“Xoom Corp., operator of a money- transfer website, sued Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. for trademark infringement for naming its new tablet computer that went on sale today the Xoom,” Don Jeffrey and Hugo Miller report for Bloomberg. “Xoom Corp., based in San Francisco, said it has been offering its online service since 2003 and registered the trademark for the name in 2004, according to a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco.”
“‘To confuse and mislead consumers, Motorola without authorization deliberately and unlawfully appropriated Xoom’s trade name and trademark rights,’ the closely held company said in the complaint,” Jeffrey and Miller report. “Motorola Mobility’s trademark application was rejected in December by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which said it was too similar to one owned by Zoom Telephonics Inc. in Boston, according to information on the office’s website.”
MacDailyNews Take: Motorola wasn’t content with trying to copy the iPad, they had to copy someone else’s product name, too. We’re half-surprised that the derivative bastages didn’t just try to call it iPad. The thing looks so much like an iPad, they should’ve called it “iPretend.” Apple ought to sue them back into the radio age for trade dress infringement, at the very least.
Jeffrey and Miller report, “The case is Xoom Corp. v. Motorola Trademark Holdings LLC, 11-0848, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Regardless, it’s a stupid name that only a xylophone player could love.
“MacDailyNews Take: Regardless, it’s a stupid name that only a xylophone player could love.”
That made me laugh! Classic line!
Exactly!
Figures…
So, an online service and a telephone company both think that a tablet computer named Xoom might confuse their customers.
Moto shouldn’t have too many troubles beating both raps as long as Moto doesn’t run out of money before the court case starts.
So, if Motorola were to use the name KFC for their tablet, the chicken company should let the matter slide. Just because Xoom Corp is thought to be an insignificant player, they are not entitled to the same level playing field as a big company.
LOL @ MDN, but I was a Xylophone player in grade school. And, I don’t care for the name Xoom either. 😉
Zoom is a great company that I’ve done business with, and I hope they sue Motorola for everything they’re worth!
I typed “Xoom” but the iPhone auto-corrected me without me catching it. 🙂
That drives me nuts!
I have to be really careful writing stuff on my eye pad… er… iPad and not hitting send or post before proofreading. I WISH the iPad keyboard had some sort of cursor keys to make editing a little easier.
Xoom is Doomed?
Mr. Reeee,
No cursor keys, but you can turn off Auto-Correction on iPad if you like: Settings>Keyboard>Auto-Correction: “Off”
Yeah, but 1/2 the time it’s a good thing.
😉
Too close to “Zune.”
Every time I hear Xoom, I think of the Conan O’Brien show. “ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNE!!!!”
Xoom, wonder where they dug that up…get it? exhume?
Never mind 🙂
A judge will throw the case out, as money-transfer and a tablet are not confusing.
Motorola Moox, the backwards pad.
@JT
Do you mean Xune?
No. Conan had a running gag on his show for a long time where he would have, shall we say various famous, unpopular people saying they hated the iPod and loved the Microsoft Zune.
http://whenwillapple.com/blog/2008/10/29/conan-obrien-joins-the-zune-bashing-fest-on-nbc/
(the first clip has been removed but not the second one)
ZUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNE!
I’m surprised Xerox didn’t have a product named Xoom (it would probably be a fax machine).
This kind of reminds me of when Cisco sued Apple for taking it’s iPhone name!…
@Now, Now…
Still at it I see, What a Joke you are.
Different in all aspects, The name is shared by both & agreed to even before the release of the iPhone, And getting your information links from a one sided left over from yesteryear so called News Source as Zdnet is doesn’t help your case at all.
Learn your history. On launch, CISCO still owned iPhone and didn’t agree until later to give up the name (after a large payment I bet).
MDN is being hypocritical again. It’s ok for Apple, but anyone else sucks. Blind followers!
Hello! Apple started the whole iName thing. People associate it with Apple. That’s why CISCO used it. Even if someone else used iPhone first, it was derived from the iMac and iBook.
You are the one short on history, but as always the haters will turn to anything if it’s against Apple.
Talk about blind, and you get upset and try to point fingers, listen up dude your not as smart as you think.
Go and pull the full court dockett up and you will see that Apple were in talks for allot longer then you sugest and the oly problem was in the exchange of information “if” that would happen and the leagal way to shre the name between the two companys.
Cisco wad going to lose the case and it was a formality to bring it all to court, but in reality it was worked out long before it even entered the legal stage.
