Sidebar Sidebar
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

cmaier said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was mixing up genericization and dilution there. It's been a long time since I studied trademark law. :)

That said, confusion in the marketplace is closely tied to one of the two forms of dilution — tarnishment, specifically. You're right that the other form of dilution, where a mark loses its distinctiveness, is a lot blurrier. Either way, though "arguably close" needs to actually be close.

But abandonment? Really? I'm pretty sure that by definition, trademark abandonment requires actually discontinuing use of the mark. Did you mean genericization?
 
mkldev said:
Sorry, I was mixing up genericization and dilution there. It's been a long time since I studied trademark law. :)

That said, confusion in the marketplace is closely tied to one of the two forms of dilution — tarnishment, specifically. You're right that the other form of dilution, where a mark loses its distinctiveness, is a lot blurrier. Either way, though "arguably close" needs to actually be close.

But abandonment? Really? I'm pretty sure that by definition, trademark abandonment requires actually discontinuing use of the mark. Did you mean genericization?
Click to expand...

Non-use and non-enforcement can both result in abandonment. Genericization is a whole other thing.
 
Shadar said:
In other words, the lawsuit has no merit, other than an incestuous one inside the legal system itself.
Click to expand...
You are 100 percent correct. As I mentioned earlier, as a small business owner, I cannot support apple, and their......I have no words to describe their pettiness and total bully mentality. For sale, ipad, watch series 3 LTE and iphone 11. Good riddance. I was super on the fence when I bought my 11, but I know for sure now. I cannot support a company who tries to stifle small business ventures that have no interest in competing with them. If this was a company selling tech like phones, computers etc.... (apps don't count like one apple fanboy here suggested), I would understand. However, a new startup company trying to sell meal kits delivered to your door called prePEAR, and those petty little C*#TS go after them. Nah. I've had enough of that crap.
 
My apple watch battery is now dead never to be charged again, until it's sold. I will be using my garmin watch from now on. Same with my ipad. it's now powered down and my samsung and dell 11" notebook will be my couch devices, the ipad is deactivated from my account now.
 
Steve Adams said:
Apple being a massive ****waffle is what this is about. BTW, "dispute" is a passivists word for LAWSUIT.
Click to expand...

It’s not a lawsuit. The “dispute” was that Apple filed an objection with the USPTO objecting to the trademark application. A lawsuit is when you file a complaint in a court and seek a legal or equitable remedy. They are two different things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what do you think apple is looking for? a pat on the back? NO. They are looking for MONEY. the MO of every apple court action. What do you think, they are just going to go away? NO. they are going to go after money if they lose this bullcrap order. As mentioned before, EVERY small business ower should be massively pissed over this nonsensical behavior. Some people don't care however, since they are blinded by the fruit logo. I guess looking cool at starbucks is more important.
 
This is a problem with corporate america. Companies essentially NEED to sue, otherwise it will be a question of "you didn't do anything to company X". Take the music industry going after Twitch now. I find it absolutely ridiculous going after streamers having music or playing a game that has music. I actually bought many songs/albums after watching streamers play the songs, so they do get more sales out of it. But apparently they NEED to do this to protect their copyright. It is quite frustrating.
 
Deliro said:
Ok Apple. This seems petty. You guys can make claim to any logo with fruit and a “right angled” leaf? When I see that pear logo, especially since it’s an outline, I don’t think Apple at all.
Click to expand...
Well I hate to say it but I do.
 
jonnysods said:
I still think it's a frivolous lawsuit - I apologize to you for stating my opinions on a forum, thanks for singling me out.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I was mistaken - - I didn't realize that if you owned a logo representing your brand and company, you wouldn't defend it.
 
I would if the opposing company was actually trying to rip me off. this is a food preparation company. It's a PEAR that looks NOTHING like the CRAPPLE logo. They sell food, not technology....HAVING AN APP FOR THE FOOD PREP DOES NOT COUNT AS TECH. This is amazing low for the low hanging fruit to go after. EFF them. ANYONE who defends apple in this situation has crap for brains.
 
I work for an aerospace company and when my project doesn't have work to do, our customers (one of the military branches) come up with some creative stuff to keep us in the project. They would have us create a document for more than a year, they would ask us to re-architect our software, or they would ask to re-trace every requirement to every single line of code. This is so that core engineers don't have to leave the project to work on something else. They don't want to lose their skilled engineers to other projects. Probably a similar thing with Apple. They are paying their lawyers salary but they have not much to do at the time, so they came up with this idea to sue a company with a remotely similar logo. Hopefully, the guy who came up with this idea gets fired for this bad publicity.
 
clive27 said:
I work for an aerospace company and when my project doesn't have work to do, our customers (one of the military branches) come up with some creative stuff to keep us in the project. They would have us create a document for more than a year, they would ask us to re-architect our software, or they would ask to re-trace every requirement to every single line of code. This is so that core engineers don't have to leave the project to work on something else. They don't want to lose their skilled engineers to other projects. Probably a similar thing with Apple. They are paying their lawyers salary but they have not much to do at the time, so they came up with this idea to sue a company with a remotely similar logo. Hopefully, the guy who came up with this idea gets fired for this bad publicity.
Click to expand...
Writing documents for a year and trying to destroy a small company that has nothing to do with your company what so ever is two entirely different things. Maybe the lawyers can come up with novel ideas how to spend some of the trillions of dollars apple get by not FLEECING their customers. No chargers in the device boxes for the environment is one thing. Charging the customer to get one if they NEED it is entirely different. Xaiomi removed the chargers from their phones as well, to the fanfare of apple fans around with a big "see I told you so, apple is innovating". Well not so fast there juice drinkers. Xaiomi gives the purchasers a FREE 50w charger and cable if they request it. How much would that cost the apple consumer to get? 50 bucks Canadian.

Time and time again, apple proving they love their lemmi....i mean customers. But back to the topic at hand, This needs to be squashed by the courts and needs to stop. They are now the biggest bully company in corporate america.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Professor Rucy
You could have a sweet potato and apple would sue you. They are the lowest lifeform in business. Make millions of needless litigation. Thank god I never bought that MJesus chipped macbook crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Professor Rucy
SubduedTiger said:
Apple decides to sue all farms for releasing products into the produce section that infringe upon their trademarks.
Click to expand...
I want to like all these funny comments but I am so disgusted with this douchebaggery by apple I am not laughing. Pruned more apple out of my life today. It was great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Professor Rucy
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
Back