Italian Clothing Company Wins the Right to Use Steve Jobs' Name

[Tendoboy]

Don’t usually post comments, but this one is simple....don’t buy a damn thing from these hacks.....

 

[PaloAltoMark]

Strange, USPTO says the Steve Jobs trademark has been abandoned: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:hxlxjr.2.2

Apple can renew it and apply for priority exclusivity across the world that is a signatory to the trademark/patent/copyright laws. (There are mitigations in the laws that allows companies to override existing trademarks if their market share is large enough that the entire world know it belongs to them, it's how Apple won certain iPad trademarks in South America IIRC despite existing there before Apple had iPad trademarks).

A trademark also protects consumers by providing them with the assurance that the goods they are buying are of the quality level they expect based on the reputation of the trademark. In the US, when a company applies for a trademark they need to also tell the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) the class of product the trademark applies to. For example, Apple the company Steve Jobs founded, has rights to use the name "Apple" on many individual classes of items such as computers, phones, home electronics devices etc. All of which they have filed a trademark application for. But Apple the computer company doesn't automatically have the rights to the trademark as it applies to items such as "pick axes, shovels, rakes, and trowels etc." unless the company applies for a trademark for those goods and demonstrates that it is using the trademark to sell those items. In fact, there is another company out there that uses the trademark "Apple" to sell garden tools and many other companies use Apple to sell other classes of goods, educational services, to name just one. There's no doubt in my mind that these guys are attempting to capitalize on Steve Jobs reputation, but I think they are legally entitled to use "Steve Jobs" to sell clothing if the trademark hasn't been already used on that class of goods. That said, having the Steve Jobs trademark on clothes in Italy is no guarantee they will be commercially successful. As other posters have pointed out, the clothing is pretty tasteless and Steve Jobs was not exactly an icon of fashion. No one is fooled by these two Italian guys. I'm sure they will get what they deserve in the end.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Yeah but that's exactly my point - it's easy to have abstract ideas; just read a SciFi book. It's a lot harder to work out the non-obvious details of how this device should look and feel and how it should operate and be operated. There's nothing obvious about the click-wheel, for instance, but it was such a cool, analogue interface paradigm. I think it was extremely original, and it fit the iPod so perfectly; I'm convinced that it's a big reason it was so successful.

It was... Simple. The UI didn't get in the way of itself. Steve Jobs was notoriously hard to work with, but the idea of a person in management effectively FORCING you to think differently about a product is very different than the way most corporations worked.

Case in point: Sony. Sony, with their venerable Walkman brand, could have OWNED THE MP3 MARKET! They could have literally dictated the direction of that nascent market. What killed them? What hobbled every product they made? 'Marketing decisions'. They were trying to save their CD and music businesses and made the product a hot mess of DRM, and cumbersome UI and a bitch to sync. Bad decisions.

I'm not saying Jobs was personally responsible for every great decision, but he was clearly very opinionated and involved (see: folklore.org), and clearly didn't just dismiss ideas that were radically different because the "market wouldn't accept it" or other business-people BS. It takes balls to release something like the iPod when all your competitors looked and worked so differently. They basically bet-the-company on the iPhone. It could have flopped; maybe people wouldn't pay that much for a phone, or they wouldn't get used to the on-screen keyboards or something.

And how many insanely great ideas are killed by corporations because it might cannibalize one of their other, viewed by management 'sacred', markets? Many say that the iPhone killed the iPod. True, to a point. I don't think that Apple should EVER kill the iPod Touch, but for a lot of people, yes, the iPhone killed their iPod desires. I personally have quite a few iPods, and when doing any long distance traveling, ALWAYS take my iPod just for the reason that I can 'kill' my iPod listening to music, playing games, and reading, and save my iPhone battery so that it's still workable for a fun filled day when I get where I need to be. Landing in a foreign country with a dead iPhone isn't a great idea.

You need to really understand the product and the customers in order to have the conviction to do those things. Most companies are run by networkers; smiley-faced idiots who look the part and can chit-chat with investors. They are basically sales/marketing people. They will never have the conviction to make such bold and original products.

