
Apple takes Prepear logo trademark fight to Canada - eecc
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/08/22/apple-takes-prepear-logo-trademark-fight-to-canada
======
kstrauser
My understanding of this isn’t that Apple is suing anyone, but that they filed
a complaint against Prepear’s trademark application - and that’s it. As in, at
one point in the process, there’s the equivalent of the copyright office
asking “does anyone have a problem with this?” and Apple said “we’d prefer you
not”. That doesn’t mean the trademark will be shot down, but that the
objection will be evaluated.

Is there more to it than that? If not, this seems far different from how it’s
being characterized.

~~~
jpalomaki
To keep your trademark, you need to defend it.

It’s a duty of trademark holder to keep an eye on potentially infringing
applications and take action if it notices them. If you don’t take actions it
means you have given up your trademark.

Not sure how else Apple could proceed here.

~~~
CogitoCogito
> Not sure how else Apple could proceed here.

Apple could simply have looked at it and said "this mark would never be
confused with ours" and then been done with it.

------
pg_1234
The nuclear option that could be implemented by a grassroots movement is an
organized campaign to use Apple's trademarks in such a way that they become
genericised.

see:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark)

Even the smallest amount of headway in this direction represents such a threat
to Apple that despite it's might, it would have to back down.

~~~
schwartzworld
What is that? like we all agree to just start calling all computers
"MacBooks"?

~~~
dmurray
At one point people were calling all tablets iPads - that's probably the one
that had the biggest risk of genericization.

~~~
hoppla
Airport security do this - say iPad when they mean tablets. They also get
upset when I leave my kindle in the backpack

~~~
nkrisc
As I recall there was also an incident when Microsoft sponsored NFL broadcasts
and gave the casters Surfaces and they still occasionally called them iPads.

------
Apocryphon
In terms of PR, Apple is turning into Disney:

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-
murals/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daycare-center-murals/)

Whether or not this is justified under trademark protection, it's hard for the
layman to not see this as a disproportionate response from a corporate Goliath
against the little guy.

~~~
Zenst
> In terms of PR, Apple is turning into Disney

Interesting and thinking about it, Disney as a company seem to have more in
common with Apple as a company consumer interaction/perception than other tech
firms compared to Apple.

Actually the whole comparing Disney to Apple is very insightful, certainly
helps get a better perspective upon things.

~~~
Ozzie_osman
This is really interesting given the history (Steve was Disney's biggest
shareholder as a result of the Pixar acquisition).

------
dathinab
Can someone explain why Apple isn't hold up by the state because it tries to
abuse the laws for bulling.

I mean this are to completely different logos which only common thing is that
they are fruits. And the other company isn't a company selling phones.

\- pear vs. Apple \- full vs. bitten \- green vs. black \- holed up drawing
style vs filled up style \- tilted vs. straight \- both are fruites \- both
have only one color

IMHO. any judge should directly shut this down.

Apple should be ashamed.

They act like they are completely drunk on power and arrogance.

~~~
wrkronmiller
IANAL but I believe it is necessary to "defend" your trademark or risk losing
it.

That being the case, I can see why Apple would want to make at least a pro-
forma challenge to an app with a similar-looking logo.

EDIT: Apple makes apps, so there is potential for direct competition (albeit
unlikely in this particular case) in the app space.

EDIT 2: Anyone who has watched iCarly as a child knows that there is precedent
for using a Pear logo as a substitute for Apple:
[https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company](https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company)

~~~
dathinab
It's not similar.

It's not pro-form.

And that is no risk of losing the trademark here at all.

You can mainly lose trademark through following cases:

\- non use

\- it becoming generic

\- dilution

In this case it's about dilution but for it to dilute a trademark it needs to
be similar enough to be easily mixed up.

People tend to not mix up pears with apples.

People tend to be able to differentiate between colors.

The drawing still is different!

There is no bit, which is probably THE major unique part about the Apple logo.

The orientation is different.

So not really any chance for dilution.

By it both not being a Apple and but having the bit as well as the different
drawing still they is no chance to confuse it accidentally. And as such no
chance for dilution!

Edit: tbh if the US law system wouldn't be so proud on abuse through financial
exhaustion this would be a pretty much open and shut case IMHO.

~~~
wrkronmiller
> People tend to not mix up pears with apples.

People intentionally used an almost-identical logo as a knockoff of the Apple
trademark, many years ago:
[https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company](https://icarly.fandom.com/wiki/Pear_Company)

~~~
dathinab
You know that this is from a TV show right not an actual product.

