What I never knew about Anki...

[Cainntear]

So it turns out "Anki" is just Japanese for "memorisation". This might seem smart, but it's actually not... because it's a generic term, it's not really a legitimate trademark; and while it's all well and good in theory to have an open source thing under a name that can't be trademarked, it leaves the market open for cheap copies. I recommended trying out Anki to an ex-student, and they immediately came back and said "I've bought a lifetime subscription to the pro version." And it's not really Anki -- it's something called "Anki Pro" which is a completely different flashcard app. It just happens to have the same name as a totally different SRS flashcard app, by pure coincidence. And given that it's just a word, there's really not much anyone can do about it.

[ryanheise]

The author of Anki commented on Anki Pro a few years ago:

“Anki Pro” is such a blatant rip-off that it’s infuriating. Not only have they worded their name and description to trick people into thinking their knock-off works well with the rest of the Anki ecosystem, but they’ve copied numerous things to try and give themselves more of an air of legitimacy - the design of the answer buttons, the screenshots/logos from the Image Occlusion add-on and AnkiMobile, and they appear to have even downloaded and re-shared decks from AnkiWeb against the license terms.

The trade mark issue raises two questions in my mind:

1. Trade marks (as we call them in Australia, as opposed to trademarks) are registered per country, and while it is plausible that "Anki" might be a generic mark in Japan, it is not so clear to me that it should be considered a generic mark in countries/languages in which the word doesn't mean anything. That's a discussion for a trade mark attorney. I believe it is also necessary to make efforts to protect such a mark to prevent it from becoming generic, and I'm not sure if that ship has already sailed.
2. Aside from Trade Mark law, the app review guidelines for the App Store may also provide an avenue to protect the app name "Anki". For example, Section 2.3.7 states: "Choose a unique app name, assign keywords that accurately describe your app, and don’t try to pack any of your metadata with trademarked terms, popular app names, pricing information, or other irrelevant phrases just to game the system." Regarding the design similarities between Anki Pro and Anki, Section 4.1 (Copycats) states: "(a) Come up with your own ideas. We know you have them, so make yours come to life. Don’t simply copy the latest popular app on the App Store, or make some minor changes to another app’s name or UI and pass it off as your own. In addition to risking an intellectual property infringement claim, it makes the App Store harder to navigate and just isn’t fair to your fellow developers. (b)ASR & NR Submitting apps which impersonate other apps or services is considered a violation of the Developer Code of Conduct and may result in removal from the Apple Developer Program."

[Cainntear]

I believe UK law says that a genetic term in any fìrein language is still a generic term in the UK, and both the actual Anki guys and the "Anki Pro" guys are registered in the UK.

There is still an issue of "Passing off" -- if they're demonstrably pretending to be real Anki and people are being tucked into mistaking it for real Anki, there's a case. As I said, I'd recommended trying Anki to a former student before I was aware of the potential confusion, and my recommendation resulted in a sale for them, so there is that...

[Leif]

The Bank of Iceland tried to set up in the UK but were not allowed to use their name because they would infringe the copyright of Iceland, a chain of shops selling frozen foodstuffs.

Yes I nearly got conned by Anki Pro. Maybe the app is good, but the name confuses many people who think it is the original Anki. And in my opinion Anki Pro rides on the back of Anki, as other people will see it when searching for Anki, having been told by friends to get Anki.

[Cainntear]

The Bank of Iceland tried to set up in the UK but were not allowed to use their name because they would infringe the copyright of Iceland, a chain of shops selling frozen foodstuffs.

Well aside from the legal pedantry that "copyright" and "trademarks" are very different, I find itunlikely, given that they're in very different areas of trade. The only Icelandic bank I remember operating over here was Icesave, which was a brand operated by Landsbanki rather than Íslandsbanki.

[Le Baron]

There is also the question of fairly naive people. Where you tell them quite clearly: "the FREE AND OPEN SOURCE programme called Anki..." Yet they still find themselves paying for something you told them was free and open-source.

Of course manipulative advertising/marketing has a lot to answer for, but if you ever meet someone who says 'I paid for Wikipedia pro!', they're probably an idiot.

[Leif]

The Bank of Iceland tried to set up in the UK but were not allowed to use their name because they would infringe the copyright of Iceland, a chain of shops selling frozen foodstuffs.

Well aside from the legal pedantry that "copyright" and "trademarks" are very different, I find itunlikely, given that they're in very different areas of trade. The only Icelandic bank I remember operating over here was Icesave, which was a brand operated by Landsbanki rather than Íslandsbanki.

A few example reports:

https://www.ft.com/content/32122548-81a ... 7211ef3198
https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/10/iceland- ... -17343990/

It sounds like an April fool joke, but it’s not.

[Cainntear]

The Bank of Iceland tried to set up in the UK but were not allowed to use their name because they would infringe the copyright of Iceland, a chain of shops selling frozen foodstuffs.

Well aside from the legal pedantry that "copyright" and "trademarks" are very different, I find itunlikely, given that they're in very different areas of trade. The only Icelandic bank I remember operating over here was Icesave, which was a brand operated by Landsbanki rather than Íslandsbanki.

A few example reports:

https://www.ft.com/content/32122548-81a ... 7211ef3198
https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/10/iceland- ... -17343990/

It sounds like an April fool joke, but it’s not.

Well that is pretty insane, but it does seem to be specifically in the domain of foodstuffs...

[Leif]

The Bank of Iceland tried to set up in the UK but were not allowed to use their name because they would infringe the copyright of Iceland, a chain of shops selling frozen foodstuffs.

Well aside from the legal pedantry that "copyright" and "trademarks" are very different, I find itunlikely, given that they're in very different areas of trade. The only Icelandic bank I remember operating over here was Icesave, which was a brand operated by Landsbanki rather than Íslandsbanki.

A few example reports:

https://www.ft.com/content/32122548-81a ... 7211ef3198
https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/10/iceland- ... -17343990/

It sounds like an April fool joke, but it’s not.

Well that is pretty insane, but it does seem to be specifically in the domain of foodstuffs...

I believe the trademark is in any product domain, however it turns out that sense prevailed:

https://www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global ... land-marks