Apple Wins EU Challenge Over Keyboard Maker's Citrus Logo

[BGPL]

Apple is a bully, plain and simple.

 

[cnnyy20p]

Apple, this lawsuit is an insult to human’s intelligence.

 

[Pezimak]

I 100% agree with the EU and not in the slightest with Apple... this is NOT protecting your IP at all, this is over reaching pedantic bullying and nothing else. I look forward to Apple suing Ford or Coca Cola because their brand logos look too much like Apples......

 

[maxoakland]

That’s ridiculous. Apple doesn’t own the concept of fruit

 

[Richard8655]

Here come all of the people that don't know anything about trademark law to tell us how mean Apple is being.

To spell it out in basic terms, trademark laws (in the United States, in particular) dictate that you must attempt to protect your trademarks or lose the right to them. So, even if Apple doesn't care, they are compelled to file and litigate. Disney and others are often criticized in the same way, despite the fact that they are doing what the laws require.

My guess is that in more cases than not, they are simply doing what they have to do to maintain their trademarks. In other cases, they are offended and would litigate anyway.

Protect from what? The logos barely look similar. So any logo with fruit is subject to a lawsuit? This country is already litigation happy with lawyers profiteering the most.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I see what the Chinese keyboard maker did wrong.

They had a "logo", which Apple also has.

 

[surferfb]

Apple, this lawsuit is an insult to human’s intelligence.

Apparently not, since they won it.

 

[adib]

Likely one of the KPIs in Apple Legal is "the number of lawsuits filed per year."

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

Apple being Apple. What an 🍆 move.

 

[svish]

Think the logos are very different. Not surprising to see Apple claiming the logo to be similar especially when Apple was against the pear shaped logo of Prepear in the past. Don't think consumers will be confused with the logos.

 

[xDKP]

To people suggesting "consumers are not going to be confused here" I think it's a bit less simple. Apple usually plays with the original logo for different events etc. and the one shown here could easily have been one of them

 

[flottenheimer]

I do not think this is fair, actually.

These logos do not resemble each other in a way that anyone could mistake one for the other. There are other, way more similar, well known logos out there. This is Apple getting a special treatment, imho.

 

[Killa78]

Here come all of the people that don't know anything about trademark law to tell us how mean Apple is being.

To spell it out in basic terms, trademark laws (in the United States, in particular) dictate that you must attempt to protect your trademarks or lose the right to them. So, even if Apple doesn't care, they are compelled to file and litigate. Disney and others are often criticized in the same way, despite the fact that they are doing what the laws require.

My guess is that in more cases than not, they are simply doing what they have to do to maintain their trademarks. In other cases, they are offended and would litigate anyway.

Whatever happened to commonsense? It's obvious that the 2 images are in no way similar. Yeah, I know...but the law...Well maybe it's time the law was changed.

 

[Killa78]

To people suggesting "consumers are not going to be confused here" I think it's a bit less simple. Apple usually plays with the original logo for different events etc. and the one shown here could easily have been one of themView attachment 2628079

If consumers can't see that the logo's are 2 different companies, then that's a sad indictment of the education system and genetics.

 

[JohannesO]

Here come all of the people that don't know anything about trademark law to tell us how mean Apple is being.

To spell it out in basic terms, trademark laws (in the United States, in particular) dictate that you must attempt to protect your trademarks or lose the right to them. So, even if Apple doesn't care, they are compelled to file and litigate. Disney and others are often criticized in the same way, despite the fact that they are doing what the laws require.

My guess is that in more cases than not, they are simply doing what they have to do to maintain their trademarks. In other cases, they are offended and would litigate anyway.

So if similarity is not necessary to sue, why don't they sue Android, Pepsi, or MacRumors?

 

[Paul1964]

can any one remind me what happened exactly when microsoft copied Apple's windows GUI?

You mean the one that Apple copied from Xerox?

 

[oldwatery]

Here come all of the people that don't know anything about trademark law to tell us how mean Apple is being.

To spell it out in basic terms, trademark laws (in the United States, in particular) dictate that you must attempt to protect your trademarks or lose the right to them. So, even if Apple doesn't care, they are compelled to file and litigate. Disney and others are often criticized in the same way, despite the fact that they are doing what the laws require.

My guess is that in more cases than not, they are simply doing what they have to do to maintain their trademarks. In other cases, they are offended and would litigate anyway.

Here comes the Apple loving know it all to explain to the rest of us idiots how this works in a different continent to the one this actually happened in. And it is his guess…not a known fact. Interesting put down mate 🤔

 

[theluggage]

Not only did they have similarites to Apple by naming their company after a fruit, but their second logo also had a green detached leaf.

OK, so the first logo is a fairly lifelike apricot with two attached and, again, fairly lifelike leaves. No bite.

Apple's logo is a heavily stylised apple, with a bite taken out and an equally stylised, detached, lenticular leaf. (I think that, at the time, it was rendered in rainbow stripes, too).

The only real similarity is that they are both a representation of a fruit. If Apricot had included a bite, they might have been on a sticky wicket.

The second Apricot logo does have a detached leaf - but a clearly different shape to Apple's and this time there is no fruit. Not that Apple can throw any bricks in that particular greenhouse... 🙂

Apple argued that the logo resembled an apple with a detached leaf and a bite [my emphasis]

Well, yes, Apple blew that one because it's not an apple and the leaf isn't detached. So that bit got thrown out.

The bite is clearly there, though, and the leaf is very similar to the apple logo. If this logo wasn't produced by taking the Apple logo as a basis and changing details until they thought they could get away with it then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

The real villain of the piece here is trademark law which forces companies with valuable trademarks to take a zero-tolerance to enforcement or risk a slippery slope towards losing the trademark.

 

[theluggage]

can any one remind me what happened exactly when microsoft copied Apple's windows GUI?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp.

Basically, Apple lost.

It was about copyright and not trademarks - so, different law - and also Apple were relying on trying to claim copyright on the "look and feel" of a user interface, which was a stretch. The particular focus was on the idea of "overlapping windows" in Windows 2.0. Microsoft had licensed some designs from Apple for Windows 1.0 - but that used tiled windows and really wasn't very Mac/Lisa-like.

Apple did win a similar lawsuit against Digital Research for GEM, which forced changes in the PC version of GEM. However, the original GEM was a far more blatent Mac look-alike than Windows 2.0. Especially on a high-res monochrome Atari ST (a.k.a. Jackintosh) which had a similar display to the Mac.

Today, corporations know to cover their stuff with software patents (where recognised), design patents/registered designs and trademarks - which all have different legal standards.

Of course, all of these legal principles are subject to "how much justice can you afford".

You mean the one that Apple copied from Xerox?

Not sure what Xerox was expecting when they demoed their system to Jobs & co. in return for a pile of Apple share options...

They did actually try to sue Apple, but that was probably in response to Apple suing Microsoft - if the court had upheld Apple's "look and feel" theory, they wanted in. Effectively, they were going after Microsoft by proxy.

 

[Mousse]

This is Apple getting a special treatment, imho.

Well, yes. The EU regulators admits it too.

Even though the EUIPO did not feel that the citrus fruit logo looked like an apple, it largely decided in Apple's favor because of the strength of Apple's reputation in the EU and the potential for customers to "establish a mental 'link' between the signs."

Apple has street creds, some little known Chinese tech company doesn't.😏

 

[Paul1964]

Well, yes. The EU regulators admits it too.

Apple has street creds, some little known Chinese tech company doesn't.😏

Even so - do they think we are idiots and can't tell the difference between an apple and a cirtrus fruit.