10 ms·
Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo
- veave 3y agoApple can't do anything like that. It would be a judge, after deliberation and taking into account the facts and the law.
- xslvrxslwt 3y agoHow the heck does one copyright a whole-ass image of an apple, wtf?
- world-set-free 3y agoIt is suprising what you can do with hundreds of lawyers and several congressmen.
- amarant 3y agoIt's especially surprising considering those congressmen should in theory have exactly 0 power over anything in the country where this lawsuit is taking place. But honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
- saiya-jin 3y agoWell, they look like bunch of arrogant clueless idiots to whole world (I am seeing this story in various tabloids across Europe), if that was their mission then congrats to success. It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally. Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?
- DrScientist 3y agoYou are being slightly US centric there - while what you say may be true in the US - I don't think congressmen have much influence in the Swiss Courts. Lawyer point still stands of course.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago(Which simplifies down to "an obscene amount of money to throw at lawsuits".)
- hnbad 3y agoTrademark, not copyright. The weird thing is the expectation that trademarking an apple could be done in a way that is broad enough to cover all apple-based logos across all industries. I'm not sure how accurate this portrayal is given that Apple does indeed not sell fruit and the logo in question is likely pre-existing and does not actually resemble anything Apple has likely tried to file. Trade dress or so-called "design patents" are a different matter (see Apple suing over every smartphone copying its design of "a slate of glass with a camera cut-out and maybe a button" or German Telekom pretty much holding the exclusive rights to a specific shade of magenta in tech-adjacent products).
- amarant 3y agoThe "infringing party" has existed and used this logo since a good 50 years before Apple Inc was founded. I kinda hope the Swiss Apple company turns this around and sues Apple for trademark infringement, since they can prove using it for longer, and according to Apples own argument, the fact that they're in completely different industries apparently doesn't matter. Would be fun to see Tim Cook announce the new "Banana iPhone" as a result of this suit getting turned around
- Retric 3y agoFirst their isn’t a lawsuit, just someone concerned about hypotheticals. Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.
- ta1243 3y agoIt's a phone with appeal!
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> logo in question is likely pre-existing If the logo exists longer than Apple does, isn't Apple the one commiting infringement? Isn't this an open and shut case?
- littlestymaar 3y agoNitpick: it's not copyright, trademarks are part of Industrial property[1] and have different legislation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property
- tinus_hn 3y agoOne does not. If an image is created, it is copyrighted automatically. But copyright is not what this article is about. It’s about trademarks.
- as_bntd 3y agoIt is just this logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps WARNING, a download link: https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2...
- INTPenis 3y agoWill Apple force a 111-year old fruit company to change its logo? Journalists gonna journalist.
- Ecstatify 3y agoTim Cook won’t rest until the apple fruit gets renamed to “trademark infringement”
- m463 3y agoI wonder if line6 could rename the ipod to "BHA" (B. H. Apple) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_(amp_modeler) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_(amp_modeler) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_beliefs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_b...
- hef19898 3y agoUnderrated comment. And a good name for a fruit retailer!
- stOneskull 3y agotrademark infringements and oranges..
- alwayslikethis 3y agoA trademark infringement a day keeps the doctor away.
- raverbashing 3y agoI'm not sure if Switzerland is under the EUIPO but I suspect European courts (not limited to the EU) are usually not very sympathetic to foreign companies trying to claim trademark on traditional brands https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551
- miga 3y agoOnce again, Swiss will raise their pikes to protect right to protect their own in court without any EUtside interference... While money is wasted on proceedings. Good case for a libel countersuit?
- jsnell 3y agoDupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36390600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36390600
- praptak 3y agoTrademark protection should only apply where it prevents customer confusion. A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a similar logo for selling fruit.
- Paul-Craft 3y agoAgreed 100%. The logos are not even vaguely similar, either! Besides, didn't we already go through this decades ago with Apple Records? ¯\\\_ (ツ)_/¯ Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," because US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it. SMH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- varispeed 3y agoAnother interesting case, where company has lost https://casetext.com/case/fitbug-ltd-v-fitbit-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/fitbug-ltd-v-fitbit-inc-2
- dghughes 3y agoApple Computer Inc should always be used in advertising and on products. Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples. The Apple Store is misleading they don't sell fruit.
- harry8 3y ago> Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples. Or fans of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Starr who definitely had "Apple" as their corporate name first.
- usrusr 3y agoIf Lennon was still alive they'd probably have sued him for wearing "Steve Jobs glasses" by now...
- 3y ago
- expertentipp 3y agoYou are going at war with Poland, Sir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...
