5 ms·

Trademark protection should only apply where it prevents customer confusion. A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a s

Trademark 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 ago
Agreed 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 ago
  Another 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 ago
  Apple 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 ago
      If Lennon was still alive they'd probably have sued him for wearing "Steve Jobs glasses" by now...
- wavefunction 3y ago
  >US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it I don't mean this as a criticism of your post and it's more of a launchpad for my own, but this always comes up as "the defense" of bad trademark enforcement actions and it really seems like papering over the problem rather than a worthy explanation of anything. "It's always been awful and bad" has rarely evinced much enthusiasm from anyone and I wonder if there's any chance of changing this rickety IP system.
  - zakki 3y ago
    Especially why should Apple enforce US Law in Swiss?
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it. This myth, and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet. "Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression." -- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
  - Closi 3y ago
    It’s not entirely a myth, see a list of trademarks that have been “lost” due to insufficient protection or other reasons here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici... There are definitely examples where brandnames have moved into common usage and then lose their trademark.
    - atchoo 3y ago
      I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks. Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide. Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.
      - jakelazaroff 3y ago
        I mean, yeah, because they probably know what an iPad is and can infer what you meant. That just means the brand name is recognized, not that it’s generic. If you put a Coke on the table and asked the subject to pass the Pepsi (or vice versa) it would probably work too.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  > Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," It's actually a case of "news gonna clickbait". Afaik nothing really happened here other than a Swiss company voicing concerns about the possibility of Apple registering a trademark for more than just specific product categories.
- morebortplates 3y ago
  Then Apple must be very afraid to lose it's trademark, I guess. An investigation in 2022 by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit that researches Big Tech, found that between 2019 and 2021, Apple filed more trademark oppositions—attempts to enforce its IP over other companies—than Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google combined. Those companies also have trademarked common terms such as “Windows” or “Prime.” https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle...
- judge2020 3y ago
  For reference, Apple has not taken action against the company with the logo in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785
  - otherme123 3y ago
    Because the first step is to get exclusive apple trademark for everything, then force everyone out. The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?
    - judge2020 3y ago
      From the appeal (download): https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf.download.pdf/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2... Just using Google Translate, it seems like they want the image of a true-to-life apple to be a trademark, but still only for "Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers". Nowhere in the appeal does it sound like they're trying to extend it to more classes of goods like actual fruit.
papito 3y ago
Lord forbid the fruit company and its employees make an extra buck when the customers get confused and buy a bunch of fruit instead of an iPhone. "So, how do I start the metaverse on this..." I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?
- Loic 3y ago
  Effectively, Apple infringe on the trademark of the apple producers to give the feeling that the electronic devices they provide are healthy and good for you.
chii 3y ago
who knows, Apple (the computing company) might be considering selling apple (the fruit) as they reach market saturation in computers!
- konfusinomicon 3y ago
  they should branch into selling vinyl windows and really throw the world off
  - reportgunner 3y ago
    Would be extra cool if "vinyl" is a new name for a design concept that shall replace skeumorphism.
    - konfusinomicon 3y ago
      the calculator app has never felt so warm, just like the artist intended
protontypes 3y ago
This is one of those typical cases of legal departments that have run out of work and are looking for legitimacy for their own existence. Many lawyers are able to expand their own economic sphere without generating any added value for the general public.
yard2010 3y ago
When it comes to the US, the money speaks, not the logic..
nazka 3y ago
I Will get confused if I was going to see the exact Apple logo on a fruit box though. What about a music record with the same logo before Apple was in the music industry? I think any kind of confusion is what raise the question of if it should be ok or not. But here the logos don’t even match…
somat 3y ago
My understanding is that the more generic a trademark is (cough) apple (cough) the more it is tied to a specific industry. This is just a case of bored lawyers at apple. What really sucks is that for apple this is nothing, the lawyers are already payed for who cares if they overstep their authority a bit. but for a small company hit with a bogus trademark dispute this is a major traumatic expensive event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_to_claims_of_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_...
SeanLuke 3y ago
That's not true. For better or for worse, trademark protection specifically extends to beyond mere customer confusion to the murky areas of "tarnishment" and "blurring" in the case of "famous" trademarks. There is a clause in trademark law (both Swiss and US) which allows owners of "famous" trademarks to pursue infringement even when the marks in question do not overlap in commerce areas. Apple's trademark certainly meets the "famous" standard. In Swiss law, see Article 15: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en In US law, see section (c) 1 of: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 I imagine the reason for these clauses is, say, to prevent someone from making a Nike Swoosh Refrigerator with the purpose of selling units by drawing from Nike's luster.

