So we have a computer company with a fruit as their name and logo taking legal action against a food company using a different fruit as their logo..for their food company...a fruit, for their food company. They even cite the "right-angled" leaf which I think is a stretch. Apple's leaf is at about 1 o'clock and Prepear's is at about 4. Ya know what...if that leaf on the pear was at 1 o'clock I might have thought Tim Cook himself started that company to sell new computers running on pear juice. So pretty much all fruit is covered by Apple's trademarks in their eyes? Love me some Apple products but I hope they see this is not worth being seen as a bully.
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
You know that. I know that.
But one (i.e., some THIRD company in another case after the pear company has been doing this a while) could argue (via their lawyer) in some ways these are both silhouettes of fruit with some similarity, and as I mentioned above, if you let THAT slide without even registering your concern, people will push the boundaries and very shortly there's legal precedent for "Apple didn't care to enforce their trademark all these other times, so I figured my new logo was OK".
I'm not sure Apple are even doing this to get the other company to cease and desist, but they do at least need to register their complaint so that it is on file and the court can see they have defended their trademark in the past.
Give me an example of someone making a similar to Samsung's logo (which is basically the word Samsung) for Samsung to defend their trademark against?
What will probably happen here is that Apple will (via lawyers) register/officially recognise that this company is not in the business of selling computers, draw up an agreement that they WILL NOT sell computers and this will be all above board and fine.
This doesn't have to mean pear company gets sued for Apple to demonstrate they care about their trademark, but they DO need to do SOMETHING.
Anything with a similar shape. See my edited post above about his this can be resolved.
Something Apple had to do once upon a time regarding the music business if I recall.
Yup pretty much. It doesn't mean company A or B needs to change their name/logo. But it does mean there needs to be some sort of legal understanding of where the boundaries are as far as products go.
That's probably fair. And in the end may be a fun little throwback to the Apple situation. But, and Apple may not care, but this looks a little bad for them. Not that it will amount to much. It just has a minor bad look is all.
Yeah, but literally 99.9% of their user base will never even know about this as they don't read tech/nerd news and of the 0.1 percent who do see it, only half will likely think apple are in the wrong.
So it's pretty much insignificant.
In all of the suits that they have brought against other logos for infringement, they have mentioned the "right-angled leaf" portion of the design. If the pear logo had the leaf going the other way (indeed, if the entire logo was just reversed) I don't think Apple would be as perturbed.
Tell that to Kleenex.
Tell that to Kleenex.
Last edited:
Big or small. Apple tried to block the Woolworths Australia logo, which is arguably more similar.
They lost.
They lost.
Last edited:
Which is what should happen but it should have never happened at all. There is no way I would mistake this logo for Apple Inc's logo, even if it was red. Just like how I wouldn't get confused with the logo in the article. I understand going after something legit that infringes or is used in bad taste but c'mon, there should be before any filling for infringement violations a panel or jury called the common sense jury or bull crap avoiding panel to see this should have never been filed in the first place.
List of generic and genericized trademarks - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Apple isn't even close to losing their trademark due to it being genericized. If "Bubble Wrap" can retain its trademark to this very day, so can pretty much everyone.
According to 15 U.S.C. 1065 (Section 15 of the Lanham Act), there are several ways to lose a trademark:
Abandonment (not using a trademark for three years and having no intention of using it again)
Improper Licensing/Improper Assignment
Trademark becomes a generic term
Here's some examples of trademarks that became generic:
Kleenex
Aspirin
Thermos
escalator
butterscotch
This is why you see Apple, Xerox, and Google (among others) file such complaints to defend their trademarks. When a company fails to defend their trademarks, they can become subject to the abandonment clause.
Trademark Law
Overview of key issues related to trademarks, which identify sources of goods to consumers, as well as the benefits of trademark protection.
www.justia.com
15 U.S.C. 1065: Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions, January 2023 (BitLaw)
15 U.S.C. 1065: Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions. Taken from USPTO Website (Last Revised Jan. 2023). Updated in BitLaw in November 2024
15 U.S. Code § 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
Oh my god!
APPLE THIS IS THE CRAPPEST THING YOU HAVE EVER DONE.
Only a blind rat would confuse these logos! And they’re not even a ‘competing’ company in terms of product!
If feel there have been a few morally questionable stories of Apple recently, and it’s not cool.
TIM COOK, get your ship in order!
signed that petition in a heart beat!
APPLE THIS IS THE CRAPPEST THING YOU HAVE EVER DONE.
Only a blind rat would confuse these logos! And they’re not even a ‘competing’ company in terms of product!
If feel there have been a few morally questionable stories of Apple recently, and it’s not cool.
TIM COOK, get your ship in order!
signed that petition in a heart beat!
They are complying with existing trademark law and protecting/enforcing their copyright. If they did not do so, they could lose ALL rights to the trademark.
According to 15 U.S.C. 1065 (Section 15 of the Lanham Act), there are several ways to lose a trademark:
Abandonment (not using a trademark for three years and having no intention of using it again)
Improper Licensing/Improper Assignment
Trademark becomes a generic term
Here's some examples of trademarks that became generic:
Kleenex
Aspirin
Thermos
escalator
butterscotch
This is why you see Apple, Xerox, and Google (among others) file such complaints to defend their trademarks. When a company fails to defend their trademarks, they can become subject to the abandonment clause.
Trademark Law
Overview of key issues related to trademarks, which identify sources of goods to consumers, as well as the benefits of trademark protection.
15 U.S.C. 1065: Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions, January 2023 (BitLaw)
15 U.S.C. 1065: Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions. Taken from USPTO Website (Last Revised Jan. 2023). Updated in BitLaw in November 2024www.bitlaw.com
15 U.S. Code § 1127 - Construction and definitions; intent of chapter
www.law.cornell.edu
Do you see any remote chance that Apple could become generic term and lose their trademark? Seriously, the theory is good, but in practice? One thing is going after companies using your name or your logo, but in this case, it is non-sense. This company's business and logo has nothing to do with Apple's business and logo, so it is just bulling or team of external laywers that just want to justify charging Apple some fees for litigiation processes. If the targeted company was a tech company with the name of Applepie, I can see it justified, but in the current case, Apple is just wrong.
So you're saying their lawyers are so stupid they're willing to waist Apple resources on a doomed case?
Here's the thing: if Apple doesn't file those complaints, they they could fall under the abandonment clause and lose the trademarks because they failed to protect them. In this case, even though the company in question is outside the US, failure on the part of Apple to file a complaint and/or lawsuit could be used as a basis for abandonment of the trademark(s) in question.
Last edited:
Maybe because you are using facts – trademarks need to be defended against infringements – to justify an attack on a completely different brand. There is no infringement here, as so many have pointed out, not even close. The only similarity between the logos is that they are fruit and mostly upright.
The degree of similarity is irrelevant though - failure to defend your trademarks constitutes abandonment under copyright law, regardless of whether it is a significant infringement or merely superficial. Your issue is with US Copyright law (specifically the Lanham Act), because that is the reason Apple is filing these complaints.
No I'm not saying they are stupid, I am saying they are being overly aggressive, which I guess you could actually say is stupid.