- magnat 3y agoThey already did in 2015, when they (unsuccessfully) sued a.pl (polish online grocery store) for their domain name.
- kachnuv_ocasek 3y ago…what? I just cannot comprehend what Apple’s strategy is. Can somebody with more business intuition please explain to me what Apple’s endgame might be with all these litigations?
- nirimda 3y agoMuch fewer people hear and get offended about the lawsuit vs their benefit from having all the related names/trademark/domain, so it's simply the benefit of obtaining the name/trademark/domain.
- sbuk 3y agoApple 'owns' apple.pl DOMAIN NAME: apple.pl registrant type: organization nameservers: a.ns.apple.com. b.ns.apple.com. c.ns.apple.com. d.ns.apple.com. created: 1998.08.26 13:00:00 last modified: 2023.01.13 18:06:41 renewal date: 2023.08.25 14:00:00 option created: 2023.04.05 15:47:12 option expiration date: 2026.04.05 15:47:12
- jadamson 3y agoThe domain in question was literally "a.pl"
- Cynthiagoin 3y ago[dead]
- gregjw 3y agoWhat a silly waste of time
- hilbert42 3y agoI see, so Apple is now real government in our so-called democracies. Welcome to government by MegaCorporation.
- hospitalJail 3y agoKind of scary given how many people defend every possible action too. Reminds me of GOP/Dem politics. My side has a good reason for doing it, but when they do it, its bad.
- hilbert42 3y agoIt was interesting to note some down-voted my comment.
- soneil 3y agoHas anyone been able to find any original sources on this? I'm curious to see the scope of the actual trademark. All the reporting looks like a game of "chinese whispers".
- fredoralive 3y agoThe Wired article links to this https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.1028240&DES=1 https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.... which is the logo of The Beatles' Apple Corps, that is now owned by Apple Inc as part of the settlement of the disagreements between the two Apples.
- soneil 3y agothe scope on that (the line 511 classification) looks like it's the same as Apple Corps would have used, it's not even being registered in the scope of computing. which is even odder. So they're trying to register the mark previously owned by Apple Corps, within the scope of the original mark. I'm not sure where the actual conflict is then, unless Fruits Suisse are also in the music industry.
- Szpadel 3y agosome years ago they wanted to force ownership of domain a.pl with is used by some Polish grocery store because when reader in English it sounds like apple
- JW_00000 3y agoThe title is quite deceptive. Reading the Wired article, Apple seems to be pursuing a trademark in Switzerland on a depiction of an apple (without bite mark, and in black-and-white). The Swiss authorities granted this but only on limited product categories. Apple filed an appeal about this, which is ongoing. Now, the Fruit Union is fear-mongering / spreading the message that, if this appeal is granted, they would be forced to change their logo. However, it seems there is no direct threat from Apple to the Fruit Union. Also, it seems unlikely Apple's appeal will actually be granted, as there is "a legal principle that declares generic pictures of common goods to be in the public domain".
- atchoo 3y ago> without bite mark Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.
- nostromo 3y agoBecause they don’t want people to sell laptops and phones with an uneaten apple on them. It’s pretty simple. The article is written to be ragebait, and judging by the comments here, it’s been successful.
- wkat4242 3y agoIf that were the case, why do they apply for all categories instead of just electronics?
- fredoralive 3y agoIt's the logo for Apple Corps, The Beatles' company. The final settlement for the trademark dispute between the two Apples saw Apple Corps's trademarks transferred to Apple [Computer] Inc and licenced back to Apple Corps Ltd. I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration if needed. Then someone not understanding trademark law and that registering a trademark for a Granny Smith apple as a logo for a record label doesn't mean you're trying to claim all apples for every use.
- grey_earthling 3y agoIf Apple want to argue that the logos are confusingly similar, well OK then: the newer company should be obliged to change their logo.
- rjmunro 3y agoYou mean the newer logo should be changed - I don't think the fruit company has had the same logo for 111 years.
- grey_earthling 3y agoYes, I do! Good point!
- vetinari 3y agoNeither did Apple Inc.; the current flat one is from 2017.
- denkquer 3y agoThis is incorrect. Old company logos don't lose their trademark. This logos shape dates back to 1977.
- vetinari 3y agoIt is correct; you are moving the goalpost. If they were using the 1977 logo, including the color scheme, it would be impossible to argue, that the similarity can lead to confusion of them and the point of the article would be moot.
- londons_explore 3y ago> newer I think you misspelled "with a bigger legal budget".
