4 ms·
Noob question - how is someone able to trademark Apple but not GPT?
by manojlds 3y ago
Noob question - how is someone able to trademark Apple but not GPT?
- HPsquared 3y agoThis case would be like an apple company selling apples trying to trademark the word "apple".
- eru 3y agoSee also Apple (the music company) vs Apple Computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- threeseed 3y agoTrademarks are localised to specific industries. So I can apply for a trademark for Apple Cleaners or Apple Tax Accountant just not Apple Computers.
- yard2010 3y ago....good luck with that!
- bradyd 3y agohttps://applecleaners.com/ https://applecleaners.com/
- eru 3y agoYes, you can try that. Though keep in mind that the well-known Apple can afford a lot of expensive lawyers.
- razakel 3y agoSo could Paul McCartney.
- eru 3y agoYes. But commenter threeseed probably can't.
- pixl97 3y agoIn some ways it's closer to Apple (computer) performing a SLAPP. If the legal system were fair in magnitude of costs, then Apple couldn't get away with it. Instead of looking at the outliers that exist in huge corporations, looking at arguments in small businesses that don't have unlimited budgets generally shows a more even system.
- nicklecompte 3y ago> Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, function, or characteristic of applicant’s goods and services. Apple is a brand name that contains no technical information, whereas GPT is a technical term describing what the software does. OpenAI cannot patent transformers or generative pretraining, so it makes no sense for them to be able to trademark "generative pre-trained transformer." So a better analogy would be Apple trying to trademark Screen Time so that no other smartphone OS could name its usage-tracking feature "Screen Time" - you can't trademark a description of what the software does.
- amelius 3y agoThat's the technical explanation. It doesn't explain why society thinks this is an effective and fair set of rules.
- ben_w 3y ago"Are consumers likely to be confused?" is the way lawyers explained the positive case to me. An "Apple" computer isn't likely to be bought by accident to be used as an ingredient in a fruit salad, but a "Sorny" TV might well be bought instead of a "Sony" model. They also follow this up with "you have to aggressively defend trademarks just in case".
- TremendousJudge 3y agoWhich is why Apple Corps and Apple Computer had several legal battles over the years, especially once Apple (the computer company) started selling music
- ben_w 3y ago"App Store" would be my example, as they had a legal fight over that, initially getting the trademark then not being able to prevent Amazon using "Amazon Appstore".
- input_sh 3y agoBecause trademarks apply to specific sectors, not everything. You can't make a computer and call your brand Apple. You can make Apple Bottoms jeans, and because the two are operating in completely separate industries, customers don't get confused. But GPT is already generate enough in its sector, so...