They used a logo which is different enough to not be accidentally confused but
similar enough so that people can guess what they are referring to.

Also this log had the same orientation and roughly the same drawing style.

If anything you could say that pears on computers due to movie and cinema have
become a synonym for a "expensive high quality computer/phone/etc." and as
such Apple pear tm would be diluted from the get to go if Apple would register
it.

There are also apple alike products using pears, they normally also don't try
to trick you into buying their product by confusing it with Apple products but
use the pear to communicate a that it's (supposedly) an thing with similar
qualities as Apple but which is _not_ Apple.

There is a difference between a generalized logo which is the synonym for
"something similar to an apple product but definitely not Apple" and
"something similar enough to accidentally confuse it".

~~~
bluedevil2k
A TV show where the awesome hot products were pear shaped iPear phones and
tablets. Obviously satire.

------
thdrdt
I think the fight is about the black and white version shown here:
[https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/app...](https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/apple-logo-vs-prepear.jpg)

But even then I can't imagine Apple is serious about this. Completely
different business, style, form and brand names.

It is almost an insult to customers that could mistakenly take the pear logo
for an Apple product.

~~~
tyingq
Saying they both have a "right angled leaf" without noting the obviously very
different shape and position of the leaf is...oof.

The logo is no more similar to Apple's than Raspberry PI's logo.

In fact, while I don't think myself it is similar, Apple has more of a reason
to go after the maker of Cherry keyboards.

~~~
nmstoker
My thoughts exactly.

Even with 30 million RPi's sold by late 2019, I'd be surprised if there was a
single case of someone plausibly having bought it under the mistaken belief it
was an Apple product.

Consumers are by no means prefect but they simply aren't as stupid as Apple's
case implies!

------
ronakjain90
Apple is being what Microsoft was a decade back. It's only a matter of time
when people start hating them so much, it'd cost them the next decade.

~~~
kevingadd
Did Microsoft ever go in hard on trademark enforcement like Apple has always
done with its logo and brand? I guess it's unavoidable to a degree given how
generic the 'Apple' name and associated iconography are, but I'm having
trouble thinking of MS equivalents other than the 'mike rowe' stuff.

~~~
diego_moita
The toolkit wxWidgets[0] was previously called wxWindows. Microsoft bribed
them to change name. Ironically that's what sustained the project for a long
time.

[0] [http://wxwidgets.org/](http://wxwidgets.org/)

~~~
VZ
Wow, you have some interesting sources (care to share them?). Microsoft
_forced_ us to change the name, threatening unspecified but dire legal
consequences if we didn't. They have never sustained anything at all.

~~~
diego_moita
> you have some interesting sources (care to share them?)

The wxWidgets site explains what I wrote: [https://wxwidgets.org/about/name-
change/](https://wxwidgets.org/about/name-change/)

It doesn't say anything about _forced_ and does mention explicitly a financial
compensation used to sustain the project.

~~~
VZ
I've completely forgotten about this page of the site, but it's nothing but
polite fiction. We didn't really have any choice in the matter, it was that or
be dragged in court by Microsoft lawyers and after spending some of my own
money (and I was a student back then, so it wasn't a small amount for me) on a
consultation, I was told in no uncertain terms that this wouldn't result in a
good outcome irrespectively of whether we could use "wxWindows" as the name or
not.

As for "modest financial compensation", it was really modest and was meant to
compensate for registrar fees/changing hosting/stuff like that. It was a
couple of thousands at most, I think, nowhere near enough to sustain anything
for any period of time.

------
LatteLazy
In the US, everyone pays for their own lawyer, even when they lose. So it
makes sense for companies like apple with deep pockets to sue others, they win
by forcing their opponent to pay huge legal bills indefinately.

But that's not true (I believe) in Canada. So what's the deal here? Do Apple
actually think pears are apples and they can win the case?

~~~
gridlockd
It's more about defending your trademark. In principle, Apple doesn't care
about some random company using a pear, but if they don't defend it now to the
full extent, in any future dispute with a potential competitor, then "you
didn't defend it that one time!" becomes an argument.

~~~
tialaramex
That's not how trademark law works. Though it is how a lot of companies like
to _pretend_ it works in order to justify obviously egregious lawsuits.