You have to have a butt load of cash too. Cash is what Steve Jobs gifted Apple with. He 'bet the farm' on the iPod, and coupled with the ending of many products that didn't have a future, he helped rebuild Apple's cash stores. Apple could have survived the failing of the iPad longer than Microsoft hobbled with the Zune. (Which points out a flaw in the marketing of the Zune. Release a product no one is sure will last in 'brown'? The turd jokes just wrote themselves, didn't they) Being a 'marketing guy' was the brush people wanting Apple to die painted Tim Cook with. Who knows what would have happened if Jobs would have beaten his cancer. Maybe they made a good team. Maybe Apple needed a more geeky ****** to take over to try to replace Steve Jobs. *shrug*

Steve Jobs had some words on this as well. If your company doesn't have the conviction to do new things with their products, they can only get better by improved sales/marketing, so that's who ends up running the company. Look at Microsoft - when Bill Gates retired, who took over? Steve Ballmer, the sales guy. Sales tripled, profits doubled, but they totally missed the revolution in cloud computing, ceding that space to the likes of Google and Amazon. They actually managed to fix it, which they don't get enough credit for, by replacing Ballmer with Satya Nadella, the former head of the cloud computing group. These days they are much more respected than they were under Ballmer, and much better-positioned for the future.

Marketing decisions have killed many ideas, and marketing has killed many a company. However, one could also say that marketing, or the intrinsic 'usability' and 'look and feel' of a product was integrated at the highest level at Apple. If anything Jobs had a keen eye for 'simple things', and knew that 'simple things', or the ability to make complex devices seem simple would sell a lot of stuff. Another way of looking at his comments are that if you aren't able to defend your product, and don't think that it's the best 'x' in that market, you aren't going to succeed. But on the flip side, if you don't have a product that you believe in, and was designed 'for the people', and not to protect precious corporate turf, you will fail too.

The click wheel. Some could say 'genius', but what other way was there to do that at the time? Many players had buttons to scroll through tracks, or roller discs. Placing the surface perpendicular to the user was a different way to view the selection process. Showing icons, and allowing people to move them, and organize them on separate screen in the beginning was a different way to view the function.

But, Sony dropped the ball, and all of the other companies too. They let inside forces control their design, and those inside forces really weren't vary good at design and how things COULD work.

Good post. Great comments...

 

[ke-iron]

This is blatant fraud!
1. They use the one name when heard you automatically attribute “Apple” to it.
2. They make part of the logo as an apple and piece missing from it like Apple logo.
3 To top it off they plan on selling electronics.

How is this not fraud? They are blatantly riding off Apple and Steve Jobs success and influence in the market.

 

[MachineShedFred]

anyone got the website for Italian's Steve Jobs? might as well order some turtleneck and a pair of jeans now. if lucky, I might order new balance with it

New Balance, or New Barlun?

I was in Guangzhou, China not too long ago and saw a whole store for this "brand" in a huge outdoor mall there...

 

[umbilical]

nice! now they needs hire apple designers, that logo is ****ing horrible!

 

[Raist3001]

Being the person that tells everyone they're being armchair lawyers while disregarding the blatancy of the situation is just wonderful. Keep it up.

I havn’t told anyone they are armchair lawyers. I commented on the humorous situation that always arises in legality issues such as this. I also have not commented on the situation, so to say I am ignoring is just simply your mistake in your interpretation and quick defense of apple.

 

[pppx3]

Finding loopholes to steal brands is not "market research"

That's what companies like Microsoft and Samsung do...

 

[weckart]

Eh, I usually side with the little guys in a dispute against a giant like Apple, but I think in this case, this is a clear and cut ripoff of the customer, who will unmistakably associate this brand with Apple itself. If they need the "Steve Jobs" name and the clear ripoff of an Apple logo to sell their merchandise, it must not be all that great.

I doubt that Generation Facebook knows, much less cares, who Steve Jobs was.

 

[lederermc]

Why do they sell anything more that just black turtle necks?

 

[UL2RA]

I havn’t told anyone they are armchair lawyers. I commented on the humorous situation that always arises in legality issues such as this. I also have not commented on the situation, so to say I am ignoring is just simply your mistake in your interpretation and quick defense of apple.

Quick defense of Apple? Yes, in this blatantly obvious case of ripping off another company ... one should definitely be defending Apple. Not only did a couple of d-bags steal the logo of the company (and made it some kind of ugly mutation) they also stole the name of the deceased founder of Apple for personal gain. Not only is this completely disrespectful, it's utterly disgusting and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Lioness~]

I assume those punks have products...
 gotta find away to close down their iCloud accounts
I also really hope that Laurene have a possibility to sue them too.
And/or  takes it further into higher instance.
I don't think this story is totally closed, yet.

 

[unknownart]

Laurene should sue them, there are probably a number of ways she could get them to stop on perpetual legal claims they could not afford

Not only that, but it infringes on the person's individual "Brand".. His name. According to copyright laws, his "copyright" will exist for 100 years after the original copyright holder's death. And I suppose (although I am not in any way a lawyer) I can guess that a savvy lawyer can finagle his way in that vein to trademarks. Trademarks, being different from copyrights. I don't even think you can trademark a person's name...