- traveler01 3y agoSo technically Apple should change their logo?
- NoRelToEmber 3y agoAn insightful comment from the last time this was posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36391803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36391803 Basically, if it's possible to consider that fruit company is infringing on Apple, then it is equally possible that Apple is the one infringing on the older company. In fact, by filing the suit, Apple is implicitly admitting that they are infringing, since they would not have filed if they didn't believe the logos could be confused, and since the other company is older...
- jpswade 3y agoTrademark law requires you to defend your trademark, otherwise you risk loosing it, therefore by law, to ensure you remain owners of the trademark, you MUST pursue any possible infringements.
- calcifer 3y agoWhich Swiss law are you referring to?
- cjs_ac 3y agoWhen it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from. I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. They were exported across the British Empire and to America, and were very popular. The chair trade in Wycombe started in a particularly cold winter, when it was too cold for the farmhands to work outdoors. The farmhands were taught how to make the round parts of the chairs by the town wheelwright (who otherwise made wheels for the carts made by the town cartwright). In recognition of this, a wheel design was cut into the backs of the chairs as a decorative device. This design became the distinguishing mark of a chair made in Wycombe. A chair factory opened in Birmingham, but found that their chairs didn't sell as well... until they started adding the wheel design into their chairs. Business was good for the Birmingham factory, until some of the Wycombe lads paid them a visit. Strong words were had, but the Birmingham factory continued making chairs with wheel designs for a few weeks, until the factory mysteriously burned down in the middle of the night. The wheel design functioned as an early trademark: it clearly and unambiguously attested the provenance of the item. Trademarks are a consumer protection mechanism: it is the buyer who needs to know the provenance of the item in the absence of a trustworthy seller. To the man on the Clapham omnibus[0], the presence or absence of the wheel design was the only attestation to the chair's origin: this trademark was a necessary innovation. However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus
- Ekaros 3y agoI think reasonable end result would be to ban Apple from using logo or world Apple as trademark.
- dghughes 3y agoI should start a company called "Apple Windows" both are two very common everyday items so there shouldn't be any problem.
- go_prodev 3y agoAnd I'll start selling "Window Apples", small apple shaped window ornaments.
- mirekrusin 3y agoGreat name for new Linux distro.
- julienreszka 3y agoWhen corpo lawyers are bored
- NicoJuicy 3y agoTbh. Picking a logo of an Apple shouldn't mean you can obtain rights of something so generic. Pick something unique.
- nostromo 3y agoI flagged this ridiculous article and title. Apple is applying for a trademark. That’s it. Apple is not forcing anyone to do anything. I doubt Apple knows or cares about the old fruit company.
- helsinkiandrew 3y agoThere's more info here, including an image of the pre 2011 logo: https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-control-every-image-of-an-apple-says-swiss-fruit-firm https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-co...
- raldi 3y agoRight? All the comments here are mocking Apple for trying to own all depictions of a fruit, or make it seem like the other company had been happily using the logo for a century, but no, Apple is just trying to say they can’t use the logo they switched to in 2011 which was clearly based on the Apple logo.
- paxys 3y ago> clearly based on the Apple logo Uh, the design is clearly based on an apple, which they sell
- raldi 3y agoDo you believe it could ever be possible for a company that sells apples to design a logo based on the Apple logo?
- paxys 3y agoDo you believe that regardless of the existence of Apple a company that sells apples could want to use a generic picture of an apple as their logo?
- raldi 3y agoYes. Now would you be willing to answer my question? I'm trying to figure out whether we disagree over a matter of where precisely to draw a line, or if the very idea of the line is antithetical.
- 3y ago
- marc 3y agoThe key word here is “could”. It assumes a lot of conditions will be met including Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely), them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely), and winning litigation (unlikely). TL;DR click bait
- marc 3y agoNot sure why I'm being downvoted, but here's my reasoning: "Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely)" Trademark tend to be narrowly scoped to the products and services being marketed by the company. "them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely)" They have more to lose (reputation) than to gain. "winning litigation (unlikely)" There's no likelihood of confusion. Dictionary words can be trademarked, but generally not for the goods and services they describe. Fruit company has used the mark before Apple even existed. Trademark rights are based on first use, regardless of filing.
- fmajid 3y agoI seriously doubt the land of William Tell is going to allow this travesty.
- jeffrallen 3y agoWith some of their other bad behavior, we should perhaps put the Apple Computer logo on little Tell and start shooting at it!
- mensetmanusman 3y agoSomeone should tell Apple that this is weird behavior.
