12 ms·

Apple takes Prepear logo trademark fight to Canada

187 points by eecc 6y ago

Apocryphon 6y ago
In terms of PR, Apple is turning into Disney: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-murals/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-murals/ Whether or not this is justified under trademark protection, it's hard for the layman to not see this as a disproportionate response from a corporate Goliath against the little guy.
- Zenst 6y ago
  > In terms of PR, Apple is turning into Disney Interesting and thinking about it, Disney as a company seem to have more in common with Apple as a company consumer interaction/perception than other tech firms compared to Apple. Actually the whole comparing Disney to Apple is very insightful, certainly helps get a better perspective upon things.
  - Ozzie_osman 6y ago
    This is really interesting given the history (Steve was Disney's biggest shareholder as a result of the Pixar acquisition).
coeneedell 6y ago
I have a real problem with this statement from prepear: "As is the case in all bullying, silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support." This is deeply untrue, and problematic. In situations of bullying, people who remain silent may be afraid, may be disenfranchised in some other way to make them powerless, or may simply feel powerless. I've been seeing arguments like this crop up in other contexts as well, from social issues to personal disputes and it's more than just wrong, it can also be tactically unsound, and can lead to worse social outcomes. In terms of tactics: the organizer who uses this tactic is trying to accomplish two things, they're trying to rile up their supporters and they're trying to recruit new supporters. This tactic is extremely successful in the former, by artificially generating a new out-group to unite against: the innocent bystander. The tactic of attacking bystanders is however abysmal at recruiting new supporters, no matter one's beliefs, they're less likely to side with the person pointing the finger at them. Use of this tactic has bad social outcomes for the very same reason. Getting pepople riled up makes them less likely to make logical decisions, it makes them more likely to turn to violence, it makes them more likely to entrench their views and polarize. Given all this, why do people use this tactic when they're trying to rally people? Why would you spend energy attacking people with no power to help? Unfortunately there's a perverse incentive to do so. When your supporters are fervent, they support you more wholeheartedly, increasing their financial contribution as well as contributing to your power. For the supporter, it feels like you're helping when you attack people, period, whether they're actually your opponent or not, and the innocent bystander is both powerless to stop your attack and is less likely to fight back. Taking out your frustrations on the powerless feels a lot like bullying to me, and maybe you'd get better results if you addressed people who actually have the power to help.
- xenihn 6y ago
  >This is deeply untrue, and problematic. Is it? Not opposing abuse means you are enabling it. Enabling abuse means you are supporting it.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > This is deeply untrue, and problematic. In situations of bullying, people who remain silent may be afraid, may be disenfranchised in some other way to make them powerless, or may simply feel powerless. Or alternatively might feel they don't have enough information. The justice system is designed to make a best-possible effort at reaching the truth. The process can take months to years in some cases and requires the attention of some very clever people. Bystanders don't have time for that. They can take a position on what would and wouldn't be acceptable hypothetically. But mobs of bystanders have a terrible track record at assessing what happened from a neutral fact-based perspective to work out if the hypothetical applies to a specific situation.
- kodablah 6y ago
  This assumes the uncharitable interpretation of "silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support" really means "[people who maintain] silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support [by those people intentionally and inexcusably]". I choose to read it as "inaction is the same as a supporting action" which in this case may be true and is a statement about the effect of inaction rather than a judgement on the persons or whether their inaction is excusable.
  - coeneedell 6y ago
    Even under that reading, you're making the claim that someone is somehow a cause of the harm by being a bystander. What I fail to understand is why someone would try to shift the blame from the perpetrator to a bystander. The only reason I can think of is that the bystander is an easy target. On the more metaphysical side, how can inaction be the same as a supporting action? Are you really trying to say that being a bystander is just as bad as being the bully's sidekick? Imagine this schoolyard bully scenario where a child is threatened and extorted by a bully. During the incident, the bully is actively supported by a friend, cheering them on, and perhaps even restraining the victim. There are three bystanders just watching in shock at the situation, but do not have the courage to act. After the incident, the victim decides to take this route, and begins to lash out and claim that by doing nothing, the bystanders are just as responsible as the kid who was holding him down. Does this accusation really make sense? Does this accusation help the victim resolve the situation? Does this accusation make the bystanders want to help the victim?
ghevshoo 6y ago