Trademark 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 ago

Agreed 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 ago
Another 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 ago
Apple 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 ago
    If Lennon was still alive they'd probably have sued him for wearing "Steve Jobs glasses" by now...
wavefunction 3y ago
>US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it I don't mean this as a criticism of your post and it's more of a launchpad for my own, but this always comes up as "the defense" of bad trademark enforcement actions and it really seems like papering over the problem rather than a worthy explanation of anything. "It's always been awful and bad" has rarely evinced much enthusiasm from anyone and I wonder if there's any chance of changing this rickety IP system.
- zakki 3y ago
  Especially why should Apple enforce US Law in Swiss?
phpisthebest 3y ago
>>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it. This myth, and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet. "Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression." -- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- Closi 3y ago
  It’s not entirely a myth, see a list of trademarks that have been “lost” due to insufficient protection or other reasons here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici... There are definitely examples where brandnames have moved into common usage and then lose their trademark.
  - atchoo 3y ago
    I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks. Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide. Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.
    - jakelazaroff 3y ago
      I mean, yeah, because they probably know what an iPad is and can infer what you meant. That just means the brand name is recognized, not that it’s generic. If you put a Coke on the table and asked the subject to pass the Pepsi (or vice versa) it would probably work too.
alpaca128 3y ago
> Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," It's actually a case of "news gonna clickbait". Afaik nothing really happened here other than a Swiss company voicing concerns about the possibility of Apple registering a trademark for more than just specific product categories.
morebortplates 3y ago
Then Apple must be very afraid to lose it's trademark, I guess. An investigation in 2022 by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit that researches Big Tech, found that between 2019 and 2021, Apple filed more trademark oppositions—attempts to enforce its IP over other companies—than Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google combined. Those companies also have trademarked common terms such as “Windows” or “Prime.” https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle...
judge2020 3y ago
For reference, Apple has not taken action against the company with the logo in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785
- otherme123 3y ago
  Because the first step is to get exclusive apple trademark for everything, then force everyone out. The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?
  - judge2020 3y ago
    From the appeal (download): https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf.download.pdf/B-4493-2022_Sachverhalt_DT.pdf https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2... Just using Google Translate, it seems like they want the image of a true-to-life apple to be a trademark, but still only for "Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers". Nowhere in the appeal does it sound like they're trying to extend it to more classes of goods like actual fruit.

papito 3y ago

Lord forbid the fruit company and its employees make an extra buck when the customers get confused and buy a bunch of fruit instead of an iPhone. "So, how do I start the metaverse on this..." I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?

Loic 3y ago
Effectively, Apple infringe on the trademark of the apple producers to give the feeling that the electronic devices they provide are healthy and good for you.

chii 3y ago

who knows, Apple (the computing company) might be considering selling apple (the fruit) as they reach market saturation in computers!

konfusinomicon 3y ago
they should branch into selling vinyl windows and really throw the world off
- reportgunner 3y ago
  Would be extra cool if "vinyl" is a new name for a design concept that shall replace skeumorphism.
  - konfusinomicon 3y ago
    the calculator app has never felt so warm, just like the artist intended

protontypes 3y ago

This is one of those typical cases of legal departments that have run out of work and are looking for legitimacy for their own existence. Many lawyers are able to expand their own economic sphere without generating any added value for the general public.

yard2010 3y ago

When it comes to the US, the money speaks, not the logic..

nazka 3y ago

I Will get confused if I was going to see the exact Apple logo on a fruit box though. What about a music record with the same logo before Apple was in the music industry? I think any kind of confusion is what raise the question of if it should be ok or not. But here the logos don’t even match…

somat 3y ago

My understanding is that the more generic a trademark is (cough) apple (cough) the more it is tied to a specific industry. This is just a case of bored lawyers at apple. What really sucks is that for apple this is nothing, the lawyers are already payed for who cares if they overstep their authority a bit. but for a small company hit with a bogus trademark dispute this is a major traumatic expensive event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_to_claims_of_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_...

SeanLuke 3y ago

That's not true. For better or for worse, trademark protection specifically extends to beyond mere customer confusion to the murky areas of "tarnishment" and "blurring" in the case of "famous" trademarks. There is a clause in trademark law (both Swiss and US) which allows owners of "famous" trademarks to pursue infringement even when the marks in question do not overlap in commerce areas. Apple's trademark certainly meets the "famous" standard. In Swiss law, see Article 15: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en In US law, see section (c) 1 of: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 I imagine the reason for these clauses is, say, to prevent someone from making a Nike Swoosh Refrigerator with the purpose of selling units by drawing from Nike's luster.