Apple Takes Legal Action Against Small Company With Pear Logo

[TiggrToo]

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.

But then they act like they are knowledgeable on other issues.

It’s a choice: use the correct language and knowledge of the system and engage in an educated debate and discussions, or make mistakes and use emotive or incorrect terms and be corrected.

This is a legal matter.

 

[the8thark]

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.

I never said the issue itself was frivilious. I just said this is more likely the result of legal obligations and not Apple actually wanting the pear logo sued out of existance. Also I think the patent office will resoive this before it ever becomes a lawsuit.

 

[the8thark]

This is a legal matter.

Correct. It's an article written about a legal matter of which the article author has zero specific legal training in the quoted specific legal area. Also I doubt very many people at all commenting on this have the specific legal training either.

It's just the general public commenting the media's opinions on a subject that they don't know as much about as they think they do. However some of the commenters (such as myself and many others) have actually read up on this and know the basics about what's going on here.

 

[TiggrToo]

Correct. It's an article written about a legal matter of which the article author has zero specific legal training in the quoted specific legal area. Also I doubt very many people at all commenting on this have the specific legal training either.

It's just the general public commenting the media's opinions on a subject that they don't know as much about as they think they do. However some of the commenters (such as myself and many others) have actually read up on this and know the basics about what's going on here.

Dog knows I’m no lawyer myself. However the moment the story broke I read the opposition filing, then grabbed the original trademark application, then finally read up on the basics of Trademark law.

Took all of 60 minutes in total. Then, and only then did I feel I had a moral right to discuss the issue on an informal platform such as MR.

These days folk feel that feelings and their gut are all they need to discuss such issues.

And when you attempt to educate them then watch out!

 

[cmaier]

Dog knows I’m no lawyer myself. However the moment the story broke I read the opposition filing, then grabbed the original trademark application, then finally read up on the basics of Trademark law.

Took all of 60 minutes in total. Then, and only then did I feel I had a moral right to discuss the issue on an informal platform such as MR.

These days folk feel that feelings and their gut are all they need to discuss such issues.

And when you attempt to educate them then watch out!

You seem to have properly gotten the gist.

 

[russell_314]

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?

If you want a detailed legal opinion then you need to find a copyright lawyer pay them about $2000 and they will explain it to you as to the specifics of why Apple is suing. I mean if you think you know more than the team of Apple’s lawyers by means apply for job at Apple. They would love to have you help them with this case so they don’t have to have bad publicity

 

[cmaier]

If you want a detailed legal opinion then you need to find a copyright lawyer pay them about $2000 and they will explain it to you as to the specifics of why Apple is suing. I mean if you think you know more than the team of Apple’s lawyers by means apply for job at Apple. They would love to have you help them with this case so they don’t have to have bad publicity

Trademark.

Don’t hire a copyright lawyer. Because this is a trademark.

 

[Cougie]

Are there any "pre-approval" requirements for lawsuits? Ie. You present your case to a judge first. If the judge sees any merrit in your case then you're approved to proceed with your lawsuit. And if you lose the case, you would need to cover all expenses and damages for the defendant.
I'm no law expert but that's the way I think it should be.
In this case I would think a judge would tell Apple to eff off at the pre-approval process.

 

[cmaier]

Are there any "pre-approval" requirements for lawsuits? Ie. You present your case to a judge first. If the judge sees any merrit in your case then you're approved to proceed with your lawsuit. And if you lose the case, you would need to cover all expenses and damages for the defendant.
I'm no law expert but that's the way I think it should be.
In this case I would think a judge would tell Apple to eff off at the pre-approval process.

since there is no lawsuit here, there is no judge.

I don’t understand why everyone keeps talking as if apple sued this company. They did not.

 

[Cougie]

since there is no lawsuit here, there is no judge.

I don’t understand why everyone keeps talking as if apple sued this company. They did not.

Ok. Let's replace 'lawsuit' with 'dispute' and 'judge' with 'trademark officer.'
Same point.
The point being that Apple is a bully and should back off.

Prepear themselves has said that this will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, whatever you like to call this process.

 

[cmaier]

Ok. Let's replace 'lawsuit' with 'dispute' and 'judge' with 'trademark officer.'
Same point.
The point being that Apple is a bully and should back off.

Prepear themselves has said that this will cost them tens of thousands of dollars, whatever you like to call this process.

This pear company is the one saying "we want a monopoly on anything that looks like this logo." All Apple did was say "we think that's wrong."

 

[Cougie]

You can argue the technicalities but public perception is important. If Apple thinks what they're doing is right then they should release a statement explaining themselves. See how the general public takes it.
Right now I see a bully. And I have not been convinced otherwise. And don't expect everyone in the general public to seek out pages of legal jargon for bit of light reading.

 

[inkswamp]

I'm an Apple fan, but I'm not with them on this. The logo clearly looks like a pear, which also is their name. Yeah it got a leaf and a fruit but so the ***** what?

