4 ms·

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-fo

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 ?

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 ?