I don't know if American judges would factor in the decisions Apple made in Germany, but there is no such obligation in German law.
I could just as well let the entire world 1 by 1 copy my logo and still sue some random person out of 1000 copy cats.
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 Believes This German Cycling Path Logo Infringes on Its Own Logo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know if American judges would factor in the decisions Apple made in Germany, but there is no such obligation in German law.
I could just as well let the entire world 1 by 1 copy my logo and still sue some random person out of 1000 copy cats.
apples have been around longer than the computer company. people have been taking bites from apples longer than the company has been around. Apple and Apple Corps both agreed that as long as the computer company does not get into the music industry then they would be fine..oh wait none of that matters anymore. Apple sold music. Post 2007 apple broke the rule and all of a sudden found a judge to reinterpret the original agreement. This lawsuit has no merit. Apple will basically pay someone money out of public eye to redesign and make signs and it will all go away.
Maybe focus some more on innovating again than playing bulls*** bingo?
They probably should be worried. Typically you only go after someone in your industry if it's not a very close match. But this is a government created bike path. What the hell. At least in the last case in Norway it was listed as being used in computer software. Maybe because this might be used in an app? It's stupid to think that any company can patent any use of an object or common word.MacRumors, they’re coming for you next
As a designer, I've always thought it was kinda clever how it works the question mark into the form of the Apple. Could it use an update? Probably, but it's not bad as it stands, IMO.
german trademark laws might disagree. and if there really is the same requirement to police as in the US, if Apple doesn't do this then when someone really blatantly rips them off they could lose that on the grounds that others violated their mark and they did nothing.
Oops, I just rode my bike through 120km of fruit farms because I thought it was an Apple Inc. product.
The logo had me completely confused!
Well, if it was cheap or free you should have known it was not an Apple product.
Differences in a few specifics has little to do with it. Overall similarity is enough, if it can reasonably lead to confusion or false association.
In this particular instance, a reasonable person might think that Apple has some sort of association with this bike route - sponsorship, for example. Now, that might actually be beneficial to Apple in the short run, assuming it's a quality bike route.
However, it can also be used as a precedent against Apple. As others have noted, Apple's failure to assert its trademark rights in this case weakens Apple's position in other trademark cases. It's basically "defend it or lose it."
Live in your Fanboy World my friend. I'm sure all your associates think you are mega-smart for having Apple everything. Here in Germany we don't normally sue or start court cases to show how powerful we are. And in General, except for the Teenagers, we buy what works best for us, not what impresses our peers. It's called self-esteem; you can't buy it, you have to build it yourself.
It's about trademarks. You must defend your trademarks, or you can lose them.
[doublepost=1556918897][/doublepost]
I distinctly remember Der Spiegel suing some students for creating a school magazine that copied the Spiegel's distinctive design. Except it was in green, not red. They were still sued. It's not done to show how powerful you are, but to defend your trademarks. Not defending a trademark can cause you to lose it.
[doublepost=1556919267][/doublepost]
You have that completely backwards. Licensing the logo, for any price, would be legally the worst thing Apple could do. What wouldn't be damaging _at all_ would be to send the worlds worst lawyer to the court and lose the case if the judge decides there is no similarity. Apple doesn't have to _win_ the case, they have to _defend_ their logo.
Last edited:
I would think selling millions of devices, with that very logo on it, every month is a strong defense of the trademark, but I'm not a lawyer so maybe you're right.
This comes up from time to time. It invariably leads to someone pointing out the arrow in the FedEx logo... so that's that taken care of
it is a leaf - the shape is of course similar due to the shape of leaves. that is the very typical way to draw leaves - right?
apples leaf it gray, it is thinner and the angle is different. the shape is not the same, both shapes are similar to leaves...
if some one is checking similarities, how about the logo of apple news?
https://i.imgur.com/qGtB6wp_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
Last edited:
yes, in germany you normally start out by trying to offend people you know nothing about, because that's self-esteem)
[doublepost=1556978245][/doublepost]
i think someone is forgetting the earth day logo!
) yes, apple news logo is quite similar, i agree. i guess it's up to the other side to sue them!
Or the 31 in the BR "Baskin Robbins" logo. Or the bridge in the Cisco logo, etc. There are tons of them! I love it! My design professor would call them "visual winks" in class.This comes up from time to time. It invariably leads to someone pointing out the arrow in the FedEx logo... so that's that taken care of
One also could regard it as the best marketing impact, the "Apfel-Route" could ever have got.
Did you know it before? Your answer will be "no".
Now it is known planetwide. Good move
They will settle that "dispute", just like the German Apfel-Kindergarten some time ago.
Did you know it before? Your answer will be "no".
Now it is known planetwide. Good move
They will settle that "dispute", just like the German Apfel-Kindergarten some time ago.
Not far in the future, apple watch is already teaching us to breath. Probably they already have a patent for a breathe provided only by us patent office.
A "defines" is telling someone "we don't want you to use our trademark". Showing that you sell millions of devices helps in court, but isn't "defending the trademark". Actually, having products for sale, even if nobody buys them, is enough.