StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2007-05-25 06:01pm**

High street adult retailer Ann Summers has landed itself in a heap of trouble with Apple.

The retail chain has been promoting a £30 sex toy called the iGasm, a device which connects to any music player and offers users an erotic vibrating treat in time to the beat.

A News of the World report claims Apple is furious about Ann Summers' promotion of the device, and is demanding all posters for the gadget be taken down, under threat of court action.

The neon-pink posters depict an underwear-clad female silhouette holding an oval white device with two cables - one connected to a pair of white headphones, the other heading down toward the female's knickers.

The sales pitch urges music fans to: "Go at it hard and fast with a pounding drum 'n' bass track or chill with an ambient classic."

Apple is claiming the ad to be an abuse of the silhouette-based images it uses in its own advertising.

Ann Summers hasn't bowed to Apple's threats, the report explains.

Posted: **2007-05-25 06:52pm**

Oh god damn, where can I buy one of these real quick before they're pulled?

I mean, sex and music are already pretty connected in my mind - this would just clinch it.

I heartily approve of these. I hope the pressure from apple just changes the name, and that they import them state-side of the pond.

Posted: **2007-05-25 06:58pm**

A few years back I saw artwork similar to that with the exact same name (iGasm). It was a joke. Life imitates art, as they say.

Posted: **2007-05-25 07:42pm**

I wasn't aware that the concept of silhouette art was something you could trademark.

Posted: **2007-05-25 07:51pm**

General Zod wrote:I wasn't aware that the concept of silhouette art was something you could trademark.

Oh come the fuck on and try to tell me with a straight, non-lawyerfied face that isn't a blatant and shameless iPod ripoff. WTF?

Posted: **2007-05-25 07:55pm**

Darth Raptor wrote:
General Zod wrote:I wasn't aware that the concept of silhouette art was something you could trademark.
Oh come the fuck on and try to tell me with a straight, non-lawyerfied face that isn't a blatant and shameless iPod ripoff. WTF?

James Bond movies have been doing it for decades. Do you honestly think Apple would have a claim if there wasn't an i before the name with some type of music player in there?

Posted: **2007-05-25 07:57pm**

Darth Raptor wrote:
General Zod wrote:I wasn't aware that the concept of silhouette art was something you could trademark.
Oh come the fuck on and try to tell me with a straight, non-lawyerfied face that isn't a blatant and shameless iPod ripoff. WTF?

Okay. It's an blatant and shameless iPod PARODY you dumbass, which is not subject to copyright laws.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:01pm**

General Zod wrote:James Bond movies have been doing it for decades. Do you honestly think Apple would have a claim if there wasn't an i before the name with some type of music player in there?

If there wasn't a lower case i and a music player, Apple wouldn't even care.

Dominus Atheos wrote:Okay. It's an blatant and shameless iPod PARODY you dumbass, which is not subject to copyright laws.

It's parody to ripoff a competetor's product identity for the product you're marketing now? What the hell?

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:02pm**

I don't think we can really fault Apple; the product is a rip off of their style, using a play off their names, using an advertisement that is a shameless rip off of their advertisement (Sillouette's contrasted with white product on a colored background with the product name in white).

And they're only complaining about the ads, not the product itself.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:03pm**

Darth Raptor wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote:Okay. It's an blatant and shameless iPod PARODY you dumbass, which is not subject to copyright laws.
It's parody to ripoff a competetor's product identity for the product you're marketing now? What the hell?

You seem to be laboring under a misconception. iGasm is an accessory to the iPod, not a competing product. You need an iPod in order to use it.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:05pm**

Darth Raptor wrote:
General Zod wrote:James Bond movies have been doing it for decades. Do you honestly think Apple would have a claim if there wasn't an i before the name with some type of music player in there?
If there wasn't a lower case i and a music player, Apple wouldn't even care

Try reading the fucking article next time.

Apple is claiming the ad to be an abuse of the silhouette-based images it uses in its own advertising.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:13pm**

Dominus Atheos wrote:You seem to be laboring under a misconception. iGasm is an accessory to the iPod, not a competing product. You need an iPod in order to use it.

