I'm bashing the act, not Apple. You cannot take what's not yours and Corps have a history of this, perhaps you can studies history and maybe you'll see. I've seen these actions for many years and this is not Apple's first case.
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 Sued Over 'Animoji' Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course it isn't the first. Apple is one of the largest if not the largest corporation on the planet. And they all play the copyright, patent and trademark game aggressively, on both offense and defense. Seems unrealistic to expect anything else.
However, "you can't take what's not yours" isn't always true and this gets even worse when your not talking about objects but ideas. How do you "own" an idea? Do you write it down and boom it's yours? Do you have property of it? The usual legal concepts are fuzzy when applied to Intellectual Property. IP disputes are complex because the subject matter is itself terribly complex. Hundreds of cases each year go through courts all over the world over such questions and I can assure you, saying "But it's mine! You can't take it!" is hardly ever enough.
If you file something wrong, you have to bear that burden. Why is it so strict? Because records should be trusted by those who consult them. If the record says it's owned by a company that doesn't exist anymore, this info is to be trusted, even if reality is slightly different. Especially in the US, such requirements are very strict. If your filing isn't valid, then you've never had any exclusive rights to your idea. It would be exactly the same if Apple for some odd reason filed a patent for "Apple LLC" instead of "Apple Inc.".
With that in mind, it's easy to read the story differently (and in that respect, it is one-sided) : Apple wanted to use Animoji, checked the records, saw one but it was void. They asked to buy it, the guy said no, so they used the options the law grants them. And they will settle and that developer who hasn't been actively developing that app will be quite content (and his lawyers too, I'm sure they took his case only for the contingency fee). Maybe if the filing were actually correct, things might have been different, but Apple would have bought anyways.
This guy is going to retire early. Apple made a big deal of a minor "feature" so it is all their fault. SJ used to do this sort of thing all the time so it's nothing new. 10 mil sounds about right, at least to me.
Bonansea screwed up royally. Not only did he register the TM under the wrong entity, it doesn't properly describe the case use. Apple will win because the law is on its side and they have the financial resources to wait him out. He should've settled for a buyout and the longer he waits, the harder it'll be for him financially.
Worst case scenario for Apple is that they have the share the TM. Maybe by adding Apple Animoji.
He will lose. He filled his original trademark in 2015 under an incorrect company name, this will invalidate his trademark. If the report is correct, he did follow the correct procedure for cancelling his original trademark and re-submitting it with the correct name of the company after he was approached by Apple.
He had nearly 2yrs to file the correct paperwork to get his Trademark updated with the correct company name but failed to do so. Apple come along wanting to buy his Trademark, he says no and files the paperwork.
Apple's lawyers will say that he had ample time to refile his trademark to incorporate the correct name of the company but failed to do so and it was only when Apple approached him did he submit new paperwork.
If Apple had in the meantime submitted there own trademark and the date of submission precludes the dates of Apple contacting the owner of the pre-existing trademark then the Trademark office will rule that the error of the company name invalidates the original trademark and that Apple's submitted trademark will be the one that is accepted.
This guy should have taken the money. Only bad press will force Apple to pay him anything.
He had nearly 2yrs to file the correct paperwork to get his Trademark updated with the correct company name but failed to do so. Apple come along wanting to buy his Trademark, he says no and files the paperwork.
Apple's lawyers will say that he had ample time to refile his trademark to incorporate the correct name of the company but failed to do so and it was only when Apple approached him did he submit new paperwork.
If Apple had in the meantime submitted there own trademark and the date of submission precludes the dates of Apple contacting the owner of the pre-existing trademark then the Trademark office will rule that the error of the company name invalidates the original trademark and that Apple's submitted trademark will be the one that is accepted.
This guy should have taken the money. Only bad press will force Apple to pay him anything.
Apple pulled the same scam on Cisco with the iPhone name. Cisco had sold a product called the iPhone, Apple attempted to license the name and Cisco said no. They launched the iPhone regarldess. The key reason Cisco lost was due to the fact that their iPhone was no longer in production to be sold.
However this product, by name and purpose was being sold, is still in effect and the USPTO should clearly see that his original company and new company evolved but is pretty much the same. There is no excuse to rule for Apple unless they are paying USPTO people off.
It doesn't matter, the man filed in invalid trademark regardless of the fact he was using the trademark at the time. He should have realised his error and submitted new paperwork with the correct name of the company, the fact he did not until Apple came calling puts the matter in Apple's favour.
If there are two competing trademarks, regardless if one has been in use, if one of them has been trading using an invalid trademark and did not file correction paperwork in a timely manner, the other trademark owner who filed everything correctly will be the one who wins.
Not really. Holding a trademark does not give you a right to that name for ever and everything and always. Cisco didn't lose, they dropped the suit, obviously, because they had no actual case. So it turns out not to be a "scam" after all.