> "This is not just Apple's lawyers being lawyers, it appears that the organization at Apple stands behind its lawyers," I wonder how much truth there is to this conjecture. It’s seems to me that Apple stand to lose much more than they have to gain by pursuing Prepare like this. The Apple logo is one of the most iconic in the world. It’s hard to confused it with another piece of fruit. If Prepear was a computer company then it would be easier to see and to sympathize with Apple’s objection, but every way you look at it this seems a PR disaster of Apple’s own creation.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  And there's plenty of examples of computer-related companies and organizations with Pear and fruit-related names, what about [PearPC](http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/ http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/)? Their SourceForge website and GitHub page are up. And this company is selling Apple logo parody MacBook stickers on Amazon - how is this also not infringing on their trademarks if we use the same standard? https://www.amazon.com/Sockeroos-Sticker-Partial-Macbook-Unibody/dp/B0151DQLTE https://www.amazon.com/Sockeroos-Sticker-Partial-Macbook-Uni... - Colour Banana too (Banans are fruit!): https://colourbanana.com/ https://colourbanana.com/ It's too easy to find these just by googling right now - I want to know what Prepear did that attracted Apple's lawyer's attention...
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Parody is protected under fair use. Though those stickers don't seem very parodic.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      Nitpick: Fair-use is a defense for claims of copyright infringement, not trademark use violations; but trademark law does have built-in exemptions for parody though ( https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-under-the-trademark-laws https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-unde... ) so your point still stands. However I would argue those stickers were parody.
matsemann 6y ago
In discussions about this I've seen multiple people tout "they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it". But no, that's not how it works. Defending it means you make sure your tm is not watered out or becoming a generic term. This is far from doing that.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Exactly, it would be absurd if you could lose a trade mark because you don't sue a company which has a very different trade make which barely shoes any resemblance with a clear different context around it. Only if your trade mark (or something extremely similar) becomes a generic trade mark would you lose it. But in this case not only is the trademark not extremely similar there is also no chance that it becomes generic at all.
pg_1234 6y ago
The nuclear option that could be implemented by a grassroots movement is an organized campaign to use Apple's trademarks in such a way that they become genericised. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark Even the smallest amount of headway in this direction represents such a threat to Apple that despite it's might, it would have to back down.
- schwartzworld 6y ago
  What is that? like we all agree to just start calling all computers "MacBooks"?
  - zeckalpha 6y ago
    All tablets iPads might be easier
  - dmurray 6y ago
    At one point people were calling all tablets iPads - that's probably the one that had the biggest risk of genericization.
    - paranoidrobot 6y ago
      To a lot of people, there IS no difference between an iPad and a tablet. To a lesser degree, there's the same confusion about iPhones being a generic term for any smartphone.
    - hoppla 6y ago
      Airport security do this - say iPad when they mean tablets. They also get upset when I leave my kindle in the backpack
      - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
        And I have gotten scolded for pulling my kindle out to be scanned. You can't win with security people at the airport.
type0 6y ago
Apple seems to think that it owns trademark on all minimal fruit emblems with leaf to the side. Maybe they should also try to sue Whole Foods Market and Amazon and let's see how that goes. This is just incomprehensible ridiculousness.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  You may not be aware of it, but this happens all the time, it's just not news because the companies involved aren't newsworthy. If you have a trademark, you have to defend it, or you risk losing it. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is it incomprehensible to an outsider? Yes. Nevertheless, it's par for the course.
  - type0 6y ago
    In this case it's not distinctive in character so they should actually loose the trademark on "minimal fruit emblem with leaf to the side". Apple is arbitrary in this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Arbitrary_marks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Arbi... they shouldn't be able to prohibit apple sellers to use apple as their logo or for that matter anyone else unrelated. edit: it appears that Apple lawyers never tasted pears and think it's the same thing
  - dathinab 6y ago
    The risc of losing a trade mark is close to none!!! Only if your trade mark become a generic symbol is there any chance to lose it, and only if it is your trademark or something super similar and not something distantly similar. I.e. this is just bulling and nothing more, Apple's only potential benefit is to try to deter other companies from ever using logos based on Apple's or peaches, which would be a cost abuse of power (even if legal). Oh, it they plan to bring it a similar app and try to hampper competition, which again would be abusive behavior. But risc to their trade mark never did exist because that (or more or less any other) pear trade mark!
- perilunar 6y ago
  Apple sued Woolworths (an Australian supermarket chain) in 2009 [1], but they must have lost, since Woolworths is still using its 'apple ribbon' logo. 1. https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-claims-woolies-is-getting-fresh-with-new-logo-20091004-ghxe.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-claims-woolies-is-ge...
LatteLazy 6y ago
In the US, everyone pays for their own lawyer, even when they lose. So it makes sense for companies like apple with deep pockets to sue others, they win by forcing their opponent to pay huge legal bills indefinately. But that's not true (I believe) in Canada. So what's the deal here? Do Apple actually think pears are apples and they can win the case?
