Apple Tells iCarbons to Stop Using Their Logo

[MF878]

http://www.icarbons.com/blogs/news/7388898-from-the-desk-of-icarbons

This seems a bit unnecessary to me. Apple don't compete in the skin market, so why don't they just turn a blind eye? Especially because it means their logo is now covered up by the skins, where as before, an Apple product wearing an iCarbons skin was still clearly an Apple product.

Why would Apple bother pursuing this? No other company has, yet...

Look at the picture, not so obvious that it's a MacBook Air now, is it? In my opinion, iCarbons was doing them a favour by not covering up the logo, but now they aren't even allowed to cut that shape out of their skins. Yeah, they could do a circle, but that looks crap.

 

[Ljohnson72]

Because if Apple doesn't defend their intellectual property, and later down the road there is a more serious misuse of it, a court would ask them why they didn't strictly defend it in the past and it becomes harder to protect.

 

[MF878]

Because if Apple doesn't defend their intellectual property, and later down the road there is a more serious misuse of it, a court would ask them why they didn't strictly defend it in the past and it becomes harder to protect.

While that is a very valid point, I can't help feeling it would be in Apple's interest to have the logo exposed, even if they charged for its use.

 

[matrix808]

Because if Apple doesn't defend their intellectual property, and later down the road there is a more serious misuse of it, a court would ask them why they didn't strictly defend it in the past and it becomes harder to protect.

as dumb as i think this is, hes right.

 

[thewitt]

Because if Apple doesn't defend their intellectual property, and later down the road there is a more serious misuse of it, a court would ask them why they didn't strictly defend it in the past and it becomes harder to protect.

This is correct. If you don't aggressively protect your IP, you lose the ability to do so.

 

[mysterydate]

While that is a very valid point, I can't help feeling it would be in Apple's interest to have the logo exposed, even if they charged for its use.

Apple is generally of the opinion that their products do not require accessories, and that they are as they should be. Caseless, skinless, unadorned.

It's a dilution of brand to have an accessory maker display an Apple logo, in spite of any $ Apple could get out of the use.

I am certain that iCarbons would be rather upset if someone came along and made stickers to go over other skins that said 'iCarbons' on them. In spite of the 'exposure', it attributes a product that is not theirs to them.

That's in addition to the fact that trademark protection demands that you aggressively defend your trademarks.

I think our cases stand on their own, and that's why you won't see a logo cutout on ours.

 

[Premium1]

It's apple what do you expect?

 

[lucasfer899]

Apple is generally of the opinion that their products do not require accessories, and that they are as they should be. Caseless, skinless, unadorned.

It's a dilution of brand to have an accessory maker display an Apple logo, in spite of any $ Apple could get out of the use.

I am certain that iCarbons would be rather upset if someone came along and made stickers to go over other skins that said 'iCarbons' on them. In spite of the 'exposure', it attributes a product that is not theirs to them.

That's in addition to the fact that trademark protection demands that you aggressively defend your trademarks.

I think our cases stand on their own, and that's why you won't see a logo cutout on ours.

What about iPhone bumper cases?
But yeah, they never really seem to like people having cases on stuff.

 

[Radiating]

Because if Apple doesn't defend their intellectual property, and later down the road there is a more serious misuse of it, a court would ask them why they didn't strictly defend it in the past and it becomes harder to protect.

Correct. In the US companies are required by law to deffend their trademarks or lose them. It's incredibly dumb which leads to a lot of absurd stuff like this.

Legally what these companies should do is tell Apple to go eat it. Functional use of trademarks is allowed, for example if your product is meant to protect aluminium and for functional reasons it avoids the Apple logo or covers just the apple logo, this is not considered a trademark and therefore not trademark infringement.

These companies are too scared to tell Apple such and so consumers are left with inferior accessories because of this dumb legal process.

Alternativly Apple should offer unlimited licencing of it's logo with sole discression for revoking that license at any time to these companies for a fee.

 

[MF878]

Correct. In the US companies are required by law to deffend their trademarks or lose them. It's incredibly dumb which leads to a lot of absurd stuff like this.

Legally what these companies should do is tell Apple to go eat it. Functional use of trademarks is allowed, for example if your product is meant to protect aluminium and for functional reasons it avoids the Apple logo or covers just the apple logo, this is not considered a trademark and therefore not trademark infringement.

These companies are too scared to tell Apple such and so consumers are left with inferior accessories because of this dumb legal process.

Alternativly Apple should offer unlimited licencing of it's logo with sole discression for revoking that license at any time to these companies for a fee.

Funny you mention offering licensing, I was just thinking that. I'm not from the US, so I didn't realise companies there have an obligation to protect their trademarks in order to keep them.

 

[MR Bulk]

Uhhh, unless Apple going to market their own skins? Haw!

Actually if someone made a case that deliberately covered up all aspects of the iPhone so you couldn't tell what kind of phone it was at all, perhaps Apple would then tell them to stop this, too?

 

[dtexan]

Wow so this sucks! Anyone know any other companies with a similar product? I really want one for my 13" retina.

 

[thehustleman]

What about iPhone bumper cases?
But yeah, they never really seem to like people having cases on stuff.

If they made the phone scratch and break proof a case wouldn't be needed, but as it stands it isn't so you'd have to be a special kinda stupid to not put it in a case.

If I could get a dollar for every time one of my customers used the dumb excuse "i don't drop my phones" for why they won't buy a case and then broke it I'd be able to retire young.

Funniest part is that these same customers feel like they should be able to get another phone "under warranty" Lol

 

[Rajani Isa]

Correct. In the US companies are required by law to deffend their trademarks or lose them. It's incredibly dumb which leads to a lot of absurd stuff like this.

