Apple Targeting Indie Director Over 'Apple-Man' Film Title Trademark

[CthuluLemon]

Based on what little I know about US IP law, my guess is that for some reason or another, Apple's legal team determined they could be accused in the future of not defending their trademark if they didn't take this action, ie, they could lose rights to the trademark. Usually companies don't take on such blatantly frivolous trademark cases unless they feel it's a necessity to ensure future use and protection of the trademark. Disney is still getting flack for the David v Goliath narrative around suing that Florida daycare for using Disney characters, for instance.

When our IP laws are so in need of updating, this is the kind of nonsense you get. If a lawyer can bill an hour, they're going to bill an hour.

Not saying that this is always the case, many companies seem to live off of these cases; Apple itself has dealt with overly zealous trademark-holders. Apple Corps. used to take Apple, Inc. to court every five years or so, claiming we're all so unintelligent that we would confuse a tech company with the Beatles or some similar nonsense. Apple would come to an agreement again and again, only for Apple Corps to later claim a breach and sue again down the line. Finally, by the mid aughts, Apple had enough and went hardagainst one of Apple Corps claims, ultimately gaining primary rights to use the name 'Apple.' Apple Corps bit off more than they could chew, and ended up losing more than they gained.

 

[Naraxus]

This film would have come and gone without notice but it turns out that being able to capitalize on free publicity from one of the worlds most valuable companies is a way better super power than levitating fruit.

How in on EARTH did you come to the conclusion that he's trying to "capitalize on free publicity" when Apple is the one putting the screws to him

 

[dumastudetto]

This film would have come and gone without notice but it turns out that being able to capitalize on free publicity from one of the worlds most valuable companies is a way better super power than levitating fruit.

Never have truer words been written on these fora.

 

[Eric_WVGG]

Usually a trademark owner has to defend their mark or they'd lose their proprietary interest in the mark.

I agree it seems a little excessive in this case, but that's how the law works - defend it or potentially lose it. e.g. laches etc in trademark law.

We've all heard this to the point of it becoming a cliche, but it's a myth. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/...-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet

 

[MrTangent]

467-page legal document ?

Trying to intimate are we ?

“Intimate”

This lawsuit took a real curve.

 

[alien3dx]

what does that have to do with anything? a lot of foreign entities have trademarks filed in the US and vice versa, apple has plenty of foreign trademarks in other countries as well.


doesn't quite work that way...what product or service do they have that has Apple-Man? trademarks require actual use in commerce. what theyre doing it protecting their trademark from dilution, you can't file trademark for services or products you dont have in commerce...but doesn't mean you can't protect it...depending on your business and the classes.

lol. a lot diff . You need to go court so on. If the movie don't distribute in usa , nothing apple can do about it. It takes years to go court and ukraine not in usa thou.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Breaking News: Apple says it will agree to drop the lawsuit in exchange for a 30% cut of all revenue the movie makes for all time.

 

[CthuluLemon]

We've all heard this to the point of it becoming a cliche, but it's a myth. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/...-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet

The article doesn't support your claim. Ignoring that most companies would likely interpret their own legal actions as strategic rather than tireless, it's a solid argument, and one I agree with, but not one that case law agrees with. The EFF is arguing Canonical was wrong because the use of the Ubuntu logo was protected under the first amendment, but that is precisely the type of thing that current US and other nations' IP laws says a court should decide, ie, Canonical had every right to petition the court to decide. We can call them over-zealous, but our opinion has no weight when compared to a legal verdict. While I agree with the EFF's interpretation, they are making an argument, not stating fact. Hoping case law would be on their side in the future was an unnecessary risk for Canonical to take, and they understandably didn't. If Canonical should not have to defend every nook and cranny, then we should have legislation that backs that position robustly; we don't, only case law.

Remember, the EFF is an advocacy group, their interpretation of the law is not universal or even always upheld in court. They can argue it's a myth, but that does not make it so. It's also important to remember they are also arguing for reform; that small creators should not have to rely on a system designed for large entities with resources to carve out licensing contracts or take each other to court. They aren't just arguing against canonical, but the legal environment that leads companies like Canonical to be so insecure and go to such lengths to protect their trademarks and other IP.

