That is certainly true. Just think of how every state has various restaurants and other small businesses with the same names, even though they are completely unrelated.
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
There is a distinction made with respect to “famous” marks. For example - imagine someone made “Coca Cola” brand shoes. Certain marks are so famous that the trademark laws protect their fame from being diluted, even if nobody would be confused and think that coca cola company was now a shoe maker.
Apple vs. Apple was not a typical case. Apple Corps believed that their position in the music publishing industry gave them rights to the name "Apple" in all parts of the music industry, including music players, music retail, etc. You can debate the merits of that argument, but the judge disagreed with them. To this day, I believe Apple Computer has not engaged in any kind of music publishing activities as a result of that but has pursued other music-related business.
Except as Nine Nasty Trademark Infringement Cases – and how to avoid them and 9 More Nasty Trademark Infringement Cases – And How To Avoid Them show it really was typical.
Of relevant interest is 3M vs 3N: " It was ultimately ruled that, despite some dissimilarities in products and pricing, the notoriety of the 3M mark and the fact that 3N had managed to acquire clients and market share by use of the similar mark, constituted infringement."
'Ok but that is China' you might say. Well meet "Monster Energy v Thirsty Beasts" or if you want totally jaw dropping insanity there is "WWF (now WWE) v WWF" and "Walmart v Variety Stores".
Or if you want a total Janus inspired trip into the LSD Wonderland that is trademark rulngs try comparing "US: Academy Awards v. GoDaddy" with "Google LLC v Chris Gillespie" sometime.
Not sure why you are quoting me. Nothing you wrote seems to have anything to do with what i said.
I agree. It's clear that Apple must remove the ability of all companies to have logos that resemble fruits, plants, living things, are monochromatic, etc.
In fact, Apple must sue every company that has a logo or it faces the sad situation where it can only stop companies from using apples for their logos.
I even suggest that they force people to hand over all of the Beatles singles and such with the Apple Records logo on it for destruction prior to being put into a landfill, because it's not like Apple stole the Apple concept itself — blatantly.
It really should also have dictionaries redefined to make the company the top result for the word apple.
Update: I asked a fictional attorney about this and she said it's obvious the court will rule in favor of Apple once it has been shut down and its assets given to Apple Records. You know... since it stole not only a fruit logo but an apple. And, it topped it off by putting the word apple in its name!
Jobs (apparently stealing from Picasso): "Great artists steal."
Cook: "And then sue the people stolen from!" (not an actual quote)
That would be us. We are the losers when small companies are squashed by abusive lawsuits and when censorship goes wild.
Last edited:
Because the "Certain marks are so famous that the trademark laws protect their fame from being diluted, even if nobody would be confused and think that coca cola company was now a shoe maker." part of your post was relevant to rebutting inkswamp's post.
While trademark law isn't that drooling insane as Nine Nasty Trademark Infringement Cases – and how to avoid them and 9 More Nasty Trademark Infringement Cases – And How To Avoid Them show it comes pretty close. It certianly doesn't help that Apple Logo Pear has become a thing.
I wish I was young. I'm old - I just don't think making me old makes me smart. Unlike others it appears.
Maybe not smart, but more experienced?
That's one of the (or maybe the only...) good things of getting older I think. I feel more comfortable in more situations nowadays, and also fewer things that come as a (negative) surprise. No alarms and no surprises, please.
Agreed. Although telling youngesters to "go read law" doesn't really come under experience. That's just being a grumpy old git, thinking you know things because you're old.
I've seen a few posts allude to the time Disney sued a child care center for using their characters without permission as though it's comparable. It's really not, as the Disney characters being used were all trademarked as used, not just similar likenesses. This wasn't even a case of Disney crying foul at the center for using some "Murphy Moose" and "Missie Moose", they were using Mickey and Minnie Mouse as well as other Disney characters. The only reason we know about the event, mainly, is because Warner Bros. used the press opportunity to their advantage by quickly licensing the looney tunes characters to the center for its use. It's a great example of a company being forced to defend it's trademark, and then receiving blowback as a result, but it's not remotely close to this situation concerning trademark law.
