Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Acquired 'Lightning' Trademark from Harley-Davidson

vastoholic

vastoholic

macrumors 68000
Jan 28, 2009
1,957
1
Tulsa, OK
djelliott said:
Yes, Buell shut it's doors in 2009. Eric is doing racing only bikes at this time and yeah, i could have picked better pics.:)
Click to expand...

Ah. I hadn't kept up with it too much. I knew he was into racing but for some reason I thought he was still trying to do a few production bikes. I miss them. My friend bought a 2005 Lightning in white after I bought a 2003 Kawasaki Z1000 and I was so jealous of his bike. Loved the sound of Buell's and I've heard the handling is some of the best around.
 
KdParker

KdParker

macrumors 601
Oct 1, 2010
4,793
998
Everywhere
bigcat318 said:
One of those trademarks that probably shouldnt have been allowed to begin with. Owning the rights to the names of natural occurences seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If the products are marketly different, why would Apple have to acquire the trademark from Harley-Davidson at all?

Not like I am going to look for a Lighting docking station and walk away with motorcycle by accident..
 
T

Thunderhawks

Suspended
Feb 17, 2009
4,057
2,118
OllyW said:
I'm sure the regulators would allow that. :rolleyes:

And do you really think Apple would spend around $10 billion just so they get hold of a name?
Click to expand...

Yes, they will spend billions in all their lawsuits, so why not , plus as I mentioned they can then turn around and sell again.

Maybe they can make a deal with iTV. They may like money too:)

Sounds simplified, but strange things happen in business all the time.

First we need to see that it's indeed a TV (which I doubt)
 
ixodes

ixodes

macrumors 601
Jan 11, 2012
4,429
3
Pacific Coast, USA
bad03xtreme said:
I would think that Ford would own the rights to that name since they had the "Lightning" F150's. :confused:
Click to expand...

Ford AND Harley used "Lightning" for years, and played very well together. Each enjoying great success.

As I'm sure you may be aware of, they even created a Harley Styled SVO Pickup Truck.

It's rather ironic how those two iconic, successful companies, could share a name without anyone "Going Thermonuclear" and into convulsions... ha..ha..ha...

Poor Apple, they are so full of themselves.


(this smells like typical Apple Bully Tactics)
 
Scrumper

Scrumper

macrumors member
Jan 10, 2010
79
14
Great Britain
ChristianJapan said:
Who is actually deciding on the names for airplanes like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

No copyright problems here ?
Click to expand...

You beat me to it! Aeroplane junkies will always associate the name Lightning with the awesome British 1960s jet fighter...
01.jpg


...and of course the American Lockheed P-38.
Lockheed-P38-Lightning-%28122%29-04.jpg


Different class of trademark I know...just saying...
 
macs4nw

macs4nw

macrumors 601
Sep 21, 2010
4,336
1,933
Next-door from the little old lady from Pasadena..
johnsy said:
useless novelty items. USB is a king of connectors. It is the best of the best. Cheap adaptors available. Compare that to everpriced apple stuff that changes every few years without any logical continuum.
Click to expand...

Boy, where do I start.....never mind.

OllyW said:
Not the first motorcycle company to use the name...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_Lightning Coincidentally, BSA also used the "Thunderbolt" name...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_Thunderbolt
Click to expand...

Interesting piece of research. Nice work!

highlnd said:
Yes, but did they also acquire it from Harley-Davidson China?
Click to expand...

LOL.

Bubba Satori said:
It will be slender and light weight, run on kool-aid, need three adapters to put air in the tires,
returned to Apple to replace the battery and only go to Starbucks and Apple stores. Image
Click to expand...

Nice mock-up; if it wasn't for your caveats, such a puppy might actually sell, to a certain crowd, that is.
 
adder7712

adder7712

macrumors 68000
Mar 9, 2009
1,923
1
Canada
Scrumper said:
You beat me to it! Aeroplane junkies will always associate the name Lightning with the awesome British 1960s jet fighter...
Image

...and of course the American Lockheed P-38.
Image

Different class of trademark I know...just saying...
Click to expand...

The manufacturers of each respective aircraft will be Apple's next targets. :p
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
MacDav said:
Thanks, I thought so. ;)
Click to expand...

I think the "weirdness" is in your fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark, what it applies to and its general reach. Harley-Davidson doesn't own the word "Lightning", as in, if you want to make a breakfeast cereal and name it lightning, you're free to do so and suddenly, we won't have to find a new word for weather forecasts.

When you trademark a term, you do so on a class of products and there are rules. Harley-Davidson couldn't say trademark Motorcycle and prevent anyone else from using that term to sell their motorcycles as well... motorcycles. That term would be what is known as "descriptive" and thus couldn't be submitted for trademark in that particular class of product.

In the Toys and Games area though, Lightning is ok to trademark, as actual lightning, the thing described by the dictionary, would make a pretty piss poor toy or game in regards to children and adult safety don't you agree ?
 
