   can you trademark a word format?
  i don't mean MS Word. for instance Apple has iTunes and iPod. can they have a trademark basically any wording that has iXXX? (where XXX is an actual word)in Your Annoucements, there's a product called iPush. i was wondering if Apple could sue or request a name change because the name could be confused with Apple's line of products.   
  By my understanding, there could well be a case for a trademark infringement suit over name like iPush. It would certainly not be the most far fetched trademark case I've heard of.EasyMobile vs. Orange springs to mind. Orange filed a trademark infringement against EasyMobile for using the colour orange in their logo.   ;  I'm not sure. Currently there is one of iPod's competitor: iRiver , but apple haven't given them static yet.   ;  The central question is whether "iPush" is likely to be confused with an existing Apple product with a registered trademark. If an iPush is a software API for rolling out patches, for instance, this is highly unlikely. If an iPush is a baby stroller, this is also unlikely.On the other hand, if an iPush is a small white media player with a thumbwheel, we have a problem.   ;Quote:Original post by cloudscapesI'm not sure. Currently there is one of iPod's competitor: iRiver , but apple haven't given them static yet.It's sympathy: Apple knows that iRiver is one of the worst product names ever. It's like suing a kid with a helicopter hat.   ;  They could possibly make a trademark infringement claim if it looks like it's trying to pass itself off as an Apple product (e.g. iPod-like advertising, etc) that will confuse the consumer, which is the original purpose of trademarks.This, however, is no indication of whether or not a trademark infringement claim will go to court, or win.   ;Quote:Original post by SalsaIt's like suing a kid with a helicopter hat.lol I'm going to remember that phrase. :)   ;Quote:Original post by kSquaredThe central question is whether "iPush" is likely to be confused with an existing Apple product with a registered trademark. If an iPush is a software API for rolling out patches, for instance, this is highly unlikely. If an iPush is a baby stroller, this is also unlikely.On the other hand, if an iPush is a small white media player with a thumbwheel, we have a problem.True...but iTunes is not a small white media player with a thumbwheel. It's software, a media player. Apple has hardware and software with iXXX format. So wouldn't another company with the iXXX make someone thing: "oooh! an Apple product!" i know i did when i saw iPush.but i guess the rule as you pointed out is not getting the consumer confused with future or would-be products or even product lines. it's getting consumers confused with existing products.   ;Quote:Original post by RavuyaThey could possibly make a trademark infringement claim if it looks like it's trying to pass itself off as an Apple product (e.g. iPod-like advertising, etc) that will confuse the consumer, which is the original purpose of trademarks.This, however, is no indication of whether or not a trademark infringement claim will go to court, or win.Exactly, in order to successfully win a trademark infringement case you need to prove that the person deliberately used the name in order to trick customers into using the product under the pretence it was an apple product. In this particular example the "i" would be deemend far too generic to trademark, so apple would be fighting a losing battle. They would need to prove that the advertising and product brand was immitating apples, and probably they would also need to be in a similar market, ie a baby stroller would be ok, but a music player wouldnt.I just read this week regarding a fairly similar lawsuit. Stelios, owner of EasyGroup, has repeatedly tried to sue EasyPizza for trademark infringement. However the case has been thrown out of court, and EasyPizza has now won an injunction against EasyGroup ever trying to sue them again.The judge ruled that the term "easy" was far too common and therefore not trademarkeabe. Additionally EasyPizza was established before easyjet became a common name, and the companys advertising did not resemble EasyGroup in anyway (they did not use orange at all). Therefore as they were in a completely different market segment and did not deliberately try to fool customers EasyGroup could not sue.Also, I believe Microsoft lost a case while trying to sue lindows because again the term "windows" was too common and not trademarkable.   ;Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesTrue...but iTunes is not a small white media player with a thumbwheel. It's software, a media player. Apple has hardware and software with iXXX format. So wouldn't another company with the iXXX make someone thing: "oooh! an Apple product!" i know i did when i saw iPush.And tons of manufacturers know that you will either misrecognize (in the case of unrelated products) or correctly surmise their sales mark to be iPod-related. e.g. Griffin iTrip.But let's look at Apple for a second: iPod, iTunes, iMac, iBook, iSight, iLife, iWeb, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD... The mere fact that they have haphazardly slapped the "i" prefix all over their product offerings does not give them the exclusive right to use it. The key will always be, as kSquared pointed out, whether the use of an "iName" by another company is designed to mislead consumers into thinking the product is Apple-affiliated, particularly for similar and/or competing products. iTrip is legal because it's an Apple authorized accessory product, and because Apple wasn't manufacturing an FM transmitter with a similar name at the time. iMove is legal because Apple is not (yet?) in the business of selling houses, nor would anyone engaging in the most cursory examinations of iMove be confused about that.So, no, you can't trademark a word format. Otherwise IBM (eServer) would have sued Apple's eMac out of existence from the word "Go."   