Now the fact that these names are all actually brand names does not prevent the fact that people use them to identify an entire product line. If you buy Puffs tissues you will probably not say “hand me a Puffs” but will often say “hand me a Kleenex”. I do not know how many times I have heard the terms “I need a Band-Aid” when all the person had was generic bandages.  People using these terms are not confused about what they have. They know they bought generic products (or another brand) yet these words are synonymous with the entire product line.

The companies that invented the products are not running around suing people over “market confusion” because there is none. The market knows which is which, but choses the familiar term. The same thing can be said for Apple and their products.  I know people that call any MP3 or media player and iPod. Even my ZuneHD (which looks nothing like an iPod of any type) gets dubbed an “iPod” by this person. When I asked them about it they actually said that they think of iPod as a device and not a specific product. This is exactly what happens with items like Kleenex, Band-Aid, or Kool-Aid.  The consumer knows what brand they bought, they just think that the actual product is a Kleenex, a Band-Aid or Kool-Aid.

Still Apple persists in trying to paint the opposite picture after bragging about how their product names like iPad and iPhone were becoming synonymous with the entire market and not the specific product. However, as has been pointed out before, even though people use iPod as a term for any MP3 player, Apple did not invent that and still has to pay Creative Labs money for borrowing from the Nomad MP3 player.

One item they would love to use is Samsung’s own product studies which claim that due to Apple’s market dominance and the consumer’s identification with Apple products they were likely to identify ANY smart phone as an iPhone and ANY tablet as an iPad. This is down to consumer ignorance and Apple’s own PR campaign which at the time of the report was well over $100 million per year. Apple would like you to believe that the study shows that Samsung knew about consumer confusion and attempted to copy Apple’s designs to combat it. However in the report there is a nagging little line that makes that theory highly doubtful.

“Samsung is the one traditional manufacturer to increase awareness, preference, and purchase intent...primarily driven by females and younger consumers, as well as growth of T-Mobile” and that Samsung was offering “distinct and distinguishable Galaxy products”.  

Instead they want to focus on these two lines:
“Over half of consumers who recognize the Samsung sponsored TabTVC thought it was for Apple”
and
“Only 16 percent thought it was for Samsung.... Only 11 percent of consumers are aware and can link the Galaxy Tab back to Samsung while 65 percent of consumers are aware and can link the iPad back to Apple”

This shows that Apple had brand recognition from their ad campaigns with the iPod, iPhone and later iPad. People were not confusing the actual Products, but using a specific name to idetify a product type (i.e. a tablet or smartphone). I cannot remember seeing any TV ads for the Galaxy Tab when it first came out and all of the ones I have seen for their phones are very clearly not Apple ads, but I am sure that someone said "hey, look it is the new Samsung iPhone". Those lines are indicative of how ads are designed and not intent to copy by a manufacturer. Marketing people are not always the best at getting their points across. Just take a look at some of the commercials on TV and tell me how often you knew what or who was being advertised before the reveal at the end?

This one from T-Mobile is a good one. How many of you would have thought it was a motorcycle commercial before the very end? Right now we have to say that Apple is acting a little like a spoiled child; they wanted the spotlight and name recognition and now are annoyed that the trademarked names for their products are the common term for all of the devices on the market.

Referenced aticle from CNET

Discuss this in our Forum