Apple Attempts to Block 'Nearly Identical' Logo From Trademarking

[jimmy_uk]

Feels like a publicity stunt by the water company considering their design is exactly the same shaped Apple. They had to know Apple would come for them and it would hit the news.

 

[davidjschloss]

Yeah it really is awful for customers if companies have logos that are too similar, especially if you're in a similar business - like Apple and this water company.

Apple Music has entered the chat.

 

[Kabeyun]

How many trademarks have you filed? I've filed two for my company (both without success due to existing TM by Cisco). FWIW they were words, rather than logos, but the procedure is the same.

The process is broken, because large companies can effectively own words and images now.

One does not need to have filed a trademark for an opinion on this matter to be valid, nor do your two filings make yours more valid. Without needing to have filed a single trademark, my two eyeballs can tell me that these two stylized apples are nearly identical. Also without needing to have filed a single trademark, my brain knows that the folks at Georgette LLC should’ve absolutely known better. Apple’s apple is known at a glance planetwide, just like Nike’s swoosh and Audi’s four rings. The process may be broken (I was opposed to Apple going after Prepear, also without having filed any trademarks) but this isn’t an example of it.

 

[xnu]

Looks more like a placeholder than an actual attempt at a logo... "Oh **** we forgot to finish our logo, we didn't mean to use that!"

 

[JtheLemur]

that logo is trash and deserves to be destroyed. go apple.

 

[darngooddesign]

They sued Pear, now they found a random apple, time to tell them about Newton and his apple.

The overlay graphic demonstrates that it isn't a random Apple.

 

[cmaier]

They sued Pear, now they found a random apple, time to tell them about Newton and his apple.

apple didn’t “sue pear.”

 

[DramaLlamas]

I'm with apple on this one. Seems like a blatant attempt to profit off brand recognition.

 

[LDN]

This feels way too deliberate. My immediate guess is that they're hoping they have some kind of case here no matter how weak, and that Apple, not wanting to waste possible months of legal team time with this will just give them money to scrap it. This is pretty low.

 

[WristyManchego]

Yes, in this case. But they have been going after other companies for silly reasons, like the one using the pear logo.

Yeah, you don't understand trademark litigation at all, hey?

 

[mystery hill]

Yeah, you don't understand trademark litigation at all, hey?

Yeah, you don’t understand the difference between an apple and a pear do you, hey?

 

[Octopuss]

So they can exhume Newton's body, and force it to appear in court?

I guess they can ask for royalties from everyone who obey Newton's laws

 

[Octopuss]

The overlay graphic demonstrates that it isn't a random Apple.

Overlay my butt.

Sorry sounds funny.
Still I can actually overlay it on my butt and show how similar it is.

 

[Octopuss]

apple didn’t “sue pear.”

That the Apple spirit! Pick on words, not meaning.

 

[Jett0516]

This is the real Apple Computer Co.

Jobs hated this logo and because of it blamed the logo designer for Apple low sales 😆

 

[cmaier]

That the Apple spirit! Pick on words, not meaning.

There’s a huge difference in meaning between suing someone (trying to force THEM not to use a mark), and opposing a trademark application (trying to prevent them from obtaining an exclusive right to use a mark, which if not opposed, would mean that “pear” would be able to force OTHERS not to use marks).

I ”pick on words” when the words being used have the opposite meaning from what actually occurred.

 

[Octopuss]

There’s a huge difference in meaning between suing someone (trying to force THEM not to use a mark), and opposing a trademark application (trying to prevent them from obtaining an exclusive right to use a mark, which if not opposed, would mean that “pear” would be able to force OTHERS not to use marks).

I ”pick on words” when the words being used have the opposite meaning from what actually occurred.

Keep going )))

 

[johnmacward]

Typically I hate cases like this but there’s no doubt their base for the logo is in fact the Apple logo - they literally TOOK the Apple logo and made their design based on 90% of it - how stupid do you have to be. Or is it intentional marketing and drumming up interest in the controversy? Secondly the rest of the design is just beyond amateur and woefully poor, the capital « I AM » in a totally different font from Arcus and that truly bizarre addition of a black and white flag towards the bottom. I’m suspicious of it being scammy as ****.

 

[Pilot Jones]

Ok Prepear was Apple just being the bully, but this one is a bit too cheeky.

Gotta side with Apple this time, this is fairly egregious. Almost too much actually, as if it's done on purpose to get attention.

 

[MacBH928]

definitely for free publicity

 

[wetcanvas]

I wasn't sure at first until I saw the overlay then I just laughed. Apple will bury/bankrupt this company in litigation this water company is totally stupid to even try it.

 

[MVMNT]

I smell cheap, poorly judged, publicity here.

Who would even sign off on such a terrible logo for any brand or product in this day and age?

 

[naturalstar]

Negative News marketing tactic.

Even the cheap, blatantly copied-from-stock-logos gigs would do better than this.

 

[WristyManchego]

Yeah, you don’t understand the difference between an apple and a pear do you, hey?

Thanks for confirming, champ.

 

[throAU]

Yeah, gotta side with Apple on this one. That overlay says it all.

Yup, and even if you don't like it - if you do not VIGOROUSLY DEFEND your trade-mark for stuff like this, the court can in future rule against you in a trademark case due to them deciding that you didn't care about it enough to defend it earlier.

Apple is obligated to go after this if they want to maintain their trade-mark.