Yeah, I did misread that part. Still, it's hijacking their identity for a product they understandably want nothing to do with. Bemoan the prudes all you want, I'm right behind you, but I sure as fuck can't fault Apple with their decision.

Try reading the fucking article next time.

I know what they say they're pissed about. But that's not really it. The iPod marketing schtick has been parodied into oblivion. Where's the outrage over that? It's still a blatant hijack of their product identity. Again, you can't possibly believe that poster is intended as anything other than "LOL, iPod." Oh yeah, it's a James Bond parody.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:24pm**

Eris wrote:Oh god damn, where can I buy one of these real quick before they're pulled?

I mean, sex and music are already pretty connected in my mind - this would just clinch it. I heartily approve of these. I hope the pressure from apple just changes the name, and that they import them state-side of the pond.

Products of this kind have been around for years. I've never seen an 'iGasm', but the product itself is quite widespread and not limited to one manufacturer. Go buy one!

Raptor, the marketing being 'parodied into oblivion' DOESN'T PRESENT A LEGAL TARGET. *This does*. This company must have expected to get sued.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:27pm**

Darth Raptor wrote: I know what they say they're pissed about. But that's not really it. The iPod marketing schtick has been parodied into oblivion. Where's the outrage over that? It's still a blatant hijack of their product identity. Again, you can't possibly believe that poster is intended as anything other than "LOL, iPod." Oh yeah, it's a James Bond parody.

Who gives a shit what it's intended to be a parody of? My point is that Apple shouldn't have any grounds to copyright a style of art. Especially if that's how they're filing their lawsuit.

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:35pm**

Stark wrote:Raptor, the marketing being 'parodied into oblivion' DOESN'T PRESENT A LEGAL TARGET. *This does*. This company must have expected to get sued.

Uh, yeah. That's kind of my point.

General Zod wrote:Who gives a shit what it's intended to be a parody of? My point is that Apple shouldn't have any grounds to copyright a style of art. Especially if that's how they're filing their lawsuit.

It's not a "style of art". It's an unmistakable marketing identity. According to your lawyery bullshitting logic, I could open a shitty fast food restaurant called McMahon's whose logo is a golden letter M on a red background and McDonald's would be oh-so-unreasonable to sue me. After all, they don't have exclusive rights to the letter M or the color red!

Posted: **2007-05-25 08:44pm**

Sorry Raptor, I fail at quoting.

Your example is apt because I recall some fast food company in the US was indeed prevented from using something similar to the golden M, even though it matched their corporate name and wasn't exactly the same (it was inverted, or a different letter or something). Why? Because they were capitalising on McDonalds marketing identity, just like this is.

Indeed, since people apparently didn't notice that these vibrators have existed for years, you could argue that this using Apple's style has really helped this one product's public awareness.

Posted: **2007-05-25 09:18pm**

Darth Raptor wrote:
It's not a "style of art". It's an unmistakable marketing identity. According to your lawyery bullshitting logic, I could open a shitty fast food restaurant called McMahon's whose logo is a golden letter M on a red background and McDonald's would be oh-so-unreasonable to sue me. After all, they don't have exclusive rights to the letter M or the color red!

That only applies if the companies are selling similar products that could be confused for each other by the marks, according to this article and perusing this article. Unless Apple's begun to secretly make their own iDildos, I'm not sure how that's a good comparison.

Posted: **2007-05-26 04:06am**

General Zod wrote:That only applies if the companies are selling similar products that could be confused for each other by the marks, according to this article and perusing this article. Unless Apple's begun to secretly make their own iDildos, I'm not sure how that's a good comparison.

Fine, let's say McMahon's sells snow cones. They're still capitalizing on McDonalds' marketing identity, just like the iGasm is illegitimately riding on the coattails of the iPod. And what IF Apple wanted to make a sex toy accessory for the iPod? The risk of mistaken identity is significant enough in this case to warrant their reaction. They ARE selling similar products that could be confused by their marks. And one irate family values organization and Apple has a PR disaster on its hands. This is not unprovoked dickishness on the part of Apple. Making the iGasm was about as retarded as sleeping on railroad tracks. The people of Ann Summers have no one to blame but themselves.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Apple sues iGasm

Apple sues iGasm