Apple apparently thinks it has the rights to any Rosaceae fruit logos. It's a very poor comparison, you would do best to stop using it.
Apple apparently thinks it has the rights to any Rosaceae fruit logos. It's a very poor comparison, you would do best to stop using it.
Last edited:
1) apple didn’t sue anyone
2) apple isn’t claiming the rights to any pear logo. It’s saying that this company doesn’t have the rights to all fruit logos.
When can we expect a result to this? I feel like in a lot of these stories get debated on and then forgotten. (like whatever happened to that cinema and the insurance company that didn't honor their pandemic insurance?)
Some points of interests for me with this story.
So a company applies for a trademark.
Apparently the application is public record or some kind of memo is sent out.
Other companies presumably large ones have people on their payroll that monitors trademark applications. And when they see one they don't like they file an objection to the claim.
And presumably the trademark office has its own rules and regulations regarding what trademarks are acceptable.
But they also allow external influence from other companies who may wish to object.
What I would like to know is:
-Does it cost any money to fight this dispute from either side?
-If the trademark application is accepable based on existing guidelines, then how much of an influence can an objection be? Would they need to come up with compelling reasons that the existing rules may have overlooked?
Anyone know the likely result of this particular case?
Some points of interests for me with this story.
So a company applies for a trademark.
Apparently the application is public record or some kind of memo is sent out.
Other companies presumably large ones have people on their payroll that monitors trademark applications. And when they see one they don't like they file an objection to the claim.
And presumably the trademark office has its own rules and regulations regarding what trademarks are acceptable.
But they also allow external influence from other companies who may wish to object.
What I would like to know is:
-Does it cost any money to fight this dispute from either side?
-If the trademark application is accepable based on existing guidelines, then how much of an influence can an objection be? Would they need to come up with compelling reasons that the existing rules may have overlooked?
Anyone know the likely result of this particular case?
I think that is a major reason why Apple do this sort of thing. There is now a grand association attached to this and it means yet more publicity for Apple.
To get to a final decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board would take more than a year. And yes, it would cost some money to see the process through. It's similar to (though not the same as) the process we'd see in a court case.
I think the most likely result here is that Super Healthy Kids agrees to tweak the logo it's trying to register and Apple drops its opposition. Apple has been successful in that way in oppositions in the past. GreeNYC tweaked its logo (to remove a leaf) and Apple dropped its opposition to the registration of that mark. When Apple opposed Woolworth's registration of a mark in classes which overlapped with Apple's registration, Woolworth's agreed to change the classes it sought to register its mark in.
I suspect the main issue for Apple is the leaf. So Super Healthy Kids may tweak it some (or remove it altogether) and Apple may drop its opposition. I don't think Super Healthy Kids can just drop the classes its applying for, as there only seem to be two and Apple is opposing based on both.
It's also possible that Apple drops its opposition because it decides the situation is making it look bad. I wouldn't bet on that, but it's possible.
As for the process, yeah... someone applies to federally register a trademark. It can take a while, but if the USPTO examiner (effectively) decides that the mark can be registered, it gets published in the Official Gazette for trademarks which allows others to file oppositions to its registration. Before that, while the examiner is considering the mark, it isn't published.
If there's an opposition filed, the TTAB handles the opposition. As for reasons for an opposition, the opposer is effectively saying they would be damaged in some way by the registration of the mark - e.g., because it would dilute their own mark or because it would be likely be confused with their own mark.
They were using it long before they purchased the permission and again the Beatles wishes.
I'm getting a kick out of your new signature link. Lol.Next, we need to do something about this clear Apple logo knockoff:
So tell me, what do you see?
| Prepear has changed the leaf on top of the pair, giving it a fresh, straight edge, according to paperwork filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (below). And it appears that this was sufficient for Apple, as the company has already agreed to the adjustment. At the very least, it was resolved far more quickly than the ugly, ongoing feud between Nirvana and Marc Jacobs. |