Makes me remember Microsoft going after a teenager who's name is Mike Rowe and he registered a domain name called "mikerowesoft.com". He got sued becaused his domain phonetically sounds like MS's.

As much as I hate to defend Microsoft, that was a legitimate case of a company having to protect their turf. Intentionally putting "soft" at the end of the domain to make it sound the same was where he screwed up.

 

[star-affinity]

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.

The trademark office will resolve the issue. This has nothing to do with a lawsuit or potential lawsuit.

At the same time I think it's sad if Prepear has lost a lot of money and had to let go of an employee because of this. They haven't done anything to deserve that I think.

 

[Sol Rana]

All apple farmers should start suing "Apple".

 

[jlc1978]

This pear company is the one saying "we want a monopoly on anything that looks like this logo." All Apple did was say "we think that's wrong."

Sort of. They would be limited to the class of goods and services they specified in their filing, as I understand it. Pear farmers could still use a pear, as could someone in the same field with a common law trademark.

If anything, Pear Technologies Ltd would have a better case I think, assuming their logo is still a registered trademark in the EU. It would be interesting to see of anyone has a common law trademark on a similar shape.

Apple lost the Pear Technology Case, although I could not find the results of their any further appeal, if any.

European Court: Apple is not equal to Pear

Apple lost today before the European court in the trademark dispute over its famous apple. However, apples and pears are not comparable, the CJEU ruled.

legal-patent.com

 

[Carnegie]

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.

Apple isn't trying to prevent Super Healthy Kids from using that logo. It's opposing their applied for federal registration of trademark.

Super Healthy Kids may already have trademark rights relating to that logo. You can have such rights without having a federal trademark registration - either through state registrations or just through you having used a given mark. Further, you can use a given mark even if you aren't entitled to (or haven't effectively acquired) trademark rights relating to it. Regardless of whether Apple is successful in this opposition, Super Healthy Kids will be able to use that logo. (I think there's almost no chance Apple could, even if it tried, win an action trying to stop Super Healthy Kids from using that logo - at least based on any trademarks which Apple has which I'm aware of). Further, Super Healthy Kids may still have trademark rights associated with that logo and be able to stop others from using it or something very close to it.

All that's at issue here is Super Healthy Kids ability to federally register a trademark. Such registration would give Super Healthy Kids some meaningful advantages - e.g., presumptive ownership and national rights, even if it hasn't (or doesn't) used (use) the mark nationally. It's asking for an enhanced ability to prevent others from using the mark (or something very close); it isn't asking for the right to use the mark itself.

When someone asks for federal registration, that request is (at some point) published for opposition. It's kind of like... if anyone knows any reason why this mark shouldn't be federally registered, speak now or forever hold your peace. That's not quite true, people can still challenge the trademark (or defend themselves against a trademark action) later - even if the mark is federally registered. But it becomes more difficult to do so once the mark is registered. The registrant is presumed to own the rights to that mark, even if you were previously using something very close. You have to overcome that legal presumption that they own the rights to that mark. So the time to challenge, if you have concerns about a to-be-registered trademark, is when it is published for opposition.

Since Super Healthy Kids is asking for federal registration of the mark in areas which overlap Apple's use of its own marks, Apple is opposing that registration because, among other reasons, it believes that mark could dilute its own. I don't think this case is a lock for Apple and I don't think it's a lock for Super Healthy Kids. I think the dilution question (rather than a likelihood of confusion question) is close enough that it could go either way, though I think it's more likely to go against Apple. It's possible that Super Healthy Kids just agrees to tweak its mark a little and Apple agrees to drop its opposition. (Apple has been successful that way in at least a couple of instances - with Woolworth's and with NYC).

But, at any rate, Super Healthy Kids' ability to continue using that mark isn't at issue. It will be able to regardless.

 

[jlc1978]

But, at any rate, Super Healthy Kids' ability to continue using that mark isn't at issue. It will be able to regardless.

Excellent analysis. If my understanding of trademark law is correct, Super Healthy Kids would only be able to use it in the region where they have already been using it. If it is a new mark, then they may still be out of luck if they fail to get federal registration.

 

[cmaier]

Excellent analysis. If my understanding of trademark law is correct, Super Healthy Kids would only be able to use it in the region where they have already been using it. If it is a new mark, then they may still be out of luck if they fail to get federal registration.

They could use it anywhere, but their rights to exclude OTHERS from using it might be region or channel-of-commerce-specific.

 

[falainber]

Apple isn't trying to prevent Super Healthy Kids from using that logo. It's opposing their applied for federal registration of trademark.