So don’t preach history, unless you are one of thoes that are following in the footsteps of fox news and doing a rewrite with half assed information.
Done.
Also Stryker is correct also, Apple had the “i” in all the product line way before cisco and this us why Apple was going to be granted the name, due to a agreement and share of information and a contract between the Two, they both agreed to share the name to stop a long court battle Apple was going to win anyway.
So it was a win win for both, new contracts between the two and each company shares the name and saves millions in a case Apple would have won anyway.
And Mazda should jump in and sue Moto.
Xoom, Xoom, Xoom
Very confusing to consumers – very confusing, I say!
Psst! … Motorola! … call Xoom “Places”
lol!
That was my first thought. However, Xoom is a made-up word, like Kodak or Esso, so the case might be valid.
Chevrolet got in trouble using the Beretta name for one of their models. GM had to settle that one by donating half-a-million dollars to the gunmaker’s favorite charity.
I meant to reply to KenC’s comment “A judge will throw the case out, as money-transfer and a tablet are not confusing.”
But somehow, the reply did not end up as a direct reply in the proper place.
Xoom.
Sounds like Zune.
Same outcome too, I suppose.
That’s one way to get free PR.
Found this pic of the Xoom that can’t see the Xoom webpage. The irony. http://bit.ly/guHJdC
MDN? I’m not sure how you can complain about Motorola copying a name when both iPhone and iOS are Cisco trademarks? Sure Apple eventually struck an agreement with Cisco to license the names but you don’t mention that in your take? That does make you more than a bit hypocritical, but then I guess anyone who visits this site with any regularity doesn’t expect anything even loosely resembling objectivity.
As far as looks go, it looks like an iPad in so much as they are both tablets. That’s about it. It’s skinnier than an iPad, there are no home buttons or any kind of buttons on the front of the unit. The power button is on the back of the unit. It actually has ports on it that people can easily use; camera’s on both back and front of unit. So, no, you fail with the iPad lookalike as well.
Very disappointed with your first take, but your second one did make me chuckle.
For a reality check, if the iPad was never created, you would have never seen a “Xoom” from Motorola. I don’t see anything hypocritical in that thought. Apple was the originator of a successful tablet, and everyone since has been an imitator. Since iPad’s debut, cameras have been rumored for the next iteration, and “Xoom’s” terrible button placement changes nothing. Any idiot can see that the “Xoom” is a lame iPad copycat.
Reality check correctu, stay on topic. No where was I commenting on the reason for the Xoom’s existence. The hypocrisy comes in when MDN calls out Motorola for using someone elses name while ignoring the fact that the iPhone and iOS were taken from Cisco. That is being hypocritical. Any “idiot” can see that, but then you must be so far past idiot that it falls outside your realm of comprehension.
And I like your turn of phrase “successful tablet” since you know you cannot claim that Apple invented the tablet form factor, as much as that must be killing you. Your comparison between the Xoom and iPad is like saying all cars are copycats of the Ford Model T since Ford created the first successful mass produced automobile. And saying the Xoom looks like a copycat iPad is ridiculous. They are the same form factor! They are going to look similar but it really stops at the form factor! One’s silver, the others black, size differences, layouts. Really, grow up and get a clue.
Apple has a really great product and a very nice headstart, but right now with my iPad sitting next to my Xoom, the iPad feels dated. I’m sure iPad 2.0 will change that but it’s the Xoom getting all the attention at this moment from everyone else in my house.
I obviously wasn’t commenting on your whiney Cisco drivel.
Reality check on your sad attempt at a reality check ya fantardroid lemming… In your original comment 2nd paragraph that starts “As far as looks go”, you were talking about the “big” differences of “Xoom” compared to the iPad. There really aren’t none because “Xoom” is an imitation iPad. If it wasn’t, you’d see a bulky Windows derivative (the correct example of “Model T”) as were the norm before the iPad debuted. The “Xoom” is a complete bastardized copy of iPad. Suffer with the fact, hehe. Ooooh! One’s black and one’s silver are you fricken kidding me?
And everyone in your house is a lemming because it’s part of their DNA and they have you around to inflict them with stupidity both genetically and emotionally. Hopefully their attention deficit disorders will allow them to forget the “Xoom” once they see the second iteration of iPad next week.. the iPad 2.
On another note, I’m interested to see HP’s tablet. It looks pretty cool and original (lol)
You obviously just did not get what I was saying, which goes back to the intelligence which you obviously lack which therefore makes anything further you say quite irrelevant.