The EFF argues that many US regulations or allowances violate the principles of Net Neutrality and should be at a minimum illegal if not unconstitutional. Despite this, those regulations -or lack thereof- are still the law of the land.

 

[red elma]

This guy is not just using the 'Apple-Man' film title but is also trying to trademark it.
Apple Inc is also an entertainment company that produces their own Films and TV Shows.
In which case Apple Inc has every right to defend their branding as the combined names reference each other.

 

[Realityck]

What if the movie name was Mac-Man lol 😂 😹

Have you seen this? Dr Burger Man as a bad guy. Sounds like a whopper.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

At this rate, we may have to say “Goodbye Apple Pie”.

Apple Corp. doesn’t own the word “Apple”.
And who cares if people associate this movie with Apple Corp.? Do they believe that every time I look through my window I think or MS Windows? Or that every time I go grocery shopping and see an Apple I think of an Apple Mac?

Someone should sue Apple Corp. for using the name ’Apple Macintosh’ for their computers. Imagine all the accumulated royalties.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

Have you seen this? Dr Burger Man as a bad guy. Sounds like a whopper.

??

So it’s be a parody… anyone remember Spaceballs?

Would you have expected George Lucas to sue the producers of this movie?

From IMDB:
The Millennium Falcon from the Star Wars saga makes a cameo appearance in this movie. Take a close look at the exterior shot of the Space Diner, and it can be spotted parked there among the other space vehicles. George Lucas got a chance to read the screenplay before production began, and loved it so much that he decided to have his special effects company, Industrial Light & Magic, help make this movie.

People were much cooler back then.

 

[alien3dx]

This guy is not just using the 'Apple-Man' film title but is also trying to trademark it.
Apple Inc is also an entertainment company that produces their own Films and TV Shows.
In which case Apple Inc has every right to defend their branding as the combined names reference each other.

if he trademark on his country , ukraine . What is the issue ?

 

[CthuluLemon]

At this rate, we may have to say “Goodbye Apple Pie”.

Apple Corp. doesn’t own the word “Apple”.
And who cares if people associate this movie with Apple Corp.? Do they believe that every time I look through my window I think or MS Windows? Or that every time I go grocery shopping and see an Apple I think of an Apple Mac?

Someone should sue Apple Corp. for using the name ’Apple Macintosh’ for their computers. Imagine all the accumulated royalties.

Please keep in mind that this has already been litigated, with a company that actually goes by Apple Corps and predates the founding of Apple, Inc.:

Apple Corps was founded by members of the Beatles:

Apple Corps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apple Inc, formally Apple Computer, is the company that produces the Apple Macintosh line of computers:

Apple Inc. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They fought over the use of 'Apple' for years:

Apple Corps v Apple Computer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bandaman]

Waiting to see when Apple will threaten Kellogg's over Apple Jacks

View attachment 1952320

This is exactly what I was thinking. Absolutely stupid. With this logic, Kellogg’s should sue Apple since the cereal has been around since the 60s, about a decade before Apple was founded. This movie has nothing to do with Apple. They should start going after grocery stores around the world.

 

[lowbatteries]

Maybe Cupertino will relent if the movie becomes Apple-They/Them.

Ah, the One True Joke.

Conservative Comedians Gather Together to Come Up with Their Next Big Joke

Many years ago, conservatives came up with the One True Joke. A joke so funny and insightful, that it could be repeated whenever needed…

medium.com

 

[ThirteenXIII]

Based on what little I know about US IP law, my guess is that for some reason or another, Apple's legal team determined they could be accused in the future of not defending their trademark if they didn't take this action, ie, they could lose rights to the trademark. Usually companies don't take on such blatantly frivolous trademark cases unless they feel it's a necessity to ensure future use and protection of the trademark. Disney is still getting flack for the David v Goliath narrative around suing that Florida daycare for using Disney characters, for instance.

