4 ms·

Trademarks are radically different, they are an anti-fraud mechanism. If someone is trying to pass off a good as being produced by someone else, then it's frau

Trademarks are radically different, they are an anti-fraud mechanism. If someone is trying to pass off a good as being produced by someone else, then it's fraud.

tyingq 5y ago
That's what they are supposed to be. But you end up with Apple challenging a company's trademark, where the company has a recipe app with a pear fruit for a logo. https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-company-with-pear-logo/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-co...
- munk-a 5y ago
  Just because a law is being abused does it invalidate that law? Apple should absolutely get a bunch of fines for pursuing this enforcement if it is doing so in bad faith - or Prepear should be forced to alter it's image if it's found to be unfairly exploiting Apple's brand image. Also this case was resolved in a pretty reasonable manner[1] which actually does seem to increase the visual distinctiveness between the two logos and, from what I can tell, that logo change was the sole result of the settlement. Apple's logo is, IMO, three main things, an apple, a bite, and a leaf - and each of those is quite distinctively placed within the logo. Prepear was pretty precisely copying the style of the leaf. 1. https://www.creativebloq.com/news/apple-prepear-logo-resolution https://www.creativebloq.com/news/apple-prepear-logo-resolut...
- kube-system 5y ago
  Is there any remotely common legal construct for which a dubious case has never been brought?
  - tyingq 5y ago
    That was sort of my point. That it's not as simple as saying it's just anti fraud.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      I’m suggesting that it’s silly to use frivolous cases are evidence of that. Under that rationale you could say that almost every law is not as simple as what it was meant to do. If I get mad at my neighbor and falsely accuse him of stealing my car, that is not evidence that laws prohibiting theft are “about more than just stealing things”. The law means what it means regardless of others untested and wacky claims about it.
      - tyingq 5y ago
        I'll hazard a guess that most trademark cases are like this. People straight up infringing would likely be out of your jurisdiction. Meaning that most cases probably aren't about intentional fraud. Similar to patent cases.

Trademarks are radically different, they are an anti-fraud mechanism. If someone is trying to pass off a good as being produced by someone else, then it's fraud.

tyingq 5y ago

That's what they are supposed to be. But you end up with Apple challenging a company's trademark, where the company has a recipe app with a pear fruit for a logo. https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-company-with-pear-logo/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-co...

munk-a 5y ago
Just because a law is being abused does it invalidate that law? Apple should absolutely get a bunch of fines for pursuing this enforcement if it is doing so in bad faith - or Prepear should be forced to alter it's image if it's found to be unfairly exploiting Apple's brand image. Also this case was resolved in a pretty reasonable manner[1] which actually does seem to increase the visual distinctiveness between the two logos and, from what I can tell, that logo change was the sole result of the settlement. Apple's logo is, IMO, three main things, an apple, a bite, and a leaf - and each of those is quite distinctively placed within the logo. Prepear was pretty precisely copying the style of the leaf. 1. https://www.creativebloq.com/news/apple-prepear-logo-resolution https://www.creativebloq.com/news/apple-prepear-logo-resolut...
kube-system 5y ago
Is there any remotely common legal construct for which a dubious case has never been brought?
- tyingq 5y ago
  That was sort of my point. That it's not as simple as saying it's just anti fraud.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I’m suggesting that it’s silly to use frivolous cases are evidence of that. Under that rationale you could say that almost every law is not as simple as what it was meant to do. If I get mad at my neighbor and falsely accuse him of stealing my car, that is not evidence that laws prohibiting theft are “about more than just stealing things”. The law means what it means regardless of others untested and wacky claims about it.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      I'll hazard a guess that most trademark cases are like this. People straight up infringing would likely be out of your jurisdiction. Meaning that most cases probably aren't about intentional fraud. Similar to patent cases.