He’s totally got a case, and I understand why Apple goes through shell companies... if they didn’t anyone would start to get an overinflated sense of what something is worth.
Has anyone downloaded the app in question? With no video previews I’m not even sure what his app does is the same as what Apples app will do. Don’t trademarks cover specific names areas, such that two people can use a trademark for different things? For instance if I named a plane animoji would it be fair use as it has nothing to do with emoji?
Has anyone downloaded the app in question? With no video previews I’m not even sure what his app does is the same as what Apples app will do. Don’t trademarks cover specific names areas, such that two people can use a trademark for different things? For instance if I named a plane animoji would it be fair use as it has nothing to do with emoji?
Cisco didn't lose their IPHONE trademark. They still have it. They agreed to share it with Apple in return for a partly undisclosed deal.
Good thing, too. The alternative Apple phone names being considered at the time included “Mobi,” “TriPod,” and “TelePod.”
Mobi = Mobile. TelePod = self explanatory. TriPod = reference to three devices in one.
None of those really roll off the tongue
Exactly. I have a problem with that way of doing things. It's not like Apple can't afford to pay what the guy wants or come up woth a different name if he doesn't want to sell at all. This isn't difficult. Apple is making this way harder than it had to be.
I have a feeling his app is going to get more downloads now with all this attention and free advertising.
Cisco didn't lose their IPHONE trademark. They still have it. They agreed to share it with Apple in return for a partly undisclosed deal.
Good thing, too. The alternative Apple phone names being considered at the time included “Mobi,” “TriPod,” and “TelePod.”
Mobi = Mobile. TelePod = self explanatory. TriPod = reference to three devices in one.
None of those really roll off the tongue
Cisco appears to have gotten nothing of value in the settlement except for some face-saving. Apple seems to have been at no real risk of having to use those other names for the iPhone. Not that they couldn't have made them trip off the tongue after selling millions of whatever they called it.
Seems like the issue is this guy doesn’t have a valid trademark, so there’s no reason to “pay what the guy wants”. Apple tried to make a deal with him anyway, to avoid the expense of litigation. If Apple is correct and the trademark was issued in error, the mark will be canceled and the guy will get nothing. Nada.
Sorry to disagree with Gordon Gecko, but sometimes greed isn’t good.
Looks like Apple has abused Google search right-to-be-forgotten since searching for "animoji ios" doesn't bring up any links to the original emonster inc Animoji on iTunes like with other app searches. Only hits are related to Apple's stolen Animoji so it's like the originator never existed.
Google search showing no signs of original emonster inc Animoji
https://www.google.com/search?q=animoji+ios
Google search for Narwhal iOS for comparison that correctly shows first hit to iTunes
https://www.google.com/search?q=narwhal+ios
Google search showing no signs of original emonster inc Animoji
https://www.google.com/search?q=animoji+ios
Google search for Narwhal iOS for comparison that correctly shows first hit to iTunes
https://www.google.com/search?q=narwhal+ios
Last edited:
As his lawsuit points out, it was the same company, just operating under different names.
He refiled under his new company name, the day after Apple filed to try to get the original canceled.
I didn't see Apple try to file themselves.
So even if his original trademark gets canceled, it appears he's first in line to get it again, based on his first use in commerce.
Last edited:
VS:
Ah, looks like there was a reason afterall. You kind of undid your own point there.
Greed on who's part though?
No point undone at all. I’ll explain the difference, I guess it’s complicated.
Paying a certain amount to avoid litigation is not at all the same as paying “what the guy wants.”
Apple may have offered $2 million but the guy wanted $10 million, and Apple said no, it’s not worth $10 million. It’ll be cheaper to litigate.
See the difference?
Companies will often pay out a nuisance value to avoid litigation, but greed can get in the way of a settlement. It’s called overplaying your hand, and when you do that, you may just come up empty handed.
I don’t think this app is in the AppStore anymore.
So I found the app, last time the app was updated was 3 years ago. If the whole name filing error turns out to be true and they only went to refile the trademark after Apple approached them, they have lost the case.
Who told you that the goal of a corporation was to be moral? It isn't. That why we have...and should have...government regulations and oversight. This trademark was used by a very small app owner, it'll end up settled with him being paid an amount that he agrees to...because he recognizes that it's the biggest amount of money he's probably seen in his life
Where on earth did you get the idea that their goal was to be immoral?!
Corporations should be good citizens, and take care of their employees and neighborhood. Judges have said that they don't even have to put profits as their top goal.
Assuming he wants to sell it. Too many people here seem to think a rich corporation should be able to buy whatever they want.
Greedy, steamrolling corporations are a big reason employment in this country has gone to hell.