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It's more about defending your trademark. In principle, Apple doesn't care about some random company using a pear, but if they don't defend it now to the full extent, in any future dispute with a potential competitor, then "you didn't defend it that one time!" becomes an argument.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    That's not how trademark law works. Though it is how a lot of companies like to pretend it works in order to justify obviously egregious lawsuits. At most you can make an argument that estoppel can apply. Estoppel prevents you suing somebody for doing a thing you agreed they can do, even if you would have been allowed to sue them for doing it if you hadn't agreed they could do it. But estoppel doesn't magically extend to other parties.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Ask yourself: What does Apple have to gain from this? It can't be money, because it's a tiny company. Does Apple just like to start a "egregious lawsuit" for the fun of it, because they love to be evil? That explanation just doesn't work. I'm not going to an enter into an armchair-lawyer contest with you. My understanding of the law is indeed limited, but it reflects what is going on in actual business.
      - rieter 6y ago
cryptica 6y ago
I think this is probably a PR stunt for Prepear. There is no incentive which aligns with the rhetoric of this article. I bet some Apple insiders own some Prepear shares and suggested this lawsuit to help them get exposure - In that case, incentives would align. It's frustrating how capitalists keep preaching about how meritocratic the system is and how the smartest people get to the top, yet when you see something which apparently looks idiotic (coming from these supposedly very smart people) and point out that there may be a hidden, more intelligent agenda behind it, the same capitalists will say that it's too far-fetched... You've got to make a decision; a) The system is fair, people at the top are smart, the strategies they implement are clever and not obvious. b) The system is unfair, the people at the top are imbeciles, the strategies they implement are idiotic and obvious. Instead, capitalists tend to alternate between the two depending on what suits their own agenda on a case-by-case basis... This inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty is a threat to the system's fairness; though not based on intelligence or skill, but simply because this environment of selective moralization selects people who are inherently dishonest.
- agustif 6y ago
  There Is No Cabal
- dathinab 6y ago
  No system is perfectly fair and hardly any system is fully unfair. Unfairness can have many reasons besides the one you mention. Fairness doesn't implement the current government is smart. Your try to make people do unrealistic polarized decision which just do hurt everyone because the world isn't black and white it's a crazy uncontrollable mix of all imaginable colors. Edit: and if thing are not black and white there is no need to highlight them alternating, because it doesn't alternate but is a constant fluently changing mix of all.
reddotX 6y ago
Orange and Banana republic next
- gramakri 6y ago
  I think you maybe a bit disappointed like me with the orange company logo :)
Yaa101 6y ago
That is what you get with a 2T gorilla in the room... Some china is going to fall and some arms turned out to be twisted...
dathinab 6y ago
Can someone explain why Apple isn't hold up by the state because it tries to abuse the laws for bulling. I mean this are to completely different logos which only common thing is that they are fruits. And the other company isn't a company selling phones. - pear vs. Apple - full vs. bitten - green vs. black - holed up drawing style vs filled up style - tilted vs. straight - both are fruites - both have only one color IMHO. any judge should directly shut this down. Apple should be ashamed. They act like they are completely drunk on power and arrogance.
- wrkronmiller 6y ago
  IANAL but I believe it is necessary to "defend" your trademark or risk losing it. That being the case, I can see why Apple would want to make at least a pro-forma challenge to an app with a similar-looking logo. EDIT: Apple makes apps, so there is potential for direct competition (albeit unlikely in this particular case) in the app space. EDIT 2: Anyone who has watched iCarly as a child knows that there is precedent for using a Pear logo as a substitute for Apple: https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    It's not similar looking. And it's not in the same trading space, which is one of the qualifications for a valid trademark challenge.
    - wrkronmiller 6y ago
      Apple makes apps, and the last thing anyone wants is to have knockoff apps claiming to be made by Apple (e.g. a knockoff apple music app for Android).
      - dathinab 6y ago
        How does having a logo which is obvious not the Apple logo related to claiming to be Apple? Do you really believe someone could accidentally confuse a diagonal bright green pear with an empty inner area drawing style which has a leaf in the same color and drawing style and no bit with an apple logo which is a horizontal black apple with a noticable bit mark on the to right corner and a leaf with the same drawing style and color. See how when you describe it there only overlap is that they are both fruits and have a leaf... Also Apple apps don't even use it's logo as icons for their app, they all have their own trademarked logo. So if you want to do what you implied you don't even need to infring on the Apple logo but the iTunes one, and then 3rd party music services are totally legal and heck you can't upload a "knock off" anyway due to reviews. So no they is 100% NO potential danger for Apple users involved.
schappim 6y ago
Again, this is wrong. It is near impossible to fight an opponent with infinite money. Courts should impose spending caps similar to some sports leagues.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Apple isn’t suing and this isn’t going to court. It’s just a bit of paperwork that will be ignored.
jooize 6y ago
Does anyone support Apple in this at any level? I see no reason.
thdrdt 6y ago
