No, he didn’t say any such thing. He did say Apple needs to defend their trademark, which is not the same thing as having a monopoly.
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
I think he’s splitting hairs to try to come up with an argument. Granted this makes great sensational headlines. I’m surprised they didn’t use the headline “Big bad apple squishes baby pear”. If you want to get upset with this look up trademark disputes involving a certain mouse. Again yes it sounds like the big meanie is picking on the little guy but don’t blame the big meanie because that’s how the law was written.
I couldn’t answer that with certainty since I’m not a lawyer, but you completely ignored my point: the art of the leaf. Show me a “pointed oval” leaf attached to a real apple or a pear and I’ll bite. (Pun intended.) Sure, some fruits come from trees, and many trees have leaves. That’s not the issue. The issue is the very distinct shape of the leaf on their logo.
If I drew what I called a BLT similar to the Burger King cheeseburger, I’d expect a lawsuit even though they don’t own the rights to how a sandwich looks. Best I could claim is mine doesn’t have cheese and I took inspiration from a sandwich I had last weekend.
🥪 🍔
Complete nonsense. Apple is one of the largest companies in the world with probably the most instantly recognizable logo in the world—they’re never going to lose their trademark.
Not totally sure how McLean v Fleming has any bearing here, since it’s a case from 1878 about two companies selling liver pills. In this case, Prepear’s products have essentially zero overlap with Apple’s.
I’m guessing you’re a trademark lawyer? Maybe you should call Apple and let them know because I’m sure their team of lawyers doesn’t know what you know. I bet they would be willing to pay you millions of dollars just so they can save this whole lawsuit
Last edited:
I’m sure they are loving the press and it doesn’t matter if Apple loses this or not. That’s not even the objective. The whole point is Apple can say they defended the trademark. Hell Apple would probably just pay them to use something else and get this out of the news
[automerge]1596918655[/automerge]
If it doesn’t make sense to you then you’re probably not a trademark lawyer. Laws don’t have to make sense and many don’t make sense.
The case had to do with logo (read: product wrapping ) infringement that covered the liver pills.
Like I said earlier, Apple needs to protect its trademark routinely, which it has.
Yeah it’s pretty sad how the law is with this. My favorite is the case of the mouse. That made a lot of people upset but they really didn’t have a choice
So how far does trademark infringement go? Would a tomato be okay? I mean technically it's a fruit but no one calls it that, and yet it resembles an apple more than a pear in terms of shape. Should no company in tech ever use a fruit or vegetable as a logo because of Apple? But then where do you draw the line, Twitter uses a bird, should no other tech company use an animal as their logo? Why doesn't Twitter sue Apple for using a bird for their Swift logo?
I am sure that Apple has geniuses at its legal and marketing departments who can prove that the two logos are topologically equivalent while us mortal users can not see it .... Or, maybe, just £@$^ing NO.
Anyway, I do not care if a powerful corporation finds a weak or corrupted judge/system/country and enforces its way "legally". It just verifies how lame and evil that corporation truly is (or has become) and they lose me as a customer. It is MY ethics, MY money, MY decision.
Anyway, I do not care if a powerful corporation finds a weak or corrupted judge/system/country and enforces its way "legally". It just verifies how lame and evil that corporation truly is (or has become) and they lose me as a customer. It is MY ethics, MY money, MY decision.
You mean the leaf that's in a different style, different color, and different orientation on an entirely different piece of fruit? That leaf? If you can't see how that's ridiculous then we really are at an impass here. Look at logos like Applebees or Orange Investment they feature leaves in a much more similar style to Apple's yet have somehow avoided being sued, I wonder why that would be.
If you drew an entirely different type of food in a different style, with the only similarity being that both feature bread, then you'd be getting closer to an analogy of this situation.
Apple is clearly planning to “branch out” into other fruits. They outta do an apples to oranges comparison with Simply Orange. Now there is a real trademark infringer! /s
I just want to point out that Apple Records was first, then Apple Music, for all the youngsters out there.
I just want to point out that Apple Records was first, then Apple Music, for all the youngsters out there.
That's an annoying and lazy response. He raises a good point, in that the 1878 case involved two companies that a. both made liver pills, and b. Had nearly identical names ("McClain" vs. "McClean") which were an essential part of their logos. How about you respond to his point, rather than lecturing him that he's not entitled to an opinion? Did you even bother to read the link to the case summary that was provided?
These are all great questions and if you willing to pay a trademark lawyer probably $1000 an hour or more they will explain this to you. Apple doesn’t do stuff to be petty at least not in this sense. The negative publicity from people who don’t understand the law hurts them at least at the moment. People will forget tomorrow but today they’re upset. It’s just business. You’ll have people here saying I’ll never buy Apple again and if that’s how then feel then don’t buy it. Apple is it going to lose their whole trademark over a few hardware sales. 🤦♂️
Of course he’s entitled to his opinion. I’m not a trademark lawyer and if I was I wouldn’t be giving free advice on these forms. Apple has a team of lawyers that they spend millions of dollars on to advise them on this. If you think some random on the forms knows more than their whole team of lawyers keep thinking that. I can’t change your mind on that one
Not exactly related, but has anyone noticed that Apple-esque devices are almost always represented by a pear logo in fictional media?
Maybe that’s Apple’s logic behind the case. A company with a fruit pun in the name, a fruit logo = imitating Apple. It’s kind of a ridiculous stretch though
Maybe that’s Apple’s logic behind the case. A company with a fruit pun in the name, a fruit logo = imitating Apple. It’s kind of a ridiculous stretch though
The logos have no resemblance whatsoever so there's got to be an ulterior motive for why Apple is persuing this company. I wouldn't be surprised that Apple wants Prepear's business idea and to eliminate them and their app in two steps. First, go after the logo then when successful ban their app from Apple App Store so eliminating the competition from existence then build Prepear's idea into iOS. Wouldn't be the first time. Apple would've been successful if Prepear hadn't gone public.
https://www.phonearena.com/news/4-a...eir-features-with-the-next-iOS-update_id97171
https://www.phonearena.com/news/4-a...eir-features-with-the-next-iOS-update_id97171
Last edited:
I haven’t seen that one. Do you have any specific examples that would be interesting to look. I know Apple doesn’t allow movies to feature their logo without approval. I didn’t even know that was a thing but apparently it is