Nearly an entire thread of foolish responses who know nothing of Trademark Laws.
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 Targeting Indie Director Over 'Apple-Man' Film Title Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Funny you should mention that, because back when Apple was called Apple Computer they were in a three decades long litigation battle because Apple Corps (the holding company for Beatle’s record label Apple Records) sued them in the 1970s. Apple Computer had to pay them millions to settle the case on multiple occasions until they bought out the Apple trademark for half a billion dollars and gave Apple Corps a perpetual license to use it. So in essence, there is precedence around this very name under similar circumstances.
Last edited:
That will only encourage more people to try the same just so they can get bought out by Apple the same way.
The filmmaker got exactly what he wanted — publicity. He intentionally poked the bear just so a few mindless lemmings would watch his garbage film.
LOL Apple that’s absurd!
What’s next Apple, will you try to forbid the sales of the Apple fruit?
Is Apple-Man written on Tim Apple office door?
Now we just need a few more Companies named after food types, and we‘ll all will starve to death because these food types won’t be allowed to be sold anymore.
What’s next Apple, will you try to forbid the sales of the Apple fruit?
Is Apple-Man written on Tim Apple office door?
Now we just need a few more Companies named after food types, and we‘ll all will starve to death because these food types won’t be allowed to be sold anymore.
You mean a movie about a tiny bitten Apple which likes to eat seeds?
……………..
If they included an Egg-Man, they could be sued by Apple Inc. and Apple Corps. (The Beatles).
I vote to rename the movie AirPower-Man!
He has superpowers and floats through the air, right?
His movie, and himself, have just been promoted hundred-fold.
That's ridiculous and in no way this can lead to confusion... If there was a man product from Apple it would be called the iMan.
Common words should be non trademark able. Today’s practice is akin to private companies taken ownership of peoples lexic.
If you want an unique name … make one … don’t steal it from the dictionary.
Crazy trademark policies.
If you want an unique name … make one … don’t steal it from the dictionary.
Crazy trademark policies.
Last edited:
You can, but you'll have to call them something else. I mean, we can't have people getting confused or having the brand devalued. What kind of world would that be?
2050 - can you name a fruit ?
A student -> apple
Teacher -> Wrong . Apple is a brand ?
Student -> Confuse
Teacher -> Apple is extinct fruit, so the name "Apple" are now for "Apple product only"
Apple is really looking stupid here. They need to stop this nonsense.
When the Marx Brothers came out with A Night in Casablanca, Warner Brothers (who had released Casablanca starring Humphrey Bogart) threatened to sue the Marx Brothers over the use of the name "Casablanca." So Groucho Marx threatened to countersue over unauthorized use of the name "Brothers." Warner Brothers dropped the threats. XD
Same sort of stupidity here. The oxygen must be thinner up at the executive level. And does anyone remember how the Beatles (who owned a recording company called Apple) threatened to sue Apple Computer for unauthorized use of the name "Apple?" WTF Apple.
When the Marx Brothers came out with A Night in Casablanca, Warner Brothers (who had released Casablanca starring Humphrey Bogart) threatened to sue the Marx Brothers over the use of the name "Casablanca." So Groucho Marx threatened to countersue over unauthorized use of the name "Brothers." Warner Brothers dropped the threats. XD
Same sort of stupidity here. The oxygen must be thinner up at the executive level. And does anyone remember how the Beatles (who owned a recording company called Apple) threatened to sue Apple Computer for unauthorized use of the name "Apple?" WTF Apple.
The problem here is that the director is trying to trademark it. By law, a trademark owner (Apple) has to defend its brand or risk losing it. It's not that they feel threatened by it, they need to make sure there's no legal precedent on trademarking Apple-like brands.