I think the fight is about the black and white version shown here: https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/apple-logo-vs-prepear.jpg https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/app... But even then I can't imagine Apple is serious about this. Completely different business, style, form and brand names. It is almost an insult to customers that could mistakenly take the pear logo for an Apple product.
- jschenk 6y ago
  Where does Prepear actually use the black and white version?
- tyingq 6y ago
  Saying they both have a "right angled leaf" without noting the obviously very different shape and position of the leaf is...oof. The logo is no more similar to Apple's than Raspberry PI's logo. In fact, while I don't think myself it is similar, Apple has more of a reason to go after the maker of Cherry keyboards.
  - nmstoker 6y ago
    My thoughts exactly. Even with 30 million RPi's sold by late 2019, I'd be surprised if there was a single case of someone plausibly having bought it under the mistaken belief it was an Apple product. Consumers are by no means prefect but they simply aren't as stupid as Apple's case implies!
ronakjain90 6y ago
Apple is being what Microsoft was a decade back. It's only a matter of time when people start hating them so much, it'd cost them the next decade.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Microsoft didn't have a cult following though, they're coming from very different directions. There wasn't any cognitive dissonance by Microsoft users, using a Microsoft product wasn't ever part of anyone's personal identity.
  - jfax 6y ago
    I knew one dude, who was possibly autistic, seriously made Microsoft products a part of his identity.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Did Microsoft ever go in hard on trademark enforcement like Apple has always done with its logo and brand? I guess it's unavoidable to a degree given how generic the 'Apple' name and associated iconography are, but I'm having trouble thinking of MS equivalents other than the 'mike rowe' stuff.
  - Zenst 6y ago
    Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com....
  - diego_moita 6y ago
    The toolkit wxWidgets[0] was previously called wxWindows. Microsoft bribed them to change name. Ironically that's what sustained the project for a long time. [0] http://wxwidgets.org/ http://wxwidgets.org/
manojlds 6y ago
So Apple is allowed to trademark a common word and now they go after another fruit in a completely different domain and the logos don't even come close to being similar? How is this fair?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dgiol 6y ago
The formerly world leading innovator has basically become a rent seeking bully.
ihaveajob 6y ago
Nonsense, that's an apples to pears comparison.
kstrauser 6y ago
My understanding of this isn’t that Apple is suing anyone, but that they filed a complaint against Prepear’s trademark application - and that’s it. As in, at one point in the process, there’s the equivalent of the copyright office asking “does anyone have a problem with this?” and Apple said “we’d prefer you not”. That doesn’t mean the trademark will be shot down, but that the objection will be evaluated. Is there more to it than that? If not, this seems far different from how it’s being characterized.
- bcardarella 6y ago
  Didn't you read the headline? This is a battle to the death.
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    Needs more “slams”, as in “Prepear slams Apple for filing paperwork”.
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      Prepear /destroyed/ by paperwork!
- boomlinde 6y ago
  How is it being characterized? Certainly not as a lawsuit.
  - kstrauser 6y ago
    The characterization is that Apple is breaking out the big guns to stomp all over a tiny company, as opposed to them filing a routine piece of paperwork and not showing obvious signs of doing anything more. This story is that “they’re taking the fight to Canada”, which begs the question that there’s even a fight. Instead, sounds like Prepear filed for trademarks in both the US and Canada, and Apple filed a similar response in both places.
Guidii 6y ago
Wait, is this Apple the music label? They've always been litigious[1], haven't they? /s (Not sure if sarcasm and/or humour works on hn...;) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
shultays 6y ago
Do lawyers at Apple have a quota to fill?
FpUser 6y ago
I hope Apple looses this case and I hope they'll loose even more money as a result of bad PR from it.
- sjwright 6y ago
  It’s not a case, Apple isn’t suing anyone.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    I thought they are preparing.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      You probably misread the title. Prepair is the name of the company whose logo Apple is filing a trademark objection.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
HelloNurse 6y ago
I'd love to see Apple's trademark terminated because they appear unable to tell a pear from an apple and are therefore unfit to use trademarks with fruit images.
sam0x17 6y ago
I literally thought this was an onion article. What competent judge would rule that those logos are remotely similar. Does apple get free reign of all fruit-based logos in the tech space simply because apple? WTF?
alashley 6y ago
I have a question that's related to something like this, I haven't been able to find a definitive answer through Google. So let's say I want to create an app called "X this, not that!" But "Eat this, not that!" already exists and is an established brand. Their product is in the health/diet space, while mine is in alternative medicine. Could this be considered copyright infringement? My gut says it could be, but I think that if the product is very different then it should be fine.
- aarong11 6y ago
  If you are in the U.S, you can get sued for anything (See patent trolls). Doesn't mean they will successfully win, but can you afford to fight?
  - alashley 6y ago
    Thanks for your answer, and no, I certainly couldn't afford to fight :)
vkaku 6y ago
Food delivery and a Pear logo? Canada is usually very good with their laws and enforcement in general. This case will not bode well for Apple, given how they're trying to generalize fruit logos as identifiable business marks, when tons of businesses, including Fruit farmers have been running things here. I hope Apple lose, and they lose big!

