Apple Believes This German Cycling Path Logo Infringes on Its Own Logo

[alexandr]

Bullcrap. Apple doesn’t have a patent on apples in general and this is not even an apple. It’s a long stretch and a whole sheet of blotter to make the logo’s Look like a ripoff.

Apple is being the rich jerks they are. I can like my apple products while disliking the company.

right, and there is absolutely no similarity.

 

[JetLaw]

I keep seeing the "you have to defend the trademark or you lose it" meme getting kicked around when stories like this crop up, but it would seem that you could accommodate that without lawyers armed with cease-and-desist letters. People are probably not going to confuse a biking path with a Macbook, so why not just offer them a perpetual license for $0 for "logo similarity rights" or something. You know, a way of defending your trademark rights without acting like a bully.



I'm not a lawyer.

You may not be a lawyer, but I think your reasoning is sound.

 

[the-msa]

focusing on the things that really matter!

 

[kuwxman]

Stupid on Apple's part.

Similar to a situation a Kansas City company got in to with ExxonMobil recently over their Pegasloth logo.

http://www.donewhenimdead.com/pegasloth

These large companies need to get their legal depts to take a step back and chill the heck out.

 

[dumastudetto]

Apple is absolutely correct to defend its rights using the full force of the law. We should all support them if we're Apple fans. This kind of rip off thing cannot be tolerated.

 

[Kabeyun]

Just put the leaf and the arrow on the left and be done with it.

 

[Vjosullivan]

don't you have to be selling similar products for this to be an infringement?

No, it could be seen as an endorsement of the cycle path by Apple. Though in this case, only by a lawyer.

 

[sinsin07]

Apple is absolutely correct to defend its rights using the full force of the law. We should all support them if we're Apple fans. This kind of rip off thing cannot be tolerated.

Maybe Apple should be more concerned with this:
Airpod knockoffs

 

[dumastudetto]

Maybe Apple should be more concerned with this:
Airpod knockoffs

They should be concerned about that too, and I have no doubt they are fighting to have counterfeit goods eliminated or seized at ports or airports.

 

[Vjosullivan]

being from a different market is no excuse to rip off someone's logo. and while this logo is ugly af, it is clearly inspired by the 

Clearly, this multicoloured logo with an apple stalk, an arrow and text but no bite is not inspired by . Do you really think it looks inspired?
[doublepost=1556734721][/doublepost]

Apple is absolutely correct to defend its rights using the full force of the law.

I have an apple tree in my back garden. Should I be worried?

 

[jagolden]

Not even close.
Apple will lose before it even begins.

 

[rjohnstone]

Apple is absolutely correct to defend its rights using the full force of the law. We should all support them if we're Apple fans. This kind of rip off thing cannot be tolerated.

You forgot the "/s" at the ned of your post.

Apple does not own any and all interpretations of an Apple in a company's logo.
Trademark law requires there be a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the product.
No one would ever confuse this logo as being a product created by Apple.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Well I kind of see some similarity in particular on the leaf. The should have designed that a bit more different. On the other hand sueing everything that contains an Apple....

 

[dumastudetto]

I have an apple tree in my back garden. Should I be worried?

Only if you use your Apple tree for inspiration to create an Apple logo and start a business.
[doublepost=1556735046][/doublepost]

You forgot the "/s" at the ned of your post.

Apple does not own any and all interpretations of an Apple in a company's logo.
Trademark law requires there be a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the product.
No one would ever confuse this logo as being a product created by Apple.

The courts will decide this. Let's wait and see.

 

[69Mustang]

right, and there is absolutely no similarity.

View attachment 834769

That? That's seriously your argument? They copied a leaf. If that's what your hanging your hat on, your hat is going to be on the floor. It's sorta funny that you ignored the actual apple just to have the appearance -not a good one btw- of a valid argument. Their apple actually looks like a cherry... stem and all.

The cycling group should hire Swatch's lawyers. Those guys have owned Apple.

 

[alexandr]

Clearly, this multicoloured logo with an apple stalk, an arrow and text but no bite is not inspired by . Do you really think it looks inspired?

i do, yes, but that isn't the point. the company's arguments were:

1. we're from a different market.
2. apple is a huge company.

had their argument been: our logo looks nothing like , i would agree with them.

 

[Marco Klobas]

The Macrumor's logo is really terrible btw. You should fix it.

Just a quick made proposal:

 

[pth231]

Apple is absolutely correct to defend its rights using the full force of the law. We should all support them if we're Apple fans. This kind of rip off thing cannot be tolerated.

Why should we all have to support the decision of a company just because we buy their products? That's a scary mentality you've got there.

 

[alexandr]

That? That's seriously your argument? They copied a leaf. If that's what your hanging your hat on, your hat is going to be on the floor. It's sorta funny that you ignored the actual apple just to have the appearance -not a good one btw- of a valid argument. Their apple actually looks like a cherry... stem and all.

The cycling group should hire Swatch's lawyers. Those guys have owned Apple.

that is my argument, yes. the company's arguments are the only reason i even said what i said:

arguments:
1. we're from a different market.
2. apple is a huge company.

oh, and while you may interpret their fruit as a cherry, the word apfel should help you with the confusion.

 

[Analog Kid]

Just a quick made proposal:

That’s way too happy. If you really want to capture the tone of the site, you need more tears and outrage. Maybe rotate those glyphs +/- 135 degrees?

 

[69Mustang]

that is my argument, yes. the company's arguments are the only reason i even said what i said:

arguments:
1. we're from a different market.
2. apple is a huge company.

oh, and while you may interpret their fruit as a cherry, the word apfel should help you with the confusion.

There's no confunsion at all. I know what apfel means. The meaning of the word does not change the fact that the image looks more like a cherry than an apple. Which is what I said - looks like. It does lend credence to the opinion that there's really no similarity in the logos beyond the leaf. Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding this claim imo. That leaf ain't gonna cut it.

 

[alexandr]

There's no confunsion at all. I know what apfel means. The meaning of the word does not change the fact that the image looks more like a cherry than an apple. Which is what I said - looks like. It does lend credence to the opinion that there's really no similarity in the logos beyond the leaf. Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding this claim imo. That leaf ain't gonna cut it.

i'll see you in the german court!

 

[xbjllb]

You have to agree it certainly was "inspired" by the apple logo. Cmon, the leaf, same size, shape, angle? More of a similarity issue than product confusion. In fact, the best part of that horrible logo IS the Apple leaf.

And what IS that horrific font? I think Apple's problem isn't with infringement, it's with a horrific quality infringement.

 

[Vjosullivan]

i do, yes, but that isn't the point. the company's arguments were:

1. we're from a different market.
2. apple is a huge company.

had their argument been: our logo looks nothing like , i would agree with them.

They appear to be the opinion of an employee rather than an official statement of the company's position. If it does go to court I would also expect better legal arguments.

No matter how good the arguments are; it basically boils down to one side saying "Oh yes it is!" and the other side saying "Oh no it isn't!".

 

[alexandr]

They appear to be the opinion of an employee rather than an official statement of the company's position. If it does go to court I would also expect better legal arguments.

No matter how good the arguments are; it basically boils down to one side saying "Oh yes it is!" and the other side saying "Oh no it isn't!".

sure, that makes sense. and - yes, that is exactly right. "clearly the logo is breaking copyright law" - "clearly the logo is not breaking copyright law". wouldn't be the first time.