I don't see it that way.
It's a fruit, sells computers like Apple, much more related than prepare.
Frivolous lawsuit comes to my mind.
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
It's a fruit, sells computers like Apple, much more related than prepare.
Frivolous lawsuit comes to my mind.
Attachments
Last edited:
Exactly my thought.
That they're doing it to support future issues with other companies.
They don't care about this one, the lawyers don't want Pear computers (with a bite or not) saying but you didn't care when those folks did it.
It’s idiotic stuff like this and not including chargers that made me buy a Garmin for fitness instead of a new Apple Watch this weekend.
No, it isn't. A trademark covers a specific area of commerce. If I wanted to create a hamburger joint and call it Apple Hamburgers, Inc., I could. And were it not for the "famous mark" status of the Apple logo, I could even duplicate their logo. Some businesses that existed back before Apple gained that status likely have grandfathered use of marks that, if introduced today, would be flagrant violations.
Moreover, even in the same area of commerce, it still would not be necessary to defend your mark except against marks that clearly dilute your mark, or put another, way, if a reasonable person would likely be confused about who makes the product.
This is not to say that you can't sometimes still win cases that are prima facie absurd (e.g. Buc-ee's v. Choke Canyon), but that doesn't mean you should, or even that you should try.
I think that's his point. This logo may not, but if they don't fight this, the next one and the one after will continue down that path.
The pear phone from Miranda Cosgrove's Nickelodeon iCarly.
One of what situations? You do know it’s a myth that companies “have to sue” some people now, just in case they have to sue other people in the future.
Let's call a spade, a spade, and an Apple, an Apple.
No similar ap-PEAR-ance at all. Even Apple's statement falls flat on its face — it's simply wrong!
”Apple claimed in its filing that Prepear's logo "consists of a minimalistic fruit design with a right-angled leaf, which readily calls to mind Apple's famous Apple Logo and creates a similar commercial impression."
”right-angled” leaf?! Those folks in legal at Apple must have failed geometry! Take at a look at the photo of the two logos. Neither leaf is at a right angle!
Case summarily dismissed. (Even by Judge Judy!)
Normally, you'd figure the defendants would be forking over money to make the lawsuit go away. This time, I wonder if the settlement will include a large, undisclosed payment to Prepear along with a very modest, slight tweaking of its logo. You know — they fill in the pear with, say, six stripes of bold primary colors, or something like that!
No similar ap-PEAR-ance at all. Even Apple's statement falls flat on its face — it's simply wrong!
”Apple claimed in its filing that Prepear's logo "consists of a minimalistic fruit design with a right-angled leaf, which readily calls to mind Apple's famous Apple Logo and creates a similar commercial impression."
”right-angled” leaf?! Those folks in legal at Apple must have failed geometry! Take at a look at the photo of the two logos. Neither leaf is at a right angle!
Case summarily dismissed. (Even by Judge Judy!)
Normally, you'd figure the defendants would be forking over money to make the lawsuit go away. This time, I wonder if the settlement will include a large, undisclosed payment to Prepear along with a very modest, slight tweaking of its logo. You know — they fill in the pear with, say, six stripes of bold primary colors, or something like that!
Apple needs to get rid of one of their legal teams who clearly have nothing better todo of any particular value.
Apple is being petty. The don’t just need to think differently here. Apple needs to think period.
Apple is being petty. The don’t just need to think differently here. Apple needs to think period.
Since you don’t know a priori whether a later court will find abandonment or dilution, you actually DO need to defend against anything arguably close. And in this case not only is there a famous mark at issue, but overlapping channels of commerce and products.
And dilution has nothing to do with likelihood of confusion. Those are two different issues and two different tests (dilution applying only to famous marks).
Armchair lawyers.
Seems the Beatles' Recording Company ought to sue Apple Computer, claiming prior art?
Just imagine some farmer suing other fruit tree farmers, that the shape of their fruits looks too much like his Apples?
Did Apple go after orange investments? There are others. Do any of the following create a similar commercial impression?
You're comparing apples and oranges here. 🤣
