lawsuits involving Apple is going to be in the next olympics. Everyones doing it.

[HippY]

it seams clear that apple are getting copyright trolled and yet everyone is laughing at apple. if apple was doing the trolling what would your reaction be then!

 

this is stupid......they havent breached copyright

No one breaches copyright here and the problem is not lying there

 

The problem here is that Apple steering potential customers away from this company via redirecting searches

[zacRupnow]

Apple will probably just buy that company instead...

[mr moose]

it seams clear that apple are getting copyright trolled and yet everyone is laughing at apple. if apple was doing the trolling what would your reaction be then!

 

this is stupid......they havent breached copyright

 

I do agree with the sentiment, however the issue here is that the original owners of the term iWatch can't get search traffic because apple have paid google to redirect it all to them.  Whether we think the company is stupid or not for trying to capitalise on the iDevice naming scheme is kinda moot.  There are antitrust laws in play here and Being the EU both apple and Google are not looked on favourably. 

[AlwaysFSX]

I do agree with the sentiment, however the issue here is that the original owners of the term iWatch can't get search traffic because apple have paid google to redirect it all to them.  Whether we think the company is stupid or not for trying to capitalise on the iDevice naming scheme is kinda moot.  There are antitrust laws in play here and Being the EU both apple and Google are not looked on favourably. 

If this does go in Probendi's favor I'd like to know exactly why it did. Paying for search support isn't uncommon, most companies do it already. It seems like a giant lack of common sense lawsuit to be honest.

[multifrag]

If they have a built product/software then yes, apple is at fault. But if they are just patent trolls or domain trolls, or name trolls then it's just a money settlement and there is no real damage. They just wanted to get some bank out of apple. Hate when tech companies do it and hate even more when patent troll companies do that to small innovative products

[mr moose]

If this does go in Probendi's favor I'd like to know exactly why it did. Paying for search support isn't uncommon, most companies do it already. It seems like a giant lack of common sense lawsuit to be honest.

Only because anti trust in the EU goes beyond the immediately tangible and they have a track record of seemingly senseless court rulings.

 

Prbendi's naming of their device is legit (unethical maybe, stupid maybe but legit none the less) ergo any activity that actively that uses a companies dominance to control access to the public (ergo, googles search engine dominance) is going to be considered anti trust.

[AlwaysFSX]

Only because anti trust in the EU goes beyond the immediately tangible and they have a track record of seemingly senseless court rulings.

 

Prbendi's naming of their device is legit (unethical maybe, stupid maybe but legit none the less) ergo any activity that actively that uses a companies dominance to control access to the public (ergo, googles search engine dominance) is going to be considered anti trust.

That's a very fine, but stupid, thread they'd be holding on to then. That also means the EU would essentially have to ban all paid advertisements on search engines too because any could use this case in the most ridiculous of examples and win.

[mr moose]

 That also means the EU would essentially have to ban all paid advertisements on search engines too because any could use this case in the most ridiculous of examples and win.

 

Only if the paid advertisements where found to be directing legitimate traffic from competing companies.

 

I guess we'll find out in a few years when it finally settles.

[AlwaysFSX]

Only if the paid advertisements where found to be directing legitimate traffic from competing companies.

 

I guess we'll find out in a few years when it finally settles.

"few years"  :rolleyes: Yeah I don't think I'll remember it by then. 

[Trik'Stari]

Wow, good to see the tables turned on apple for once.

[LAwLz]

it seams clear that apple are getting copyright trolled and yet everyone is laughing at apple. if apple was doing the trolling what would your reaction be then!

 

this is stupid......they havent breached copyright

Nope, Apple are guilty here (assuming the accusations are correct). Apple has paid to have searches for iWatch (a product they don't have but someone else does) redirect to them. That's wrong.

I would expect Microsoft to be sued as well if they paid to have searches for "iPhone" get redirected to "Windows Phone".

 

Kind of weird how Google can say they aren't responsible for links.

 

 

 

 

That's a very fine, but stupid, thread they'd be holding on to then. That also means the EU would essentially have to ban all paid advertisements on search engines too because any could use this case in the most ridiculous of examples and win.

How is it stupid? Paid advertisements aren't illegal, but sabotaging for other companies (like in this case) is. What do you think of the example I gave above where Microsoft would redirect searches for "iPhone" to "Windows Phone", does that sound fair and legal to you? It's the same situation here.

[AlwaysFSX]

How is it stupid? Paid advertisements aren't illegal, but sabotaging for other companies (like in this case) is. What do you think of the example I gave above where Microsoft would redirect searches for "iPhone" to "Windows Phone", does that sound fair and legal to you? It's the same situation here.

The reason why I think it's stupid isn't because Apple is intentionally sabotaging a small company (at least in my view) is because Apple is known for their "i-" naming scheme. Far too many people think the Apple Watch is called the "iWatch" when it's not. But you can't really blame them because of how their product names have been for a while. Apple realized this and took action that way people that search for the wrong name of their product get directed towards the correct product.

[LAwLz]

The reason why I think it's stupid isn't because Apple is intentionally sabotaging a small company (at least in my view) is because Apple is known for their "i-" naming scheme. Far too many people think the Apple Watch is called the "iWatch" when it's not. But you can't really blame them because of how their product names have been for a while. Apple realized this and took action that way people that search for the wrong name of their product get directed towards the correct product.

A lot of people call my Nexus 10 an "iPad" too, does that mean Google should be allowed to redirect searches for iPad to their tablets?