Legally what these companies should do is tell Apple to go eat it. Functional use of trademarks is allowed, for example if your product is meant to protect aluminium and for functional reasons it avoids the Apple logo or covers just the apple logo, this is not considered a trademark and therefore not trademark infringement.

Part of it is also to stop people from hording trademarks - to prevent "squatting" as much as possible. At least I think that's half the reason why the trademark laws are as they are. For the most part, trademark law is okay, really, in the US. We need copyright and patents worked on more.

And I think the issue here isn't that iCarbon skins had a cut-out to reveal the already present logo, but rather had the logo on their products themselves because the cut-out was formed as the logo.

 

[papen]

the whole reason I bought icarbon because it has the cut out for iphone's logo. it's the end of icarbon for me no matter how great the material is. I don't want to spend a few cents for a cheap logo "made in china" just so I can stick it on.

 

[lucasfer899]

If they made the phone scratch and break proof a case wouldn't be needed, but as it stands it isn't so you'd have to be a special kinda stupid to not put it in a case.

If I could get a dollar for every time one of my customers used the dumb excuse "i don't drop my phones" for why they won't buy a case and then broke it I'd be able to retire young.

Funniest part is that these same customers feel like they should be able to get another phone "under warranty" Lol

They're only special when they think they can get a new phone under warranty, when they broke it! I heard a genius say to a girl in the Bluewater Apple Store before some thing like: "It's not insurance love, it's warranty. Get your head around it, you're going to have to pay for the replacement."

Also, HEY! I don't use cases on any of my devices, and have not broken any since I bought my first gen iPhone! Well, the only reason my iPhone 4 got broken lately was a friend took it and started running off with it to be funny, she then trips, and grazes her head, arms, and hands, so worth the moment.

But yeah, the stupidity of some people and what they expect from a warranty.

 

[theautopilot]

Apple is generally of the opinion that their products do not require accessories, and that they are as they should be. Caseless, skinless, unadorned.

Unless its an Apple bumper or Smart Cover.

But then to be fair everyone, apart from the most naive Apple fanboy, knows that they had to release the bumper due to the Antenna design flaw in the 4.

 

[thehustleman]

Unless its an Apple bumper or Smart Cover.

But then to be fair everyone, apart from the most naive Apple fanboy, knows that they had to release the bumper due to the Antenna design flaw in the 4.

And they still wouldn't simply apologize for the issue even though it was a blatant screwup.

Jobs should have said we made a mistake and we're going to fix it, period.

Instead he said you're holding it wrong!


Apple never apologizes for their shortcomings until apple maps and the klusterkuf that it was but the apple fanboys will still say it's a great product despite the fact that it doesn't work and even the company apologized for how bad it was.

It has a lot of potential and now a lot of people are weary of relying on it because apple released a beta product

 

[NM08SRT8]

What about iPhone bumper cases?
But yeah, they never really seem to like people having cases on stuff.

iPhone bumper cases were for the antenna issue in the 4, and some reports in the 4s... " "

 

[Radiating]

Part of it is also to stop people from hording trademarks - to prevent "squatting" as much as possible. At least I think that's half the reason why the trademark laws are as they are. For the most part, trademark law is okay, really, in the US. We need copyright and patents worked on more.

And I think the issue here isn't that iCarbon skins had a cut-out to reveal the already present logo, but rather had the logo on their products themselves because the cut-out was formed as the logo.

Good point about ttademark squarting. Yes but iCarbons is NOT using the cutout as a trademark. There is no confusion as to who makes the product. The purpose of the cutout functional NOT as a trademark. This is part of trademark law to prevent people from trademarking wheels is to allow the light from the logo to shine through. It has no non-functional purpose whatsoever and it has no trademark purpose which could cause confusion.

 

[lucasfer899]

iPhone bumper cases were for the antenna issue in the 4, and some reports in the 4s... " "

The iPhone 4 had too many issues, the antenna, the camera, the home button, along with all the people complaining that the back was glass, I say "If you don't like it, don't buy it"

But yes, oh the antennagate, I loved that one.

 

[vastoholic]

Apple never apologizes for their shortcomings until apple maps and the klusterkuf that it was but the apple fanboys will still say it's a great product despite the fact that it doesn't work and even the company apologized for how bad it was.

Because not everyone was affected by the shortcomings of apple maps. I have yet to experience a problem with it like the ones that have been documented elsewhere. So to me, personally, it's been great. Obviously that is not the case for everyone. But don't call us fanboys because the products work for us and we like it. You could say that if we realized it was broken, witnessed it firsthand, and yet continued using it and singing it's praises.

 

[Rajani Isa]

Good point about ttademark squarting. Yes but iCarbons is NOT using the cutout as a trademark. There is no confusion as to who makes the product. The purpose of the cutout functional NOT as a trademark. This is part of trademark law to prevent people from trademarking wheels is to allow the light from the logo to shine through. It has no non-functional purpose whatsoever and it has no trademark purpose which could cause confusion.

THe purpose of the cutout may be not to function as a trademark, but the simple fact is it is in the shape of the trademark - thus the letter.

If they'd used a simple circle or square, apple would not of said anything.

 

[Radiating]

Doesn't matter. Their product's purpose is to protect the aluminium without blocking the useful Apple light in the rear. This can be done bedt in no other way than by shaping their product to match the Apple logo.

This is the equivalent of trademarking a circle and suing people for making wheels which the law explicitly forbids. It is functionally necessary for their product to be shaped the way it is.

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

it's more likely Apple doesn't want customers to think that it endorses or supports this product/company. If it's an inferior product, it would taint/diminish Apple's reputation.