Don’t worry I understand you quite fine.. yer stumped and made a stupid purchase decision.
(iPad rocks! hehe)
I’ll be interested on your take on March 2nd when the iPad 2 is expected to debut, ya fantardroid lemming.
I am sure I will love the iPad 2, and will probably go out and purchase the new one on or around the release date. My point is that I speak from the direct knowledge of owning the various systems I speak of. Can you say the same?
I like using my money appropriately, so I’ll wait for the iPad sequel like you should have.
Ann, what it must feel like to be irrelevant!
Ask your family.. they’ll be looking right at ya all slack-jawed and butterfaced.
Apple came up with the naming convention where a word is prefixed with a lowercase ‘i’, starting with iMac. And yet somehow Apple ripped Cisco off with the names “iPhone” and “iOS”?
Uh, no.
Cisco ripped off Apple.
MDN isn’t being a bit hypocritical with their take, but you’re being more than a bit disingenuous.
Wait a minute, I’m incorrect in the case of iOS. I’m sorry. Cisco didn’t rip off Apple’s naming convention there, but Apple didn’t rip off Cisco, either.
Cisco’s IOS(note the uppercase ‘i’) is a legitimate acronym standing for Internetwork Operating System and not, infact, shameless bandwagon jumping. Apple’s iOS(note the lowercase ‘i’) is the obvious name for the operating system running the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad. They simply stuck with the naming convention they’ve been using since 1998, which unfortunately put them on a collision course with Cisco’s acronym.
I’m right in the case of iPhone, though. Cisco was indeed shamelessly ripping off Apple with that name.
Oh well, I was half wrong. You’re still entirely wrong, though. I doubt you’ll admit it, however.
No, wrong yet again. iPhone was trademarked by Infogear, which was later bought by Cisco and the trademark reused. So Cisco itself wasn’t directly ripping off Apple after all, but Apple wasn’t ripping off Cisco either. Again, what else were they going to name the iPhone? It was an inevitable collision course.
But you’re still wrong. Apple was doing what it’s been doing since the iMac, which eventually put it in contention with some other trademarks. There’s nothing to suggest they intentionally copied “iPhone” or “IOS” from Cisco and Infogear. Motorola, on the otherhand, does not have a long history of giving its products names with an X in place of a Z. “Xoom” isn’t a product of some convention they have. They hardly arrived at the name innocently as the result of a naming process they’ve been using for over a decade.
For god’s sake, I see ads on television for something else called “Xoom” . There’s a xoom.com that has nothing to do with the Moto tablet. Which ever way you slice it, Apple’s use of “iPhone” and “iOS” isn’t even on the same planet as Moto’s use of “Xoom”.
The former is like an entrepreneur who develops restaurant chains named after the food they specialize in followed by the word “King”. Taco King, Hotdog King, Sushi King etc. Then one day they decide to open a burger joint. Naturally, they name it Burger King. Trouble arises.
The latter is like a restaurant owner deciding to name one of their hamburgers The Whopper for no apparent reason. Trouble arises there, too, but there’s a stark contrast betweem these two examples.
I’m wrong, yet you’ve had to correct yourself several times in your replies? Really?!?!
Shoulda named it ‘Zume’.
Extra splatter with this bloodbath…
Thank youz to @ob1spyker and @correctu for my laugh of the day. EXCELLENT tardy insults there boyz! Reminds me of my childhood, sad to say.
😉
You’re welcome Derek 🙂
I love the word fantardroid.
Since I just created it last evening, I want everyone to know they’re welcome to use it as necessary since I put it in public domain.
iPad wannabe? The iPad is dated and ultra slow… barely useable with iOS 4.x? My friends have iOS 4.x and it’s S.L.O.W. I mean S.L.O.W.
Apple should have known better than to only put 128 MB of RAM. But Apple was smart… they did that so people would get fed up and be forced to buy the iPad 2.
And as for names… the iPad sounds worse than XOOM! Trust.
Ps Don’t forget to Always Kotex your iPad ladies. 😉
^ fantardroid.
(See? This example of flame baiting shows another perfect time to use this word. Thank you, Simon, for giving a fine example of when fantardroid can be used appropriately and keeping the word relevant.)
To further insult android by pointing out its fragmentation issues, wouldn’t it be appropriate to say FRAGtardroid?
Just wonderin’