Super Healthy Kids may already have trademark rights relating to that logo. You can have such rights without having a federal trademark registration - either through state registrations or just through you having used a given mark. Further, you can use a given mark even if you aren't entitled to (or haven't effectively acquired) trademark rights relating to it. Regardless of whether Apple is successful in this opposition, Super Healthy Kids will be able to use that logo. (I think there's almost no chance Apple could, even if it tried, win an action trying to stop Super Healthy Kids from using that logo - at least based on any trademarks which Apple has which I'm aware of). Further, Super Healthy Kids may still have trademark rights associated with that logo and be able to stop others from using it or something very close to it.

All that's at issue here is Super Healthy Kids ability to federally register a trademark. Such registration would give Super Healthy Kids some meaningful advantages - e.g., presumptive ownership and national rights, even if it hasn't (or doesn't) used (use) the mark nationally. It's asking for an enhanced ability to prevent others from using the mark (or something very close); it isn't asking for the right to use the mark itself.

When someone asks for federal registration, that request is (at some point) published for opposition. It's kind of like... if anyone knows any reason why this mark shouldn't be federally registered, speak now or forever hold your peace. That's not quite true, people can still challenge the trademark (or defend themselves against a trademark action) later - even if the mark is federally registered. But it becomes more difficult to do so once the mark is registered. The registrant is presumed to own the rights to that mark, even if you were previously using something very close. You have to overcome that legal presumption that they own the rights to that mark. So the time to challenge, if you have concerns about a to-be-registered trademark, is when it is published for opposition.

Since Super Healthy Kids is asking for federal registration of the mark in areas which overlap Apple's use of its own marks, Apple is opposing that registration because, among other reasons, it believes that mark could dilute its own. I don't think this case is a lock for Apple and I don't think it's a lock for Super Healthy Kids. I think the dilution question (rather than a likelihood of confusion question) is close enough that it could go either way, though I think it's more likely to go against Apple. It's possible that Super Healthy Kids just agrees to tweak its mark a little and Apple agrees to drop its opposition. (Apple has been successful that way in at least a couple of instances - with Woolworth's and with NYC).

But, at any rate, Super Healthy Kids' ability to continue using that mark isn't at issue. It will be able to regardless.

Would you recommend a company to use a logo that they can't trademark?

 

[jlc1978]

They could use it anywhere, but their rights to exclude OTHERS from using it might be region or channel-of-commerce-specific.

Good point. However, if someone else was using it in another region then they may not be able to use it with out facing a legal challenge since another party would have the rights to it in their region for the same channel(s); which as an app is problematic since it essentially will be available all across the US and potentially the world.

From my admitted non-legal view, a common law trademark is fine if your a small operation that never intends to grow past your region; the problem arises if you do decide to expand and find out someone else has the same trademark.

Collegiate sports offers an interesting example. For years schools existed quite nicely with simialr names and logos, as most were regional in popularity. With it's explosion over the last few decades all of a sudden schools have large revenue streams from merchandising and are national brands and are starting to bump up against each other. this has resulted in some interesting conflicts, such as OSU opposing OSU over the trademark to OSU. It generated a lot of interest and news but in the end they came to an agreement as was expected.

 

[Coconut Bean]

If you want a detailed legal opinion then you need to find a copyright lawyer pay them about $2000 and they will explain it to you as to the specifics of why Apple is suing. I mean if you think you know more than the team of Apple’s lawyers by means apply for job at Apple. They would love to have you help them with this case so they don’t have to have bad publicity

So you have no clue. I don't think I know more. I just think in this case Apple's just being evil.

 

[california_kid]

Ben Franklin once said "an apple a day keeps the doctor away". But what most folks don't know is what he said right after that which was "and if you mistake a pear for an apple you are an idiot and deserve to die from the plague...."

 

[nnoble]

But then they act like they are knowledgeable on other issues.

It’s a choice: use the correct language and knowledge of the system and engage in an educated debate and discussions, or make mistakes and use emotive or incorrect terms and be corrected.
This is a legal matter.

It's a legal matter for those who deal with legal matters and they do so in their own register; if only to justify their fees. For those who wish to cast their opinion, resenting bullies is a universal trait so disregard the pomposity - just vent your spleen and go for it. I would happily forgo my next Apple purchase and donate the money to help defeat this nonsense.

 

[TiggrToo]

It's a legal matter for those who deal with legal matters and they do so in their own register; if only to justify their fees. For those who wish to cast their opinion, resenting bullies is a universal trait so disregard the pomposity - just vent your spleen and go for it. I would happily forgo my next Apple purchase and donate the money to help defeat this nonsense.

Then do so. Just know that it won't make a squat bit of difference. In addition, also be aware that you're operating on a total vacuum. All you see are the optics - for all you know it's entirely possible that Super Healthy Kids, Inc. deliberately made this move with the intention of gaining publicity and had no intention of actually carrying out the application.

Not saying they did, just that none of us know what's really going on here.

So it may well be you're supporting a group of people who deliberately set out to deceive.

Or not.

Question is, why do you chose to believe them? Because they're the "underdog"? If so, that's a sad way of going about life.

Choose wisely.