4 ms·
The 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, an
by JW_00000 3y ago
The 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.
- atchoo 3y agoUgh, thanks. That shows the absurdity of trademark infringement and confusion if a company deliberately licenses their trademark to an independent company. I'm surprised they can be said to be using a mark if all they are doing is licensing it to someone else. IMHO it should be used in a court as a self-admission that there are no confusion concerns and it's just legally wrapped asset fuckery.
- aardvarkr 3y agoWow, finally someone with the real story here. Thanks for explaining the connection to Apple Corp
- eddieroger 3y ago> The title is quite deceptive. Surely a blog post from Android Authority, a site dedicated to Apple's biggest competitor for mobile ecosystems, wouldn't sensationalize an article for the purposes of clicks.