Apple Sued Over 'Animoji' Trademark

[Michaelgtrusa]

You may not realize it, but they do what they have to do for us, their customers.



Apple has every right to contest the name “Animoji”. It means animated emoji, and if the product you’re selling has no relation to the name of it you’re going to have a hard time holding that argument in court as to why someone else cannot use the name for an actual product that does exactly what the name states.

Do you even know anything about the Qualcomm case? In a nutshell, Qualcomm is charging Apple for technologies they did not develop but Apple themselves did. Qualcomm is basically saying well your technology wouldn’t be what it is if you hadn’t used our product.

Take a step back and look at the broader picture instead of bashing Apple every moment you get.

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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

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.

 

[thebluepotato]

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.

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.

 

[rizzo41999]

If it's actually trademarked, Apple should pay up. I just still can't believe this is a thing

 

[dlopan]

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.

 

[ronntaylor]

The article also makes it clear that the trademark is clouded and is undergoing a cancellation proceeding. Sounds like the tm may have been issued in error. Apple tried to pay the guy anyway, to avoid the expense of litigation.

If Apple is right and the trademark is no good (and thus canceled by uspto) this guy may well end up having to pay Apple’s legal fees incurred in defending the suit he just filed. Because he filed suit to enforce a trademark that he knew (or should have known) was invalid.

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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If it's actually trademarked, Apple should pay up. I just still can't believe this is a thing

See my post on first use above.

 

[laptech]

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.

 

[macMD]

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.

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.

 

[laptech]

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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

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.

 

[samh004]

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?

 

[kdarling]

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.

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 🙂

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Apple seems to be wrong on this one. I guess they tried to do the right thing and buy name off the guy. So he didnt sell, ok. The solution isnt to just take the name anyway!!!

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.

Why are some many people banging on about his app only having 18k downloads.. It doesn't matter it it's 1 or 1 billion he still owns the trademark until or if it gets cancelled.

I have a feeling his app is going to get more downloads now with all this attention and free advertising.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

 

[PickUrPoison]

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.

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.

 

[mi7chy]

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

 

[kdarling]

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

As his lawsuit points out, it was the same company, just operating under different names.

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.

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.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Seems like the issue is this guy doesn’t have a valid trademark, so there’s no reason to “pay what the guy wants”.

VS:

Apple tried to make a deal with him anyway, to avoid the expense of litigation.

Ah, looks like there was a reason afterall. You kind of undid your own point there.

Sorry to disagree with Gordon Gecko, but sometimes greed isn’t good.

Greed on who's part though?

 

[Leguna24]

do we like this or no? Lets see what the usual guys say...

 

[PickUrPoison]

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.

 

[ke-iron]

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

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.

 

[Teammm]

There's a big moral difference between buying something ahead of time...

... versus stealing and paying later simply because the owner has little choice by then.

Pretty much the same way Apple uses some patents.

Some companies' stance seems to be that if they don't like the price of something, they'll use it anyway, and then either fight to invalidate the ownership, or pay the penalties.

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

 

[kdarling]

Who told you that the goal of a corporation was to be moral? It isn't.

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.

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

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.

 

[MrWillie]

Poopmoji still isnt taken I don't think

It is now. Just sent in the paperwork to the Trade Mark office. Thanks 😉