187 points by eecc 6y ago

In terms of PR, Apple is turning into Disney: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-murals/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-murals/ Whether or not this is justified under trademark protection, it's hard for the layman to not see this as a disproportionate response from a corporate Goliath against the little guy.

Zenst 6y ago
> In terms of PR, Apple is turning into Disney Interesting and thinking about it, Disney as a company seem to have more in common with Apple as a company consumer interaction/perception than other tech firms compared to Apple. Actually the whole comparing Disney to Apple is very insightful, certainly helps get a better perspective upon things.
- Ozzie_osman 6y ago
  This is really interesting given the history (Steve was Disney's biggest shareholder as a result of the Pixar acquisition).

coeneedell 6y ago

I have a real problem with this statement from prepear: "As is the case in all bullying, silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support." This is deeply untrue, and problematic. In situations of bullying, people who remain silent may be afraid, may be disenfranchised in some other way to make them powerless, or may simply feel powerless. I've been seeing arguments like this crop up in other contexts as well, from social issues to personal disputes and it's more than just wrong, it can also be tactically unsound, and can lead to worse social outcomes. In terms of tactics: the organizer who uses this tactic is trying to accomplish two things, they're trying to rile up their supporters and they're trying to recruit new supporters. This tactic is extremely successful in the former, by artificially generating a new out-group to unite against: the innocent bystander. The tactic of attacking bystanders is however abysmal at recruiting new supporters, no matter one's beliefs, they're less likely to side with the person pointing the finger at them. Use of this tactic has bad social outcomes for the very same reason. Getting pepople riled up makes them less likely to make logical decisions, it makes them more likely to turn to violence, it makes them more likely to entrench their views and polarize. Given all this, why do people use this tactic when they're trying to rally people? Why would you spend energy attacking people with no power to help? Unfortunately there's a perverse incentive to do so. When your supporters are fervent, they support you more wholeheartedly, increasing their financial contribution as well as contributing to your power. For the supporter, it feels like you're helping when you attack people, period, whether they're actually your opponent or not, and the innocent bystander is both powerless to stop your attack and is less likely to fight back. Taking out your frustrations on the powerless feels a lot like bullying to me, and maybe you'd get better results if you addressed people who actually have the power to help.

xenihn 6y ago
>This is deeply untrue, and problematic. Is it? Not opposing abuse means you are enabling it. Enabling abuse means you are supporting it.
roenxi 6y ago
> This is deeply untrue, and problematic. In situations of bullying, people who remain silent may be afraid, may be disenfranchised in some other way to make them powerless, or may simply feel powerless. Or alternatively might feel they don't have enough information. The justice system is designed to make a best-possible effort at reaching the truth. The process can take months to years in some cases and requires the attention of some very clever people. Bystanders don't have time for that. They can take a position on what would and wouldn't be acceptable hypothetically. But mobs of bystanders have a terrible track record at assessing what happened from a neutral fact-based perspective to work out if the hypothetical applies to a specific situation.
kodablah 6y ago
This assumes the uncharitable interpretation of "silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support" really means "[people who maintain] silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as support [by those people intentionally and inexcusably]". I choose to read it as "inaction is the same as a supporting action" which in this case may be true and is a statement about the effect of inaction rather than a judgement on the persons or whether their inaction is excusable.
- coeneedell 6y ago
  Even under that reading, you're making the claim that someone is somehow a cause of the harm by being a bystander. What I fail to understand is why someone would try to shift the blame from the perpetrator to a bystander. The only reason I can think of is that the bystander is an easy target. On the more metaphysical side, how can inaction be the same as a supporting action? Are you really trying to say that being a bystander is just as bad as being the bully's sidekick? Imagine this schoolyard bully scenario where a child is threatened and extorted by a bully. During the incident, the bully is actively supported by a friend, cheering them on, and perhaps even restraining the victim. There are three bystanders just watching in shock at the situation, but do not have the courage to act. After the incident, the victim decides to take this route, and begins to lash out and claim that by doing nothing, the bystanders are just as responsible as the kid who was holding him down. Does this accusation really make sense? Does this accusation help the victim resolve the situation? Does this accusation make the bystanders want to help the victim?

