Not Even Polish Sausage Is Safe From Apple’s Ego

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by BB.King, Sep 22, 2012.

  1. BB.King macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Location:
    London UK
    #1
    Check out the orginal post form PCMAG.com, the tilte come from Cult of Android.

    I have not been this speechless since Apple sued New York over the Big Apple logo.

    Glad to see some of my hard earned money given to Apple is spent on this kind of nonsense.

    PCMAG.com

    Cult_Of_Android
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    Companies who copy Apple deserve all the punishment they can get. It's called innovation, people! Apple isn't the R&D house of the entire industry. Make your own stuff!

    Yeah. I'm trolling. Mainly because Apple isn't the only company out there getting into baseless trademark disputes over absolutely nothing. I think these types of cases are like a right of passage for litigation lawyers.

    Is it dumb? Yes. A complete waste of time? Most definitely. Is Apple the only one sinking this low? Nope. They're just the most recent in a long line of idiocy.
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    Another new low.


    And apparently, Apple thinks its customers aren't smart enough to tell the difference between their site, and this Polish one.
     
  4. roadbloc macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Heard about this before. This sort of behavior from Apple is totally unnecessary. I know the difference between Apple and A.PL. I also know the difference between polish groceries and iPhones.

    I hope Apple gets really stung by a lawsuit someday.
     
  5. snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #5
    Apple doesn't have a choice. If they are aware of someone who is 'allegedly' (remember the court has not yet ruled) using their trademark, then Apple - by the rules of trademark - has to defend the trademark, or lose the trademark. If they knowingly allow any company to infringe on the trademark, then they have to allow every company to use their trademark. For anything.

    Once upon a time Apple Records (remember them? The Beatles record label?) fought a battle with Apple Computer over their trademarked apple. They finally agreed to a settlement whereby Apple Computer stayed out of the music business. At the time, music and computers seemed to be two entirely different business areas - but Apple Records demanded that the agreement be signed... just in case. And sure enough, Apple Computers had to pay again when - lo and behold - Apple Computers got into the music business.

    In a best case scenario the Polish Deli wins its case. Apple can show it is defending its trademark, and the deli can use its name. I would guess that Apple is not throwing the entire weight of its legal clout at this ... but will merely mount a competent defense.
     
  6. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #6
    Totally agree ^^^

    This "we need to protect ourselves" has now (or possibly a long time ago) reached the point of absurdity!
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Jb07 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas
  8. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #8

    And what part of Apple Corp's trademark did a.pl actually break, or even potentially break??

    It's absurd, and if you actually believe that Apple would somehow lose it's trademark because one time, Apple decided not to "defend themselves" (actually, it's more like "harrasss") an online Polish grocery store named a.pl, where .pl is the country's website suffix, and where both the company name and logo cannot possibly be confused with Apple's logo or name, then you have drank too much of Apple's kool-aid.

    If we look at your Apple Music example, Apple would only be inconvenienced if they suddenly decided to start selling sausages, muesli, or milk, shampoo, etc.
     
  9. snberk103, Sep 22, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2012

    snberk103 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    An Island in the Salish Sea
    #9
    That is up to a Polish court to settle. I doubt that Apple will push this one, if it goes against them.
    Yeah, actually - that's how you lose your trademark. The next company uses A.PL in a slightly different way, and uses the precedent of A.pl. And when Apple takes them to court the defense is that infringer's trademark is very similar to one that Apple did not defend, and therefore should be allowed. And many courts would allow it because Apple has, by not acting, signalled that they didn't think A.pl was not like their trademark. So, then A.PL Then A.PPL, etc etc

    -----

    If you want to blame someone, blame the law. It's the law that forced Disney to sue daycare centres to take Mickey Mouse off the walls, because if they allowed that unpaid use they lost their rights... and if they collected only a nominal fee from the daycare centres then they couldn't negotiate higher fees from other commercial ventures.

    Or the law that forced the International Olympic Committee to either sue a restaurant in Vancouver that had been called the Olympia for at least 30 years when the last winter olympics were held in that city. Strangely enough, the Olympia restaurant is a Greek restaurant, owned by a very nice Greek fellow. It also used to be our local beer and pizza joint. Also was the favourite local beer and pizza joint of some high-powered lawyers, who in this case made the IOC back down. The restaurant's pro bono team explained, however, that they didn't blame the IOC. If the IOC was going to collect its fees from the Olympic sponsors, it had no choice but to try and enforce their trademark without exception. The restaurant's team actually got a blanket clause written into the IOC trademark contract that any entity in a host city that was using an Olympic trademark prior to that city even starting to talk about hosting would be grandfathered in its use of the trademark.
     

Share This Page