- hk1337 3y agoI’m not sure it’s completely necessary or warranted but I get it. It’s not just that they want to “copyright the whole apple”, the logo is an apple with a plus sign in place of where, roughly, the bite mark would go.
- NoGravitas 3y agoDeeply ironic considering Apple Computer's fraught trademark history with Apple Records. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- stjohnswarts 3y agoI think the word you're looking for is hypocritical :)
- as_bntd 3y agoThat is actually the source of this. They are trying to register Apple Corps' trademark/logo.
- RektBoy 3y ago[flagged]
- mattmaroon 3y agoThis title is clickbait. If you read the article, it’s pretty clear that Apple has taken no action against the fruit company and there’s no reason to think they will, or that they’d even be able to if granted the trademarks requested. It also seems as if they’re trying to retain rights to use the whole apple for specific products. From the source: “ Apple's attempts to secure the trademark in Switzerland go as far back as 2017, when the Cupertino, California–based giant submitted an application to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) requesting the IP rights for a realistic, black-and-white depiction of an apple variety known as the Granny Smith—the generic green apple. The request covered an extensive list of potential uses—mostly on electronic, digital, and audiovisual consumer goods and hardware. Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods—like apples—to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal.” So what’s really happening: Apple is trying to prevent others from using apples, including ones that don’t look particularly like Apple’s apple (2d, monochrome, bite out of it) from being used to compete with them. You couldn’t start “granny smith’s headphones and use an apple as your logo. You can debate if this is good or bad but any mention of the fruit company is meritless sensationalism.
- shp0ngle 3y agoOn one hand yeah this makes sense and is editorialised. On the other hand… Apple is now a behemoth that does fitness programs, have their TV service, now enter into banking. What if there is a TV program about apples? What if the fruit union ventures into financing? But yeah that’s all a different problem than “Apple is forcing a fruit company to change its logo”
- mattmaroon 3y agoIf anything doing so would be a risk to Apple in most countries since the others were doing it first.
- Varqu 3y agoThere should be a penalty for such bogus trademark claims, best as % of the global revenue. Then, maybe, they would learn that a corporation cannot bully others only because it has unlimited legal resources.
- Xenoamorphous 3y agoWhatever Apple is trying to get out of this can’t be worth the bad PR.
- coliveira 3y agoIn the not distant future we'll need to rename the fruit to avoid being sued for trademark infringement.
- mihaic 3y agoWhen people say something like "Apple wants", they seem to personify a company. In the end, there are some lawyers and middle managers that push for something to happen. These are not the CEO, but rather the corporate bureaucrats that exist for the sole purpose of expanding the reach of their master. The bureaucrats only stop when public opinion/regulators force the executives to step in and issue a directive to stop the nonsense. If any Apple executive is listening, please stop the nonsense, it's only hurting your brand.
- jonnycomputer 3y agoMaybe Apple should be forced to change it's name to Bitten Apple Pretty Good Electronics Co.
- Luc 3y agoThis new 2011 Swiss Fruit logo is obviously influenced by Apple's 1977 design. How could it not be? There's a clear likeness and good luck finding a graphics designer in 2011 who hasn't seen the Apple logo before. The old Swiss Fruit logo looked more like a tomato.
- wkat4242 3y agoI don't think it is beyond general stylist language of the time. The only thing it really has in common is the outline at the bottom which is what makes it clearly an apple. No consumer will confuse these two and they don't even compete in the same product ranges. I totally agree with the regulator decision.
- bastard_op 3y agoThis reminds me of Nissan motors chasing the man of the same name that was harassed by them for 25 years to buy/steal the nissan.com domain after car vendor finally figured out what the Internet was good for. Nissan Motors first tried to low-ball him, and then sued, repeatedly for the next couple decades to simply "take" the domain, but he won over and over - it was his freakin' NAME, and fairly got it first. Tough luck Nissan motors, at least the Japanese court stood up for the man and his rights. The owner finally died after covid in 2020, and the domain still sits parked. https://www.thedrive.com/news/35179/the-man-who-fought-nissan-over-a-website-and-won-has-died-of-covid-19 https://www.thedrive.com/news/35179/the-man-who-fought-nissa... Something tells me if this were Apple in the US, he's have been steamrolled like a piece of dung left in the road and domain taken as these poor bastards daring to use a fruit borne from the beginning of time before Apple Inc will now get.
- stjohnswarts 3y agoApple will lose this one for sure. There is no way a European court will decide for an American 800lb gorilla company bullying a swiss company that has been around for over a century. Good for them that they can't be bought as easily as American courts.