ghevshoo 6y ago

> "This is not just Apple's lawyers being lawyers, it appears that the organization at Apple stands behind its lawyers," I wonder how much truth there is to this conjecture. It’s seems to me that Apple stand to lose much more than they have to gain by pursuing Prepare like this. The Apple logo is one of the most iconic in the world. It’s hard to confused it with another piece of fruit. If Prepear was a computer company then it would be easier to see and to sympathize with Apple’s objection, but every way you look at it this seems a PR disaster of Apple’s own creation.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
And there's plenty of examples of computer-related companies and organizations with Pear and fruit-related names, what about [PearPC](http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/ http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/)? Their SourceForge website and GitHub page are up. And this company is selling Apple logo parody MacBook stickers on Amazon - how is this also not infringing on their trademarks if we use the same standard? https://www.amazon.com/Sockeroos-Sticker-Partial-Macbook-Unibody/dp/B0151DQLTE https://www.amazon.com/Sockeroos-Sticker-Partial-Macbook-Uni... - Colour Banana too (Banans are fruit!): https://colourbanana.com/ https://colourbanana.com/ It's too easy to find these just by googling right now - I want to know what Prepear did that attracted Apple's lawyer's attention...
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Parody is protected under fair use. Though those stickers don't seem very parodic.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Nitpick: Fair-use is a defense for claims of copyright infringement, not trademark use violations; but trademark law does have built-in exemptions for parody though ( https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-under-the-trademark-laws https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-unde... ) so your point still stands. However I would argue those stickers were parody.

matsemann 6y ago

In discussions about this I've seen multiple people tout "they have to defend their trademark or risk losing it". But no, that's not how it works. Defending it means you make sure your tm is not watered out or becoming a generic term. This is far from doing that.

dathinab 6y ago
Exactly, it would be absurd if you could lose a trade mark because you don't sue a company which has a very different trade make which barely shoes any resemblance with a clear different context around it. Only if your trade mark (or something extremely similar) becomes a generic trade mark would you lose it. But in this case not only is the trademark not extremely similar there is also no chance that it becomes generic at all.

pg_1234 6y ago

The nuclear option that could be implemented by a grassroots movement is an organized campaign to use Apple's trademarks in such a way that they become genericised. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark Even the smallest amount of headway in this direction represents such a threat to Apple that despite it's might, it would have to back down.

schwartzworld 6y ago
What is that? like we all agree to just start calling all computers "MacBooks"?
- zeckalpha 6y ago
  All tablets iPads might be easier
- dmurray 6y ago
  At one point people were calling all tablets iPads - that's probably the one that had the biggest risk of genericization.
  - paranoidrobot 6y ago
    To a lot of people, there IS no difference between an iPad and a tablet. To a lesser degree, there's the same confusion about iPhones being a generic term for any smartphone.
  - hoppla 6y ago
    Airport security do this - say iPad when they mean tablets. They also get upset when I leave my kindle in the backpack
    - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
      And I have gotten scolded for pulling my kindle out to be scanned. You can't win with security people at the airport.

type0 6y ago

Apple seems to think that it owns trademark on all minimal fruit emblems with leaf to the side. Maybe they should also try to sue Whole Foods Market and Amazon and let's see how that goes. This is just incomprehensible ridiculousness.

gridlockd 6y ago
You may not be aware of it, but this happens all the time, it's just not news because the companies involved aren't newsworthy. If you have a trademark, you have to defend it, or you risk losing it. Is it ridiculous? Yes. Is it incomprehensible to an outsider? Yes. Nevertheless, it's par for the course.
- type0 6y ago
  In this case it's not distinctive in character so they should actually loose the trademark on "minimal fruit emblem with leaf to the side". Apple is arbitrary in this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Arbitrary_marks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness#Arbi... they shouldn't be able to prohibit apple sellers to use apple as their logo or for that matter anyone else unrelated. edit: it appears that Apple lawyers never tasted pears and think it's the same thing
- dathinab 6y ago
  The risc of losing a trade mark is close to none!!! Only if your trade mark become a generic symbol is there any chance to lose it, and only if it is your trademark or something super similar and not something distantly similar. I.e. this is just bulling and nothing more, Apple's only potential benefit is to try to deter other companies from ever using logos based on Apple's or peaches, which would be a cost abuse of power (even if legal). Oh, it they plan to bring it a similar app and try to hampper competition, which again would be abusive behavior. But risc to their trade mark never did exist because that (or more or less any other) pear trade mark!
perilunar 6y ago
Apple sued Woolworths (an Australian supermarket chain) in 2009 [1], but they must have lost, since Woolworths is still using its 'apple ribbon' logo. 1. https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-claims-woolies-is-getting-fresh-with-new-logo-20091004-ghxe.html https://www.smh.com.au/technology/apple-claims-woolies-is-ge...

LatteLazy 6y ago

In the US, everyone pays for their own lawyer, even when they lose. So it makes sense for companies like apple with deep pockets to sue others, they win by forcing their opponent to pay huge legal bills indefinately. But that's not true (I believe) in Canada. So what's the deal here? Do Apple actually think pears are apples and they can win the case?