When our IP laws are so in need of updating, this is the kind of nonsense you get. If a lawyer can bill an hour, they're going to bill an hour.

Not saying that this is always the case, many companies seem to live off of these cases; Apple itself has dealt with overly zealous trademark-holders. Apple Corps. used to take Apple, Inc. to court every five years or so, claiming we're all so unintelligent that we would confuse a tech company with the Beatles or some similar nonsense. Apple would come to an agreement again and again, only for Apple Corps to later claim a breach and sue again down the line. Finally, by the mid aughts, Apple had enough and went hardagainst one of Apple Corps claims, ultimately gaining primary rights to use the name 'Apple.' Apple Corps bit off more than they could chew, and ended up losing more than they gained.

Apple and a lot of large companies hire third party firms to basically track any new applications using similar word marks or design marks or design codes in specific classes they have existing marks in. so it could simply be they registered Apple-Man in a class Apple is already registered in. which at this point is pretty much most classes. if they happened to file in some random one such as pharmaceuticals may be a different story..the trademark does not affect the movie itself, UNLESS he said something stupid without an attorney that they could potentially limit the release of his product(s). generally an agreement can be made to he can release it but make zero profit or potentially block it.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Apple needs to turn this into a PR win, but they probably won't. Free advice, in case everyone is missing it:

-Apple should buy the rights to this and put it on Apple TV+ and re-name it whatever they want. This way, everyone wins.

Call it "Orchard Man" or whatever.

Instead, Apple here comes off looking like a bully. They should fire their entire legal department for embarrassing the company.

Apple is a bully, and Tim Cook is a creep. The mask has fallen.

 

[Amazing Iceman]

How in on EARTH did you come to the conclusion that he's trying to "capitalize on free publicity" when Apple is the one putting the screws to him

That’ the whole idea… in reverse it would have been stupid.

If you want to sue your neighbor because his dog bit you, first you’ll need to provoke the dog so it will bite you. You don’t go bite the dog first.

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

Have you seen this? Dr Burger Man as a bad guy. Sounds like a whopper.

Yoooooo! That was so cool. Hands down ✊

An Apple a day keeps a doomsday. Dr. Burger-man is so cool man. Wonder what his special powers are? I want to watch this movie now. Dr. Burger-man rules. All I kept thinking of was Burger-King Whopper Junior. I’m craving one right now.

They have so many characters lettuce man, alcoholic man... pepper man, do we have a fries man???

My man over here ruling over SFO Golden Gate Bridge. Apple is definitely jealous. Thanks for sharing you rock!!!

 

[TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️]

Apple may win if they use precedence from the historic case from last year were an indie filmmaker had to change the name of their film to "Really Small Cushion Man." Apple isn't the only tech giant protection trademarks, it

How so? The movie is about Apple v/s burgers? What arguments can be made. Come on now. I think Apple is just upset because the trailer is actually good 😅

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Apple and a lot of large companies hire third party firms to basically track any new applications using similar word marks or design marks or design codes in specific classes they have existing marks in. so it could simply be they registered Apple-Man in a class Apple is already registered in. which at this point is pretty much most classes. if they happened to file in some random one such as pharmaceuticals may be a different story..the trademark does not affect the movie itself, UNLESS he said something stupid without an attorney that they could potentially limit the release of his product(s). generally an agreement can be made to he can release it but make zero profit or potentially block it.

Yep, Apple has developed a real penchant for outsourcing questionable behavior.

 

[The Cappy]

Usually a trademark owner has to defend their mark or they'd lose their proprietary interest in the mark.

I agree it seems a little excessive in this case, but that's how the law works - defend it or potentially lose it. e.g. laches etc in trademark law.

True. Furthermore, this situation has more than a whiff of “I’ve got a movie idea that would sink below the waves without a ripple, judged on its own merit. How can I grab some nonsense headlines and get people to support my movie for no particular reason? Oh wait. I know how.” And it seems to be working.

 

[Hexley]

The law forces companies like Apple to step up.

 

[svish]

Why is Apple going after this? 🤔