7 ms·

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 on

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.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- dathinab 6y ago
  It's not similar. It's not pro-form. And that is no risk of losing the trademark here at all. You can mainly lose trademark through following cases: - non use - it becoming generic - dilution In this case it's about dilution but for it to dilute a trademark it needs to be similar enough to be easily mixed up. People tend to not mix up pears with apples. People tend to be able to differentiate between colors. The drawing still is different! There is no bit, which is probably THE major unique part about the Apple logo. The orientation is different. So not really any chance for dilution. By it both not being a Apple and but having the bit as well as the different drawing still they is no chance to confuse it accidentally. And as such no chance for dilution! Edit: tbh if the US law system wouldn't be so proud on abuse through financial exhaustion this would be a pretty much open and shut case IMHO.
  - wrkronmiller 6y ago
    > People tend to not mix up pears with apples. People intentionally used an almost-identical logo as a knockoff of the Apple trademark, many years ago: https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company
    - dathinab 6y ago
      You know that this is from a TV show right not an actual product. They used a logo which is different enough to not be accidentally confused but similar enough so that people can guess what they are referring to. Also this log had the same orientation and roughly the same drawing style. If anything you could say that pears on computers due to movie and cinema have become a synonym for a "expensive high quality computer/phone/etc." and as such Apple pear tm would be diluted from the get to go if Apple would register it. There are also apple alike products using pears, they normally also don't try to trick you into buying their product by confusing it with Apple products but use the pear to communicate a that it's (supposedly) an thing with similar qualities as Apple but which is not Apple. There is a difference between a generalized logo which is the synonym for "something similar to an apple product but definitely not Apple" and "something similar enough to accidentally confuse it".
- YayamiOmate 6y ago
  Similar? Court should propose statistically significant research asking people whether they find logos confusing or similar. The cost should go to the loser.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    Do you believe in a proper study you would find a single person who would be confused ?
viraptor 6y ago
Just thought of a different theory (likely incorrect, but I still like it) that Apple has actually either a Pear product coming out or a similar logo for something and it's close to production line, but they don't want to reveal it yet. That's why they're doubling down on trying to kill the other company / brand by throwing lawyers and money at an unreasonable enforcement.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  There's no way that Apple would risk diluting the value of their Apple mark by producing any product with any other fruit on it, or even associated with it. The closest I can think of would be some sort of home-services line they might want to spin up that would be in Prepear's market. But even that seems so far different from what they do today that I can't see how it integrates short of an entire Apple Life ecosystem where everything you do is Apple.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    You're right of course. But I like my theory because it would mean apple lawyers are assholes because they're scared of losing something, rather than because they think being an asshole is right in this case.
anonymfus 6y ago
I think that may be because many judges use Apple products and so they are biased in favour of the company because of the reality distortion field of Apple's marketing.
luxuryballs 6y ago
I wonder if it’s just a formality so they can maintain their standing for other cases in the future, a “use it or lose it” kind of thing which isn’t uncommon in this legal realm. Defend it always or get accused of being narrow and picky when a “real” need to defend it arises. In that case it’s a product of the various legal systems more than an Apple is Karen situation.
- brailsafe 6y ago
  Don't you think it's a bit of a reach to go after vaguely fruit related logos internationally? Apple is quit regularly proving itself to be the home owner's association of the tech world at the moment, and has never been the good guy as far as I remember.
appl3statecollu 6y ago
The state enables corporate entities to violate law as they provide a useful distraction from the people taking up needed political reforms. The stateful nature of a state is to be whatever those in power wish it. James Madison warned against “innovation” in government. The state he defined is to be protected forever. This is what Senators like McConnell believe. Apple acts like that, essentially, because the police and state are there to guard them from you. The public is fine to sit and ignore it, not protest it. As are the public officials who prefer to do as little as possible. A politicians real job is to admonish and denigrate the public for being entitled. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8793/what-did-james-madison-try-to-say-when-talking-about-agrarian-reform https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8793/what-did-j...
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  > The state enables corporate entities to violate law as they provide a useful distraction from the people taking up needed political reforms. What? This sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory, do you have any investigations showing any evidence of this?
  - appl3statecollu 6y ago
    While there are decades of studies to back it, I hardly need them. Also the link is to a James Madison quote where he writes to the effect that the Senate should be a firewall against democratic effort to reshape society from aristocratic rule to democratic. Is the mind of the man who wrote the Constitution enough evidence? Notice as unemployment grew so has time for protests. They have no income to lose, no future. Lacking distraction of chasing a rent payment, people are shouting for the defunding of racist policing systems, able to jump into mass protests against dismantling USPS and more. It’s a simple mathematical fact: chasing financial survival distracted from putting agency into publicly valuable political reforms. Constant fear of job loss is a well known tool for insuring compliance: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o... When jobs can’t be... there’s no compliance. Edit: that isn’t say I agree with shallow job culture. “Providing” a shallow grift like bartender or oil changer for decades is authoritarian in my mind. It lets many off the hook to think critically, and emboldens powerful people which resources to measure and attempt to manage public ignorance to hide their Griggs. Adam Smith warned explicitly that extreme division of labor would make humans the stupidest creatures on the planet. Our President, ladies and gentlemen, lifted up by ignorant day laborers.
pg_1234 6y ago
You'd think they could be classed as a criminal organization for racketeering and have all operations forcibly shut down ... ... then perhaps they see the value of playing nice.