gridlockd 6y ago
It's more about defending your trademark. In principle, Apple doesn't care about some random company using a pear, but if they don't defend it now to the full extent, in any future dispute with a potential competitor, then "you didn't defend it that one time!" becomes an argument.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  That's not how trademark law works. Though it is how a lot of companies like to pretend it works in order to justify obviously egregious lawsuits. At most you can make an argument that estoppel can apply. Estoppel prevents you suing somebody for doing a thing you agreed they can do, even if you would have been allowed to sue them for doing it if you hadn't agreed they could do it. But estoppel doesn't magically extend to other parties.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Ask yourself: What does Apple have to gain from this? It can't be money, because it's a tiny company. Does Apple just like to start a "egregious lawsuit" for the fun of it, because they love to be evil? That explanation just doesn't work. I'm not going to an enter into an armchair-lawyer contest with you. My understanding of the law is indeed limited, but it reflects what is going on in actual business.
    - rieter 6y ago

cryptica 6y ago

I think this is probably a PR stunt for Prepear. There is no incentive which aligns with the rhetoric of this article. I bet some Apple insiders own some Prepear shares and suggested this lawsuit to help them get exposure - In that case, incentives would align. It's frustrating how capitalists keep preaching about how meritocratic the system is and how the smartest people get to the top, yet when you see something which apparently looks idiotic (coming from these supposedly very smart people) and point out that there may be a hidden, more intelligent agenda behind it, the same capitalists will say that it's too far-fetched... You've got to make a decision; a) The system is fair, people at the top are smart, the strategies they implement are clever and not obvious. b) The system is unfair, the people at the top are imbeciles, the strategies they implement are idiotic and obvious. Instead, capitalists tend to alternate between the two depending on what suits their own agenda on a case-by-case basis... This inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty is a threat to the system's fairness; though not based on intelligence or skill, but simply because this environment of selective moralization selects people who are inherently dishonest.

agustif 6y ago
There Is No Cabal
dathinab 6y ago
No system is perfectly fair and hardly any system is fully unfair. Unfairness can have many reasons besides the one you mention. Fairness doesn't implement the current government is smart. Your try to make people do unrealistic polarized decision which just do hurt everyone because the world isn't black and white it's a crazy uncontrollable mix of all imaginable colors. Edit: and if thing are not black and white there is no need to highlight them alternating, because it doesn't alternate but is a constant fluently changing mix of all.

reddotX 6y ago

Orange and Banana republic next

gramakri 6y ago
I think you maybe a bit disappointed like me with the orange company logo :)

Yaa101 6y ago

That is what you get with a 2T gorilla in the room... Some china is going to fall and some arms turned out to be twisted...

dathinab 6y ago

Can someone explain why Apple isn't hold up by the state because it tries to abuse the laws for bulling. I mean this are to completely different logos which only common thing is that they are fruits. And the other company isn't a company selling phones. - pear vs. Apple - full vs. bitten - green vs. black - holed up drawing style vs filled up style - tilted vs. straight - both are fruites - both have only one color IMHO. any judge should directly shut this down. Apple should be ashamed. They act like they are completely drunk on power and arrogance.

wrkronmiller 6y ago
IANAL but I believe it is necessary to "defend" your trademark or risk losing it. That being the case, I can see why Apple would want to make at least a pro-forma challenge to an app with a similar-looking logo. EDIT: Apple makes apps, so there is potential for direct competition (albeit unlikely in this particular case) in the app space. EDIT 2: Anyone who has watched iCarly as a child knows that there is precedent for using a Pear logo as a substitute for Apple: https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  It's not similar looking. And it's not in the same trading space, which is one of the qualifications for a valid trademark challenge.
  - wrkronmiller 6y ago
    Apple makes apps, and the last thing anyone wants is to have knockoff apps claiming to be made by Apple (e.g. a knockoff apple music app for Android).
    - dathinab 6y ago
      How does having a logo which is obvious not the Apple logo related to claiming to be Apple? Do you really believe someone could accidentally confuse a diagonal bright green pear with an empty inner area drawing style which has a leaf in the same color and drawing style and no bit with an apple logo which is a horizontal black apple with a noticable bit mark on the to right corner and a leaf with the same drawing style and color. See how when you describe it there only overlap is that they are both fruits and have a leaf... Also Apple apps don't even use it's logo as icons for their app, they all have their own trademarked logo. So if you want to do what you implied you don't even need to infring on the Apple logo but the iTunes one, and then 3rd party music services are totally legal and heck you can't upload a "knock off" anyway due to reviews. So no they is 100% NO potential danger for Apple users involved.

schappim 6y ago

Again, this is wrong. It is near impossible to fight an opponent with infinite money. Courts should impose spending caps similar to some sports leagues.

sjwright 6y ago
Apple isn’t suing and this isn’t going to court. It’s just a bit of paperwork that will be ignored.

jooize 6y ago

Does anyone support Apple in this at any level? I see no reason.

thdrdt 6y ago

I think the fight is about the black and white version shown here: https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/apple-logo-vs-prepear.jpg https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/app... But even then I can't imagine Apple is serious about this. Completely different business, style, form and brand names. It is almost an insult to customers that could mistakenly take the pear logo for an Apple product.

jschenk 6y ago
Where does Prepear actually use the black and white version?
tyingq 6y ago
Saying they both have a "right angled leaf" without noting the obviously very different shape and position of the leaf is...oof. The logo is no more similar to Apple's than Raspberry PI's logo. In fact, while I don't think myself it is similar, Apple has more of a reason to go after the maker of Cherry keyboards.
- nmstoker 6y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Even with 30 million RPi's sold by late 2019, I'd be surprised if there was a single case of someone plausibly having bought it under the mistaken belief it was an Apple product. Consumers are by no means prefect but they simply aren't as stupid as Apple's case implies!

ronakjain90 6y ago

Apple is being what Microsoft was a decade back. It's only a matter of time when people start hating them so much, it'd cost them the next decade.

luckylion 6y ago
Microsoft didn't have a cult following though, they're coming from very different directions. There wasn't any cognitive dissonance by Microsoft users, using a Microsoft product wasn't ever part of anyone's personal identity.
- jfax 6y ago
  I knew one dude, who was possibly autistic, seriously made Microsoft products a part of his identity.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kevingadd 6y ago
Did Microsoft ever go in hard on trademark enforcement like Apple has always done with its logo and brand? I guess it's unavoidable to a degree given how generic the 'Apple' name and associated iconography are, but I'm having trouble thinking of MS equivalents other than the 'mike rowe' stuff.
- Zenst 6y ago
  Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Lindows.com....
- diego_moita 6y ago
  The toolkit wxWidgets[0] was previously called wxWindows. Microsoft bribed them to change name. Ironically that's what sustained the project for a long time. [0] http://wxwidgets.org/ http://wxwidgets.org/

manojlds 6y ago

So Apple is allowed to trademark a common word and now they go after another fruit in a completely different domain and the logos don't even come close to being similar? How is this fair?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dgiol 6y ago

The formerly world leading innovator has basically become a rent seeking bully.

ihaveajob 6y ago

Nonsense, that's an apples to pears comparison.

kstrauser 6y ago

My understanding of this isn’t that Apple is suing anyone, but that they filed a complaint against Prepear’s trademark application - and that’s it. As in, at one point in the process, there’s the equivalent of the copyright office asking “does anyone have a problem with this?” and Apple said “we’d prefer you not”. That doesn’t mean the trademark will be shot down, but that the objection will be evaluated. Is there more to it than that? If not, this seems far different from how it’s being characterized.

bcardarella 6y ago
Didn't you read the headline? This is a battle to the death.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  Needs more “slams”, as in “Prepear slams Apple for filing paperwork”.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    Prepear /destroyed/ by paperwork!
boomlinde 6y ago
How is it being characterized? Certainly not as a lawsuit.
- kstrauser 6y ago
  The characterization is that Apple is breaking out the big guns to stomp all over a tiny company, as opposed to them filing a routine piece of paperwork and not showing obvious signs of doing anything more. This story is that “they’re taking the fight to Canada”, which begs the question that there’s even a fight. Instead, sounds like Prepear filed for trademarks in both the US and Canada, and Apple filed a similar response in both places.

Guidii 6y ago

Wait, is this Apple the music label? They've always been litigious[1], haven't they? /s (Not sure if sarcasm and/or humour works on hn...;) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

shultays 6y ago

Do lawyers at Apple have a quota to fill?

FpUser 6y ago

I hope Apple looses this case and I hope they'll loose even more money as a result of bad PR from it.

sjwright 6y ago
It’s not a case, Apple isn’t suing anyone.
- FpUser 6y ago
  I thought they are preparing.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    You probably misread the title. Prepair is the name of the company whose logo Apple is filing a trademark objection.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

HelloNurse 6y ago

I'd love to see Apple's trademark terminated because they appear unable to tell a pear from an apple and are therefore unfit to use trademarks with fruit images.

sam0x17 6y ago

I literally thought this was an onion article. What competent judge would rule that those logos are remotely similar. Does apple get free reign of all fruit-based logos in the tech space simply because apple? WTF?

alashley 6y ago

I have a question that's related to something like this, I haven't been able to find a definitive answer through Google. So let's say I want to create an app called "X this, not that!" But "Eat this, not that!" already exists and is an established brand. Their product is in the health/diet space, while mine is in alternative medicine. Could this be considered copyright infringement? My gut says it could be, but I think that if the product is very different then it should be fine.

aarong11 6y ago
If you are in the U.S, you can get sued for anything (See patent trolls). Doesn't mean they will successfully win, but can you afford to fight?
- alashley 6y ago
  Thanks for your answer, and no, I certainly couldn't afford to fight :)

vkaku 6y ago

Food delivery and a Pear logo? Canada is usually very good with their laws and enforcement in general. This case will not bode well for Apple, given how they're trying to generalize fruit logos as identifiable business marks, when tons of businesses, including Fruit farmers have been running things here. I hope Apple lose, and they lose big!