If the simpsons sold actual Mapple computers with that logo, then, yes, they would be next.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Prepear Negotiating a Settlement Over Disputed Pear Logo Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Children have toys that teach them different shapes. Apple apparently wasn't taught that. Pears don't = Apples. This isn't even an Apples to Apples comparison. I thick womanly shape doesn't resemble a portly Apple figure. Are their eyes messed up?
This is because Apple has not been sued enough recently and their lawyers have some free time.
See, now this is just silly, as fond of Apple as I am, they’re just being daft with this one. I want them to copyright the eggplant emoticon (emoji????) next, before grinder gets a hold of it lol
Imagine being Super Healthy Kids and having to pay lawyers to defend against one of the world's most valuable companies for that. Apple should be heavily penalized for that kind of frivolity
Last edited:
You suggesting buying them some Mexican beer, or something much more crass?
Yeah, but when they drag a small business through frivolous litigation to protect against the most tenuous links to their brand, that's damaging to others in a way that makes them a destructive bully. They're a trillion dollar company that can afford to throw millions of dollars in litigation costs at anyone, even when unjustified.
I’m surprised that was considered parody since that could become a lucrative business off of the branding alone (I believe Chewy Vuitton could reasonably be considered a spin-off of Louis Vuitton) but I suppose most forms of entertainment also profit off of parody.
Also, you live up to your username.
So small companies should be smart when designing their logo. Flip the leaf to the other side.
Ironically, when you go to the Prepear website, and scroll down, you immediately see screenshots of their app. So they are positioning themselves to be a tech-oriented company.
Man read before you reply.
Raspberry has two leaves and it presents itself as a dot org rather than a dot com. They knew how to avoid trouble years ago.
Imagine that you're a new startup trying to launch a product, but instead of being able to focus on the success of your product, you're forced to have legal wars with one of the largest tech companies just because both of your logos contain the outline of a fruit with a leaf attached.
Last edited:
Hmm.. I see this at work.
Apple Hygiene Services.
Apple Hygiene Services.
Then where do we draw the line? Using the same logic some have used to defend this frivolous lawsuit some will still say that Apple should defend against that because before you know it logos will appear that place the leaf on the other side.
Remember, a trademark is simply a mark that identifies the origin of a good or service. Profiting, or potential future profit, isn't a factor. The court concluded parody is important and a reasonable consumer isn't confused that Chewy Vuitton is not Louis Vuitton.I’m surprised that was considered parody since that could become a lucrative business off of the branding alone (I believe Chewy Vuitton could reasonably be considered a spin-off of Louis Vuitton) but I suppose most forms of entertainment also profit off of parody.
Also, you live up to your username.
Thanks for the kind words! I gotta get some use out of those student loans.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how a pear resembles an apple?
I don’t make the rules. I don’t even litigate them. You’re applying a value judgment against the legal system.
I read the article, I know what has been said, my point was that Apple would have bigger chances to win against a company with related products than a food company using a logo that has no resemblance at all, a pear has leaves as with many other fruits.
I guess Macrumors logo is wrong too?
I understand corporations need to make a case about everything to build some validity for future lawsuits, but this would mean Apple would need to sue a lot more companies using fruit logos. Reminds me of Apple Records suing Apple when they started getting into the music business?
I understand corporations need to make a case about everything to build some validity for future lawsuits, but this would mean Apple would need to sue a lot more companies using fruit logos. Reminds me of Apple Records suing Apple when they started getting into the music business?