3 ms·
This 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
by mattmaroon 3y ago
This 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.
- mattmaroon 3y agoThere is a penalty! If someone else were using it first, they could sue Apple, and that is in fact exactly what happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- judge2020 3y agoThe 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... per Wired UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba... Google Translate: The appellant is the holder of the international registration IR 1'028'240 [Apple] (fig.) based in the USA, which is claimed for Class 9 goods. The goods include im Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers. The registration involves the following figurative mark: (real apple) The complainant applied for the protection of the disputed sign to be extended in Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property dismissed the request from September 2, 2022 partially withdrawn. As justification, the institute stated that the figurative mark belong to the commons. The disputed sign shows a true-to-life image of an apple and will be understood as an indication of the thematic content of part of the disputed goods. The sign thus lacks the necessary distinctiveness. Against this raised the Complainant Complaint to the Federal Administrative Court. She essentially complains not every thematic reference for the entry is a hindrance. The distinctiveness of A trademark only occurs when there is a sufficiently specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services lost. This reference is absent in the present case.
- underdeserver 3y agoYep. I also want to trust the Swiss courts, much more than I'd trust the American courts, to no accept any Apple claim against the Swiss company.
- mattmaroon 3y agoAmerican courts definitely would not. Apple itself got away with being named after Apple Corps (the Beatles’ licensing arm) until they got into music. Also in the US we have first use, which is similar to how prior art works in patents. If Apple started selling apples, they’d be the ones at risk of losing a lawsuit.
- as_bntd 3y ago> 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. As far as I can tell, the apple in the trademark application looks exactly the same (except for the color) as the green apple in the Apple Records logo.