So it turns out that apple wood is quite nice:With all the wooden Watch charging stands being shown on the accessories threads I've not seen one made out of apple wood. Strange huh?
I would have thought that someone would have had this obvious idea.
Nope, not unless they put Apple™ or Apple® in the name (implying registered trademark and license fees being paid for said trademark, then they'd be ok doing so without paying licensing. Apple Computer does not OWN the word "Apple". Even then, I think you could - as long as you're not using the Apple logo in your marketing or packaging. (doing so does require royalty fees).I suspect the main reason wooden stand manufacturers haven't gone there is to avoid getting into bother with Apple over branding.
eg "Apple wood stand" would almost certainly be viewed by Apple as passing off, legally speaking.
You are mistaken. Apple pretty much does own the word Apple in conjunction with anything directly or closely associated with ANY of their products.Nope, not unless they put Apple™ or Apple® in the name (implying registered trademark and license fees being paid for said trademark, then they'd be ok doing so without paying licensing. Apple Computer does not OWN the word "Apple".
Even the link you provided states that Apple Wood is rarely available in lumber form and only in small sizes. It would be considerably more expensive than other, more durable woods.
Context is everything (ie product name vs description). If the name of something creates realistic scope for consumers to mistakenly assume that it is made by Apple when it actually isn't, then there is an obvious case for arguing trademark infringement. And let's be honest, some people are very easily confused. Trademarks exist to protect brands from this.You could say "An apple wood stand for Apple Watch™" and it should be fine.
You can't use their logos or trademarks without permission/licensing, but they couldn't do anything for making an accessory out of apple wood and stating such. In this context, it isn't their trademark, but referencing their watch is.
Apple wood is going to be more expensive than others....why pay a premium for something that people may not believe is worth a premium?
I'm afraid you're still mistaken there.heh. Context IS everything, that's why not having the TM next to the apple when discussing the wood (as Apple isn't licensing the material) would be key.
I'm not arguing they wouldn't be willing to pay a premium for a product. I'm arguing the number willing to pay a premium for apple wood vs oak is likely pretty small. (if stand A vs stand B are identical, except stand B is 30% more....) - as an example.
And I've spend hundreds (maybe more? ) of hours in meetings with patent and trademark lawyers...Trust me, I'm a registered trademark holder.
You've unfortunately come away from those meetings with a fundamental misunderstanding.And I've spend hundreds (maybe more? ) of hours in meetings with patent and trademark lawyers...
Likely easiest would just be to merge and call it an "Applewood" stand to avoid any potential for confusion, though I still wouldn't see Apple as having a case otherwise. (and, as they're not in the stand business, I really doubt their Legal department would consider it worth their while).
Tell you what - prove me wrong:No, I haven't, but I'm also not wasting any more effort arguing with you.