Tim Cook has a bachelor of science degree in industrial engineering, which is a legitimate technical degree that includes coursework in mechanical and electrical engineering. And an MBA. He has no “doctorate in finances.”
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 Cook has a bachelor of science degree in industrial engineering, which is a legitimate technical degree that includes coursework in mechanical and electrical engineering. And an MBA. He has no “doctorate in finances.”
You are correct I am wrong. I swear that I had read differently. Either way as I said I just don't think he is a good CEO based on MY OWN opinions. He plays it too safe IMO but, in anyone else's opinion, that might be a good thing.
Chances are Apple has not given any direct order tonsue this company. Like many major corporations, Apple is represented by a large lawfirm, this lawfirm probably gets both a fixed retainer fee and then their billable hours, chances are the lawfirm has a team dedicated to finding as many opportunities as possible to sue in order to increase their billables. Most of those cases go unnoticed as the other parties are so small they eagerly settle to avoid any further legal costs.
perhaps Apple should exercise more control over their legal reps, to avoid this type of petty BS
perhaps Apple should exercise more control over their legal reps, to avoid this type of petty BS
They're. Not. Sueing.
Why people seemingly cannot grasp this simple fact is of constant amazement.
If people can't understand this then how can they comments on the why...?
They want to set a precedent, which is the outfall of the case. So in order for it to be valuable for apple is ONLY if they win. Otherwise the precedent is not in their favor.
The problem is it is used on an app, which is a market Apple uses theirs as well. Not that I agree with Apple's stance, but being in the same market is one aspect of trademark protection.
Perhaps they are guessing (as my physician friends say there's a reason they call it practicing) but the key is knowing how to select the what and where of the guess.
Last edited:
This isn’t about setting a precedent. There’s already been precedents set on copyright law. This is about defending their copyright. I’m not sure if people are just pretending not to understand just for the sake of posting something or they really don’t understand how this works.
Oh yes evil capitalism. You know the type of government where all these people living in socialist and communist countries want to go to 😂
I totally agree. There is zero trademark infringement here. I'm pretty sure Apple's lawyers have to do this even though they really don't want to.
Exactly. I believe the (correct me if I'm wrong) is you need to actively defend your trademarks or lose them. Meaning you can't pick and choose which ones you defend versus. It's all or risk losing your trademarks.
[automerge]1597158279[/automerge]
literally the only result here is bad press
Apple Just Did the 1 Thing No Brand Should Ever Do
For years, the company represented the underdog. Now it's firmly on the other side.
“Literally no one, except perhaps Apple's lawyers, would be confused by the Prepear logo. Seriously, no one will ever mistake its distinctly pear-shape for Apple's famous apple.“
“picking unnecessary fights over a logo that no one will ever confuse with Apple will do far more damage in the long run.”
Last edited:
Your sort of correct. How it works is anytime a trademark could be perceived to be legally infringing on one of your trademarks, you have to defend against this. Most of the time this does involve legal action, wither arbitration or court action. Even if in reality there's zero infringement happening (as in this case we're all talking about of Pear vs Apple), legally it could be perceived so they have to go into defensive mode.
I don't know exactly what constitutes something that "could be perceived to be legally infringing" but I am pretty sure what this is, is clearly defined in law somewhere.
A lot of time this does end up with legal action vs an unrelated company as you correctly stated. In my opinion this where the flaw in the system in. How it should work is, the company (in this case Apple) has the choice of arbitration or court action. Those cases that are not infringing at all (ie this case) would be settled in arbitration in a few minutes with common sense prevailing. This (if I wrote the law) would be considered as actively defending your trademark.
Yup. I’m no copyright lawyer. but I don’t suspect anyone else here is either. If you think this lawsuit is frivolous you should look up some of the copyright lawsuits done in the past by big corporations. I don’t think any corporation wants the public image of picking on some poor little guy. There’s simply no profit in that.
While I agree with you, I am not convinced that the logo is close enough to Apple's for Apple to prevail. I don't see enough similarity in the two to believe a consumer would think a product with the pear logo would cause them to think it was made by Apple. No, if they used it on a package that copied Apple's packaging and only the logo and a few words in small print were different, then Apple would have a case, IMHO, but that would be under trade dress provisions.
As far as I can tell, no one is suing. Apple filed an objection to their application, a normal part of the trademark process. While we may feel Apple should not have done that, they decided it was close enough they needed to defend their mark. My guess is soemone reviews each pending application in certain categories to see if it is too close to Apple's trademarks and goes from there.
That's sort of what happenes when a notice of opposition is filed. It goes before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and there are alternative dispute resolution options before you go to the board.
Last edited:
Please describe.
You, and some other people keep parroting that they HAVE to do this in order to defend their trademark, yet haven't explained how. Outline what happens if they "defend" it vs if they don't and what are the implications for apple. Thx.
Or you do think that accusation is fair and similarities between the logos and area of business is so high that there might be some confusion?
1) it’s not a lawsuit
2) it has nothing to do with copyright. It’s a trademark issue.
[automerge]1597166381[/automerge]
Trademark dilution - Wikipedia
But what happens if they don't agree with Apple's claim? Will they get sued then perhaps? 🤔
It’s not up to them to “agree”. They can either withdraw the application or try their luck at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Only after ruling that do either the district or circuit courts get involved.
However at no point does this mean Apple is suing them. It’s just a continuation of the process.
On the other hand, it's a distinction without difference. Whether they are "suing" or using other legal means to prevent other businesses from using fruity themed names and logos makes no difference for those small companies. This is not a legal forum so people will use legal terms freely.
The trademark office will resolve the issue. This has nothing to do with a lawsuit or potential lawsuit.