4 ms·

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about what Apple's HealthKit is. HealthKit is simply the name for the API framework Apple is making availa

by _frog 12y ago

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about what Apple's HealthKit is. HealthKit is simply the name for the API framework Apple is making available to developers, following in the naming conventions of UIKit, WebKit, SpriteKit and so on. HealthKit is not, however, a name that consumers will ever actually come across in using their device. Apple's own app on top of HealthKit is simply called "Health", and I highly doubt the string "HealthKit" appears anywhere in that app's UI.

001sky 12y ago
This is a good qualification, but not all "products" need be consumer-facing products. That's just a play on words for "retail" sales vs business or professional sales. Its a seperate point to say its a 'feature' not a product and thus is not actually sold to anyone (and thus distinct).
- vicbrooker 12y ago
  It's a huge distinction if formal legal action happens because Apple can establish quite easily that they have relied on the Kit format for previous software, whereas HealthKit.com doesn't (AFAIK) have any major traction in the software space. Law student here, IANAL, so take this with a huge grain of salt. Either way, in Australia, both parties would apply under Classes 9 and 44 which covers all computer software and medical services respectively. It's likely that Apple will win on class 9 as "Kit" is far better known in the software community than "HealthKit.com"; and arguably 44 too, depending on Healthkit.com's traction in the medical field. It's unlikely that Apple's HealthKit and HealthKit's HealthKit would cause confusion in the market - but it makes a silly story to say that Apple's Health (which may have overlapping functionality with the preexisting HealthKit). Gotta love the media.
- _frog 12y ago
  And regardless, there's unlikely to be overlap between the markets for these two products. HealthKit.com is somewhat hard to navigate, but the impression I get is that their product is aimed at medical practitioners. I doubt they overlap with the mobile developer demographic to any significant extent. Though I'm curious to hear from someone with more legal knowledge than me: would the fact that there's very little chance of collision between these names protect either party from legal repercussions?
  - sergiosgc 12y ago
    What about the effect of search engines on brand value? Whereas, before, the existing HealthKit was probably the top result, after an invasion of Apple HealthKit development sites they may be kicked to the third page hellban. Naturally, this same reasoning can be used to challenge the use of the same trademark in a different domain, something clearly accepted by law.
  - vicbrooker 12y ago
    The fact that has Apple has more money than they know what to do with is the real factor for legal repercussions. It's one thing to have theoretically defensible IP, and other thing entirely to actually be able to. Assuming equal resources backing the legal teams, it would probably be sufficient that they are both forms of software, as all software trademarks are lumped together in the single category. There might be some sort of passing off action one way or another but it would be more likely to come from Apple than HealthKit. There seems to be overlap between the Health app and Healthkit.com which I suppose is the real issue. Hard to tell if Healthkit truly got sherlocked though, because I can't tell what they do from their website past management software.
Angostura 12y ago
Apple is still using 'Healthkit' as a brand, even if that brand is only targeting developers rather than users. Moreover it is a piece of software and falls within the same trade mark class (different people can trade mark the same word in different classes of business). There is a clear conflict with the existing brand, that is likely to cause confusing and diminish the untility of the existing brand. Apple should change the name.
- vicbrooker 12y ago
  True, but the HealthKit.com can't really establish any sort of claim to the IP - the name is both generic and descriptive and is therefore ridiculously hard to protect without huge traction.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    So is App Store, but Apple fought pretty hard to retain that one.

by _frog 12y ago

001sky 12y ago

This is a good qualification, but not all "products" need be consumer-facing products. That's just a play on words for "retail" sales vs business or professional sales. Its a seperate point to say its a 'feature' not a product and thus is not actually sold to anyone (and thus distinct).

vicbrooker 12y ago
It's a huge distinction if formal legal action happens because Apple can establish quite easily that they have relied on the Kit format for previous software, whereas HealthKit.com doesn't (AFAIK) have any major traction in the software space. Law student here, IANAL, so take this with a huge grain of salt. Either way, in Australia, both parties would apply under Classes 9 and 44 which covers all computer software and medical services respectively. It's likely that Apple will win on class 9 as "Kit" is far better known in the software community than "HealthKit.com"; and arguably 44 too, depending on Healthkit.com's traction in the medical field. It's unlikely that Apple's HealthKit and HealthKit's HealthKit would cause confusion in the market - but it makes a silly story to say that Apple's Health (which may have overlapping functionality with the preexisting HealthKit). Gotta love the media.
_frog 12y ago
And regardless, there's unlikely to be overlap between the markets for these two products. HealthKit.com is somewhat hard to navigate, but the impression I get is that their product is aimed at medical practitioners. I doubt they overlap with the mobile developer demographic to any significant extent. Though I'm curious to hear from someone with more legal knowledge than me: would the fact that there's very little chance of collision between these names protect either party from legal repercussions?
- sergiosgc 12y ago
  What about the effect of search engines on brand value? Whereas, before, the existing HealthKit was probably the top result, after an invasion of Apple HealthKit development sites they may be kicked to the third page hellban. Naturally, this same reasoning can be used to challenge the use of the same trademark in a different domain, something clearly accepted by law.
- vicbrooker 12y ago
  The fact that has Apple has more money than they know what to do with is the real factor for legal repercussions. It's one thing to have theoretically defensible IP, and other thing entirely to actually be able to. Assuming equal resources backing the legal teams, it would probably be sufficient that they are both forms of software, as all software trademarks are lumped together in the single category. There might be some sort of passing off action one way or another but it would be more likely to come from Apple than HealthKit. There seems to be overlap between the Health app and Healthkit.com which I suppose is the real issue. Hard to tell if Healthkit truly got sherlocked though, because I can't tell what they do from their website past management software.

Angostura 12y ago

Apple is still using 'Healthkit' as a brand, even if that brand is only targeting developers rather than users. Moreover it is a piece of software and falls within the same trade mark class (different people can trade mark the same word in different classes of business). There is a clear conflict with the existing brand, that is likely to cause confusing and diminish the untility of the existing brand. Apple should change the name.

vicbrooker 12y ago
True, but the HealthKit.com can't really establish any sort of claim to the IP - the name is both generic and descriptive and is therefore ridiculously hard to protect without huge traction.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  So is App Store, but Apple fought pretty hard to retain that one.