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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
dathinab 6y ago
It's not similar. It's not pro-form. And that is no risk of losing the trademark here at all. You can mainly lose trademark through following cases: - non use - it becoming generic - dilution In this case it's about dilution but for it to dilute a trademark it needs to be similar enough to be easily mixed up. People tend to not mix up pears with apples. People tend to be able to differentiate between colors. The drawing still is different! There is no bit, which is probably THE major unique part about the Apple logo. The orientation is different. So not really any chance for dilution. By it both not being a Apple and but having the bit as well as the different drawing still they is no chance to confuse it accidentally. And as such no chance for dilution! Edit: tbh if the US law system wouldn't be so proud on abuse through financial exhaustion this would be a pretty much open and shut case IMHO.
- wrkronmiller 6y ago
  > People tend to not mix up pears with apples. People intentionally used an almost-identical logo as a knockoff of the Apple trademark, many years ago: https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company
  - dathinab 6y ago
    You know that this is from a TV show right not an actual product. They used a logo which is different enough to not be accidentally confused but similar enough so that people can guess what they are referring to. Also this log had the same orientation and roughly the same drawing style. If anything you could say that pears on computers due to movie and cinema have become a synonym for a "expensive high quality computer/phone/etc." and as such Apple pear tm would be diluted from the get to go if Apple would register it. There are also apple alike products using pears, they normally also don't try to trick you into buying their product by confusing it with Apple products but use the pear to communicate a that it's (supposedly) an thing with similar qualities as Apple but which is not Apple. There is a difference between a generalized logo which is the synonym for "something similar to an apple product but definitely not Apple" and "something similar enough to accidentally confuse it".
YayamiOmate 6y ago
Similar? Court should propose statistically significant research asking people whether they find logos confusing or similar. The cost should go to the loser.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Do you believe in a proper study you would find a single person who would be confused ?

viraptor 6y ago

Just thought of a different theory (likely incorrect, but I still like it) that Apple has actually either a Pear product coming out or a similar logo for something and it's close to production line, but they don't want to reveal it yet. That's why they're doubling down on trying to kill the other company / brand by throwing lawyers and money at an unreasonable enforcement.

paranoidrobot 6y ago
There's no way that Apple would risk diluting the value of their Apple mark by producing any product with any other fruit on it, or even associated with it. The closest I can think of would be some sort of home-services line they might want to spin up that would be in Prepear's market. But even that seems so far different from what they do today that I can't see how it integrates short of an entire Apple Life ecosystem where everything you do is Apple.
- viraptor 6y ago
  You're right of course. But I like my theory because it would mean apple lawyers are assholes because they're scared of losing something, rather than because they think being an asshole is right in this case.

anonymfus 6y ago

I think that may be because many judges use Apple products and so they are biased in favour of the company because of the reality distortion field of Apple's marketing.

luxuryballs 6y ago

I wonder if it’s just a formality so they can maintain their standing for other cases in the future, a “use it or lose it” kind of thing which isn’t uncommon in this legal realm. Defend it always or get accused of being narrow and picky when a “real” need to defend it arises. In that case it’s a product of the various legal systems more than an Apple is Karen situation.

brailsafe 6y ago
Don't you think it's a bit of a reach to go after vaguely fruit related logos internationally? Apple is quit regularly proving itself to be the home owner's association of the tech world at the moment, and has never been the good guy as far as I remember.

appl3statecollu 6y ago

The state enables corporate entities to violate law as they provide a useful distraction from the people taking up needed political reforms. The stateful nature of a state is to be whatever those in power wish it. James Madison warned against “innovation” in government. The state he defined is to be protected forever. This is what Senators like McConnell believe. Apple acts like that, essentially, because the police and state are there to guard them from you. The public is fine to sit and ignore it, not protest it. As are the public officials who prefer to do as little as possible. A politicians real job is to admonish and denigrate the public for being entitled. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8793/what-did-james-madison-try-to-say-when-talking-about-agrarian-reform https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8793/what-did-j...

bluedevil2k 6y ago
> The state enables corporate entities to violate law as they provide a useful distraction from the people taking up needed political reforms. What? This sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory, do you have any investigations showing any evidence of this?
- appl3statecollu 6y ago
  While there are decades of studies to back it, I hardly need them. Also the link is to a James Madison quote where he writes to the effect that the Senate should be a firewall against democratic effort to reshape society from aristocratic rule to democratic. Is the mind of the man who wrote the Constitution enough evidence? Notice as unemployment grew so has time for protests. They have no income to lose, no future. Lacking distraction of chasing a rent payment, people are shouting for the defunding of racist policing systems, able to jump into mass protests against dismantling USPS and more. It’s a simple mathematical fact: chasing financial survival distracted from putting agency into publicly valuable political reforms. Constant fear of job loss is a well known tool for insuring compliance: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-of-workers-is-a-big-factor-in-fed-policy.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/27/business/job-insecurity-o... When jobs can’t be... there’s no compliance. Edit: that isn’t say I agree with shallow job culture. “Providing” a shallow grift like bartender or oil changer for decades is authoritarian in my mind. It lets many off the hook to think critically, and emboldens powerful people which resources to measure and attempt to manage public ignorance to hide their Griggs. Adam Smith warned explicitly that extreme division of labor would make humans the stupidest creatures on the planet. Our President, ladies and gentlemen, lifted up by ignorant day laborers.

pg_1234 6y ago

You'd think they could be classed as a criminal organization for racketeering and have all operations forcibly shut down ... ... then perhaps they see the value of playing nice.