Hey... anyone buying a trademark on a couple Italian fellows? I hear "Vincenzo and Giacomo Barbato" may be available.....

Also, I understand that Steve Jobs has his name on over 300 Trademarks and Patents... which "Steve Jobs" is contained in the patents/Copyrights/ and Trademarks registration, thus making "Steve Jobs" a trademarked name already!

 

[batchtaster]

You can't buy taste. Exhibit A.

 

[Winni]

I cannot believe that a real trial went in favor to this two scums.

Please! This is a shame!

So could you just trademark “jony ive” and make “aIfones” or “ipudz?

Yes that’s it

As a matter of fact, this is how the law works.

For example, there were two artists called "Peter Alexander" in Germany - and in both cases it was their real name. One was famous, the other not. The famous one had trademarked his name and could effectively forbid the non-famous guy to use his own real name for his appearances.

Did you know that big pharma corporations actually tried to PATENT natural diseases and illnesses? Michael Crichton wrote about this in one of his novels. That's even more absurd, but technically doable under current laws.

 

[SaucyWeeTart]

What a couple of t*ts.

 

[UL2RA]

As a matter of fact, this is how the law works.

For example, there were two artists called "Peter Alexander" in Germany - and in both cases it was their real name. One was famous, the other not. The famous one had trademarked his name and could effectively forbid the non-famous guy to use his own real name for his appearances.

Did you know that big pharma corporations actually tried to PATENT natural diseases and illnesses? Michael Crichton wrote about this in one of his novels. That's even more absurd, but technically doable under current laws.

Except in this case neither of them are named Steve Jobs and the logo is clearly a modified version of Apple's.

 

[5105973]

Oh boo hoo. Apple wants to patent and trademark everything but when someone beats them to the punch to something they didn’t think, they kick and scream.

No, they did not kick and scream. They took it to court like they’re supposed to. We on this forum are the ones having an emotional reaction to the story. Which is fine.
[doublepost=1514838891][/doublepost]

I wonder what Nikolai Tesla would think of Elon Musk taking his name...

Oh, let’s be glad Elon Musk did name the company and his cars after himself. “Musk” is not a pleasant name for a car, with the association to strong fragrances at best and ferrets and skunks at worst.

 

[Raist3001]

They took it to court like they’re supposed to. We on this forum are the ones having an emotional reaction to the story. Which is fine.

I was trying to make this point as well. We can all share our opinions in this matter but the judge has ruled.
According to the article, “TheIntellectual Property Office decided that the "J" logo that appears bitten was not infringing on Apple's own designs as a letter is not edible and thus the cutout in the letter cannot be perceived as a bite.”
They have a point. It’s obvious what inspired the logo, but was not similiar enough for IPO to see it as blatant rip off of apples logo.

 

[chatin]

Don’t usually post comments, but this one is simple....don’t buy a damn thing from these hacks.....

The logo says it all about how terrible this went for Apple. Now we may know why Apple's top lawyer left recently.

 

[wcroadie]

Eh, I usually side with the little guys in a dispute against a giant like Apple, but I think in this case, this is a clear and cut ripoff of the customer, who will unmistakably associate this brand with Apple itself. If they need the "Steve Jobs" name and the clear ripoff of an Apple logo to sell their merchandise, it must not be all that great.

I agree with you about usually siding with the little guy, but I don't think many people will believe this garbage is related to apple. It's also kinda pathetic...

 

[jquest68]

Sorry but this is so stupid of them to even use Steve Jobs name. WHY?!?! none of their names are Steve or Jobs and then to use somewhat an Apple logo with the "J" is so cheezy. You're Italian! use an Italian name to sell CLOTHES! idiots. Horrible looking logo. I guess if you want attention this would be the way. It doesn't make sense though if you think about it, why use an Electronic inventor's name for a clothing line? Oh well.

 

[rubecube]

I am Italian and I'm ashamed of these two talentless di**heads.

 

[tomwvr]

I cannot believe that a real trial went in favor to this two scums.

Please! This is a shame!

So could you just trademark “jony ive” and make “aIfones” or “ipudz?

Yes that’s it

Its because its Europe and the legal system there hate all things that American companies do and make sure they always loose in court.

 

[AFDoc]

Love to see all those crying in this thread.... Jobs is dead, the logo looks nothing like the apple logo, the butthurt is real with many here on MR. As Cartman said... your tears taste so good.... mmmmm..... LoL.

Many companies including apple rip off things.... about time they get as much as they give lol.