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 Listing Memoji as One of Its Registered Trademarks Despite Ongoing Legal Battle [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If this were the reverse situation he would call Apple a patent troll. I still don’t get why people who are clearly upset about something with a company dedicate so much time trying to tell everyone how bad said company is. 🤷♀️
if someone stole your car and drove it around but did no “damage” would it be ok? Theft is theft.
Apple has no advantage here as an abandoned trademark is considered a dead trademark.
The previous holder of the trademark could have filed for a petition to revive if it fell into abandonment through error (example: failure to respond to an office action). They only had a 2 month window to take this action.
Since the previous holder did not submit a petition to revive, it is no longer theirs. Not sure exactly what "rights" Apple purchased, but a dead trademark cannot be transferred or sold.
As for first in use, that is open to debate. First in use has rules. Many applicants file for trademarks prior to use... even Apple does this.
The iPhone 11 looks like trash, so is that up for grabs now too?
That Android App... 😂👌
Although, I wouldn't care if Apple got rid of them. How many people (% of the people that could use it) are actually using Memojis? I've never seen any of them in the wild, except for a profile pics now and then...
As such I think they could just rename it to something else (and most people wouldn't notice with the rest not caring either).
@MacRumors: You could add polls to news like this... would be interesting statistics...
Although, I wouldn't care if Apple got rid of them. How many people (% of the people that could use it) are actually using Memojis? I've never seen any of them in the wild, except for a profile pics now and then...
As such I think they could just rename it to something else (and most people wouldn't notice with the rest not caring either).
@MacRumors: You could add polls to news like this... would be interesting statistics...
Apple likely would have acquired, perhaps among other things, the rights to the trademark (as it was being used by the prior owners) and any goodwill which had built up relating to it.
Having a trademark and associated trademark rights is different from having a federal trademark registration. You don't need the latter to have the former. The trademark wouldn't have been dead just because an application for federal registration was abandoned. And you don't need to have your trademark federally registered in order for someone else to be denied trademark registration based on potential confusion with your trademark.
One question relevant here would be: Was the trademark still in use (by the other parties)? Apple would argue that it was. The app remained in the App Store from 2014 until sometime in 2018.
As for the meaning of first use... of course. But the point, from Apple's perspective, is that the prior owners of the trademark which it acquired the rights to had actually been using it commercially. They hadn't applied for registration for a trademark which they then didn't use. They released an app, using that trademark, to the public in 2014. Social Technologies, on the other hand, applied for registration based on an intent to use and then didn't make commercial use of the trademark until after Apple started using the trademark.
So, if Apple is correct that the Memoji trademark had remained in use (by the other party), then it very much does matter that Apple acquired the rights to it. That would likely mean that Social Technologies' registration of the trademark shouldn't have been granted, and that it will ultimately be invalidated. Apple's use of the trademark (through its acquired rights) has priority. The question is, was it still being used commercially such that there was potential for confusion with Social Technologies' later use of the trademark?
I can't be sure, but what seems to have happened here is this: Social Technologies applied for trademark registration but wasn't ever granted registration because it never used the trademark commercially. Then, when Apple announced its new feature which it was calling Memoji - and after Apple had acquired rights to a Memoji trademark from parties which had used it before Social Technologies supposedly came up with the name - Social Technologies rushed to get an app released so that it could get the trademark registered and then sue or otherwise get a nuisance settlement from Apple. Apple claims that it notified Social Technologies before Social Technologies released its app (and months before its trademark was registered) that it intended to challenge Social Technologies' trademark registration.
If the app is trash, that doesn't surprise me. Social Technologies has, according to Apple, conceded that it rushed the app. The question is, why did it rush the app? Social Technologies would argue that it was to prevent Apple's new feature from stealing its own app's thunder. Apple would argue that it was in order to get a trademark registration (from something other than a bona fide commercial use) so that it could sue Apple.
Last edited:
As usual, the usual suspects are proclaiming wrongdoing and doom without knowing or understanding the entirety of the situation.
I would argue Apple wouldn't have moved forward with the name unless they had good reason to believe they were in the clear. It's not like they needed this company for anything other than the name.
I would argue Apple wouldn't have moved forward with the name unless they had good reason to believe they were in the clear. It's not like they needed this company for anything other than the name.
If Social Technologies' registration of its Memoji trademark is valid, then Apple likely wouldn't be allowed to register its own Memoji trademark because of the potential for confusion. The question is, is Social Technologies' registration valid? We'll see (maybe), but I think Apple has a winnable case.
Yeah, it seems to me that Apple took reasonable steps to clear the trademark. It bought rights to it from the only entity it was aware of which had been using the trademark in a similar way. And nobody had a federally registered trademark for the term Memoji.
Was Apple supposed to know that Social Technologies was all of a sudden going to start using the trademark after Apple made its announcement? Social Technologies hadn't been using the trademark even though it had indicated its intent to use the trademark more than 2 years earlier. Perhaps Apple suspected that Social Technologies would indeed start using the trademark after Apple made its announcement, so that it could try to get a settlement out of Apple, but Apple proceeded anyway because it felt that it had covered its legal bases well enough.
EDIT: I should have said Apple bought rights from the entity which it believed had first used the trademark in a similar way, not necessarily the only entity that it was aware of which had done so.
Last edited:
You're comparing two totally unlike things. So, I don't see your point. Lol. Plus, a lot of people beg to differ on your opinion about the iPhone 11.
If you read the docket in more detail, SocialTech seems to have acquired a different Memoji mark used prior to "Lucky Bunny"
And isn't that why one would file an "intent to use?" Otherwise, why have an "intent to use." Also, what if SocialTech DOES own the first use of the mark? There doesn't seem to be much legal argument in the facts. Correct me if I'm wrong!
He likes to factualize opinions constantly. Naturally, people Like him are ready to blame Apple before understanding the facts. For example, iPhone 11 is definitely more popular the last year’s XS based on all early and anecdotal indicators.
All the armchair lawyers and engineers need to give it a rest. Apple is capable of fighting their battles effectively and executing their strategy.
This case is not as simple as this company owned the name, Apple “stole” it, used it, and that is that. I mean, no one can be this dense right?
Which docket are you referring to? I've read the main documents from the district court case filed last year. I've also read a number of the documents available through the USPTO's TSDR relating to the trademark registration. I don't know what you're referring to when it comes to Social Technologies possibly having acquired a different Memoji mark with an earlier priority. If you have a particular document in mind, I'd appreciate a pointer.
What you suggest is not what Social Technologies has argued, at least not in the filings I've read. It explicitly claimed a priority date of April 1, 2016, not one earlier than Lucky Bunny's use. Its argument, instead, is that Lucky Bunny's use of the trademark hadn't continued.
There's nothing wrong with applying for registration based on an intent to use. That's not the issue. The issue is that Social Technologies didn't actually use the trademark after that. It only used the trademark after Apple's announcement. That matters because (1) it may arguably mean that Apple, in its own right, used the trademark before Social Technologies and (2) it allows Apple to make the argument that Social Technologies' use of the trademark wasn't a bona fide commercial use - that, rather than being used for bona fide commercial purposes, the trademark was only used when it was in order to secure federal registration. Both of those arguments, if successful, could be used to cancel Social Technologies' federal trademark registration.
As for your second question... yes, if Social Technologies has an earlier use (i.e. before late 2014) then that could matter. But I don't know where that suggestion is coming from. I've not seen where Social Technologies has claimed an earlier use.
I read it in #65 and #86. It seems social tech acquired another mark that pre dated lucky bunny... or am I reading that wrong? https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8028244/social-technologies-llc-v-apple-inc/
It's not as bad as fake news, the federal government not obeying federal law, and the Chinese...
Good luck to them! I appreciate that they may have been a bit of a trailer blazer, but their execution is laughable.