R

rexchaney

macrumors newbie
Nov 27, 2012
1
0
Yes, it was Buell who had the trademarks....all weather related...

thunderbolt
lightning
cyclone
etc.

too bad buell didn't get any of the glory...
 
U

ULFoaf

macrumors regular
Jun 7, 2008
112
0
The Bayou City, USA
Does this mean Apple owns the rights to Richard Thompson's "1952 Vincent Black Lightning?"

At least we still have Electraglide and Indians.


Patently Apple reports on European trademark registration data showing that Apple has acquired at least partial rights to the "Lightning" name used for its new iOS device dock connector from motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson.

The transfer appears to have been required because of Harley-Davidson's ownership of the trademark under Class 28, which includes toys and games.It is certainly not unusual for Apple to have to pursue trademark acquisition for its marketing terms, and it frequently seeks to use simple and/or common words that are in many cases already protected by other entities.

One notable recent case involved Apple's efforts to secure the "iPad" trademark in China, an effort that resulted in a $60 million settlement after the trademark's original owner claimed that Apple had originally purchased the mark from the wrong subsidiary. Apple had obtained the U.S. trademark rights for "iPad" from Fujitsu, while the company had previously reached a deal with Cisco for the "iPhone" name.

Article Link: Apple Acquired 'Lightning' Trademark from Harley-Davidson[/QUOTE]
 
MacDav

MacDav

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
KnightWRX said:
I think the "weirdness" is in your fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark, what it applies to and its general reach. Harley-Davidson doesn't own the word "Lightning", as in, if you want to make a breakfeast cereal and name it lightning, you're free to do so and suddenly, we won't have to find a new word for weather forecasts.

When you trademark a term, you do so on a class of products and there are rules. Harley-Davidson couldn't say trademark Motorcycle and prevent anyone else from using that term to sell their motorcycles as well... motorcycles. That term would be what is known as "descriptive" and thus couldn't be submitted for trademark in that particular class of product.

In the Toys and Games area though, Lightning is ok to trademark, as actual lightning, the thing described by the dictionary, would make a pretty piss poor toy or game in regards to children and adult safety don't you agree ?
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your helpful reply...Although I must take exception to the idea that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark". This would imply that I had read or studied up on trademark law and then came away with a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark. This is of course false. I can assure you that if I had read or studied up on trademarks I would be far more knowledgeable on the subject than you probably are. The simple fact is that I was almost totally ignorant regarding trademarks. I've had no real reason to be familiar with them. I do admit to being ignorant on a lot of subjects, but I strongly protest against your personally slanderous remark implying that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding" about them. I recognize that this type of mischaracterization is just part of your "toolkit". It's your almost reflexive way of reacting to any outside input. Your belief in the false notion that putting someone else down will somehow lift you up. These are harsh words I admit, but I think you might take them to heart and do some soul searching my smart friend.
 
S

slinky199

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2011
115
0
bigcat318 said:
One of those trademarks that probably shouldnt have been allowed to begin with. Owning the rights to the names of natural occurences seems ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Oh man, let me tell you about this company named after a naturally occurring fruit...

----------
MacDav said:
Thanks so much for your helpful reply...Although I must take exception to the idea that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark". This would imply that I had read or studied up on trademark law and then came away with a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a trademark. This is of course false. I can assure you that if I had read or studied up on trademarks I would be far more knowledgeable on the subject than you probably are. The simple fact is that I was almost totally ignorant regarding trademarks. I've had no real reason to be familiar with them. I do admit to being ignorant on a lot of subjects, but I strongly protest against your personally slanderous remark implying that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding" about them. I recognize that this type of mischaracterization is just part of your "toolkit". It's your almost reflexive way of reacting to any outside input. Your belief in the false notion that putting someone else down will somehow lift you up. These are harsh words I admit, but I think you might take them to heart and do some soul searching my smart friend.
Click to expand...

Wow. You just totally threw a fit about absolutely nothing.

"wah wah, mom, i dun lik teh woord he used!"
 
MacDav

MacDav

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
slinky199 said:
Oh man, let me tell you about this company named after a naturally occurring fruit...

----------



Wow. You just totally threw a fit about absolutely nothing.

"wah wah, mom, i dun lik teh woord he used!"
Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled to your opinion...such as it is. :)
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
MacDav said:
Your belief in the false notion that putting someone else down will somehow lift you up. These are harsh words I admit, but I think you might take them to heart and do some soul searching my smart friend.
Click to expand...

I wasn't putting you down and don't know why you think so. You obviously misunderstood trademarks and trademark rules, and that is where the "weirdness" you thought came from. I simply explained it to you why it is quite normal and plausible to be able to trademark normal, everyday dictionary words. I did not imply that you had studied trademarks intensively and actually didn't quite grasp it.

I don't get why you got so defensive. You chose to comment on a trademark story by pointing out some "weirdness" you perceived, I simply dispelled the weirdness for you.

The only thing I got from your post is not that I need soul searching, it's that you need to drop ad hominems. This is a civil discussion and I was trying to be helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom