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 Takes Legal Action Against Small Company With Pear Logo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Tim did not make Apple the most successful company in modern history by along shot. All he has done has just been riding the coat tails of Steve's Success as a CEO. I can see where you might mistake that though since your first love of Apple probably went like this "OMG iPhone, OMG, iPad. Everyone has one so must I!" And not "look at that guy, he has an Apple Computer, he must be weird or people asking what's that white square thing you carry around and having to explain what an 1st Gen iPod is and that no they can't get one unless you have a Mac and not windows or When you had to dual boot into OS 9 because OS X 1.0 didn't even come with a DVD reader Application. Then If you have lived through that as a customer and a SHAREHOLDER since 2001, then I might value your thoughts on who has or is a good CEO when it comes to Apple. I'm a person who doesn't rank CEO's just on how much profit they give the shareholders (me) but also how they give more value to the customer who is the one providing said shareholders. I don't think Tim is necessarily bad Apple could still be making the exact same of annual income if Tim should have stayed CFO and had a CEO that just blindly followed Tim's Ideas when it came to cost, production and supply chains.
The customers apparently disagree with your estimation of what value they are being provided. Unless you think that free markets are nonsense and that consumers are irrational morons who vote their wallets against their own interests.
Apple, under Tim Cook, has (1) orders of magnitude more customers; (2) orders of magnitude more revenue; (3) orders of magnitude more profit; (4) orders of magnitude more intangible “influence” in the industry; (5) higher customer satisfaction ratings; (6) more computing market share; than it ever had under Steve Jobs.
If Apple sue them, why is it still in their App Store https://apps.apple.com/us/app/prepear/id1248495163 ?
Again. No one has been sued.
There is no lawsuit.
An opposition to a trademark application has been filed.
For the 102 time, nobody is suing anyone. Prepear put the mark up for opposition, Apple is responding which they are obligated to do.
Kind of a shame on MacRumors for not publishing how the Trademark process actually works but then it wouldn't be as clickbaity if it didn't have the term "legal action" in the title.
According to documents filed, the opposition date was put up back in November of last year. Apple apparently filed an opposition which then got extended to March of this year.
So why wasn't Prepear complaining on social media back 3-4 months ago? Did they think they were going to win the opposition challenge? The "cry me a river" defense and timing from Prepear is a little suspicious.
It's also important to understand that nobody really wants to go through this process—not even Apple. People can frame Apple as bullies, but it can be time consuming and expensive. For a profit-seeking company like Apple, you don't want to waste council resources on this sort of thing unless there is a pretty good reason. You think your attorney is expensive, what do you think Apple's team gets paid?
It might seem as if the law is skewed to large business but at the same time, it protects small businesses by virtue of the same laws.
Prepear offer a downloadable app. And they also occupy the heath and wellness space. Their trademark application says:
If you were looking their application as any other tech company, that could also describe Apple.
Zoom this out a bit and put it into context, it certainly brings to mind a little bit of Apple to me. Out of all the shapes they could have drawn, they went with an silhouette with a very close approximation of the leaf.
Apple is also contending that people who see the logo are going to put it in the same "box" as Apple since they've seen the Apple logo so many times. They're basically skating off all Apple's marketing dollars.
FWIW ask a random jury pool to draw the Apple logo from memory and you might get something pretty close to Prepear. Techy people and artists would get it right but ask a random person who doesn't visit these forums.
Kind of a shame on MacRumors for not publishing how the Trademark process actually works but then it wouldn't be as clickbaity if it didn't have the term "legal action" in the title.
According to documents filed, the opposition date was put up back in November of last year. Apple apparently filed an opposition which then got extended to March of this year.
So why wasn't Prepear complaining on social media back 3-4 months ago? Did they think they were going to win the opposition challenge? The "cry me a river" defense and timing from Prepear is a little suspicious.
It's also important to understand that nobody really wants to go through this process—not even Apple. People can frame Apple as bullies, but it can be time consuming and expensive. For a profit-seeking company like Apple, you don't want to waste council resources on this sort of thing unless there is a pretty good reason. You think your attorney is expensive, what do you think Apple's team gets paid?
It might seem as if the law is skewed to large business but at the same time, it protects small businesses by virtue of the same laws.
It doesn't matter if they aren't direct competitors. That's not how trademark law works.
Prepear offer a downloadable app. And they also occupy the heath and wellness space. Their trademark application says:
If you were looking their application as any other tech company, that could also describe Apple.
Zoom this out a bit and put it into context, it certainly brings to mind a little bit of Apple to me. Out of all the shapes they could have drawn, they went with an silhouette with a very close approximation of the leaf.
Apple is also contending that people who see the logo are going to put it in the same "box" as Apple since they've seen the Apple logo so many times. They're basically skating off all Apple's marketing dollars.
FWIW ask a random jury pool to draw the Apple logo from memory and you might get something pretty close to Prepear. Techy people and artists would get it right but ask a random person who doesn't visit these forums.
Last edited:
How Tim Cook Made Apple His Own
The industrial engineer has turned Steve Jobs’s creation into a corporate colossus, delivering one of the most lucrative business successions in history.
www.wsj.com
Since he started running the company in 2011, the year Mr. Jobs died, Apple’s revenue and profit have more than doubled, and Apple’s market value has soared from $348 billion to $1.9 trillion. The company has $81 billion in cash, excluding debt, and has returned $475.5 billion to shareholders.
Therein lies the issue. People are whining on what they think has happened.
Few here actually have bothered to read the Opposition filing or the original application, or even care that this was filed in March and not yesterday.
However the court of human arrogance and perceived ignorance apparently overrules the court of law which is why we have pages and pages of uneducated complaints about all this from armchair lawyers apparently far more skillfill and trained than whichever law firm is handling this.
Think it's about time for another post stating how evil Apple are to "sue" (sic) this company...
Apple infringed on the name and company of Apple Corps formed by the Beatles in 1968. The Beatles allowed Apple Computer to exist provided they not get in the music business, which Apple violated the terms in 2001 with the introduction of the iPod. It came down to who had the money for more or better lawyers. In 2001 it was Apple Computer and not Apple Corps.
en.wikipedia.org
Apple Corps v Apple Computer - Wikipedia
Apple infringed on the name and company of Apple Corps formed by the Beatles in 1968. The Beatles allowed Apple Computer to exist provided they not get in the music business, which Apple violated the terms in 2001 with the introduction of the iPod. It came down to who had the money for more or better lawyers. In 2001 it was Apple Computer and not Apple Corps.
Apple Corps v Apple Computer - Wikipedia
No, it came down to the law. A judge ruled that Apple did NOT violate the terms of the agreement.
one of the primary reasons for them to defend their mark in this instance is since the company 'Prepear' or their product is in the same space as Apple with a mark that may or may not be influenced by a known mark, hence them protecting their brand and image. if this was for a clothing company or something outside of technology (apps, etc) then I doubt they would had pursued.
Yes, they paid $500M for it (yes, Dr. Evil, "millions"). In exchange, Apple (the computer, etc., company) now owns all the naming rights, which they license back to Apple Corps for their specific uses.
But that's just it. He is still just doing the same job as he did as CFO, which I even compliment at an amazing job. Guess what though, Apple would still be the billion dollar company of profits if Tim was CFO and Jobs was still here, the only difference is we would have actual exciting innovative products other then what they have done in the past 5 years which was just make things thinner, getting a touch bar or selling a five year old spec computer for the same price as when it was introduced 5 years ago and saying it's magical innovation yay!
How Tim Cook Made Apple His Own
The industrial engineer has turned Steve Jobs’s creation into a corporate colossus, delivering one of the most lucrative business successions in history.
Since he started running the company in 2011, the year Mr. Jobs died, Apple’s revenue and profit have more than doubled, and Apple’s market value has soared from $348 billion to $1.9 trillion. The company has $81 billion in cash, excluding debt, and has returned $475.5 billion to shareholders.
It is costing them money because they probably chose to use a lawyer to defend their claim for this administrative board of the patent office.
Suppositions and assumptions are not a basis of facts.
No-one but no-one knows what Apple would be like given this alternative history.