At _most_ you can make an argument that estoppel can apply. Estoppel prevents
you suing somebody for doing a thing you agreed they can do, even if you would
have been allowed to sue them for doing it if you _hadn 't_ agreed they could
do it. But estoppel doesn't magically extend to other parties.

~~~
gridlockd
Ask yourself: What does Apple have to _gain_ from this? It can't be money,
because it's a tiny company. Does Apple just like to start a "egregious
lawsuit" for the fun of it, because they love to be evil? That explanation
just doesn't work.

I'm not going to an enter into an armchair-lawyer contest with you. My
understanding of the law is indeed limited, but it reflects what is going on
in actual business.

~~~
Joeri
They don't do it to be evil, they do it to maintain the unique status of their
brand. Apple is a luxury brand, like Louis Vuitton, or Mercedes. Their price
difference compared to other brands is explained mostly by the value of their
brand, not the value of their products, although they do make high quality
products. That means they tend to defend the uniqueness of their brand, to the
limit and beyond the limits of what the law allows.

Another possible explanation is that their lawyers are having a quiet period
and either want more income or want to demonstrate their value. Oftentimes
there can be an internal logic to these things that on the whole makes little
sense but within an organization is perfectly rational.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The most likely explanation is bored lawyers justifying their own existence
and angling for a bonus.

There really shouldn't be a case here. The logo is different, the trading area
is different, there is exactly zero chance of confusing the two designs or the
two companies.

------
ghevshoo
> "This is not just Apple's lawyers being lawyers, it appears that the
> organization at Apple stands behind its lawyers,"

I wonder how much truth there is to this conjecture. It’s seems to me that
Apple stand to lose much more than they have to gain by pursuing Prepare like
this.

The Apple logo is one of the most iconic in the world. It’s hard to confused
it with another piece of fruit. If Prepear was a computer company then it
would be easier to see and to sympathize with Apple’s objection, but every way
you look at it this seems a PR disaster of Apple’s own creation.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
And there's plenty of examples of computer-related companies and organizations
with Pear and fruit-related names, what about
[PearPC]([http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/](http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/))?
Their SourceForge website and GitHub page are up.

And this company is selling Apple logo parody MacBook stickers on Amazon - how
is this also not infringing on their trademarks if we use the same standard?
[https://www.amazon.com/Sockeroos-Sticker-Partial-Macbook-
Uni...](https://www.amazon.com/Sockeroos-Sticker-Partial-Macbook-
Unibody/dp/B0151DQLTE) -

Colour Banana too (Banans are fruit!):
[https://colourbanana.com/](https://colourbanana.com/)

It's too easy to find these just by googling right now - I want to know what
Prepear did that attracted Apple's lawyer's attention...

~~~
Apocryphon
Parody is protected under fair use. Though those stickers don't seem very
parodic.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
Nitpick: Fair-use is a defense for claims of copyright infringement, not
trademark use violations; but trademark law does have built-in exemptions for
parody though ( [https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-
unde...](https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-under-the-
trademark-laws) ) so your point still stands.

However I would argue those stickers were parody.

------
type0
Apple seems to think that it owns trademark on all minimal fruit emblems with
leaf to the side. Maybe they should also try to sue Whole Foods Market and
Amazon and let's see how that goes. This is just incomprehensible
ridiculousness.

~~~
gridlockd
You may not be aware of it, but this happens _all the time_ , it's just not
news because the companies involved aren't newsworthy.

If you have a trademark, you have to defend it, or you risk losing it. Is it
ridiculous? Yes. Is it incomprehensible to an outsider? Yes. Nevertheless,
it's par for the course.

~~~
dathinab
The risc of losing a trade mark is close to none!!!

Only if your trade mark become a generic symbol is there any chance to lose
it, and only if it is your trademark or something super similar and not
something _distantly_ similar.

I.e. this is just bulling and nothing more, Apple's only potential benefit is
to try to deter other companies from ever using logos based on Apple's or
peaches, which would be a cost abuse of power (even if legal). Oh, it they
plan to bring it a similar app and try to hampper competition, which again
would be abusive behavior.

But risc to their trade mark never did exist because that (or more or less any
other) pear trade mark!

------
matsemann
In discussions about this I've seen multiple people tout "they have to defend
their trademark or risk losing it". But no, that's not how it works. Defending
it means you make sure your tm is not watered out or becoming a generic term.
This is far from doing that.

~~~
dathinab
Exactly, it would be absurd if you could lose a trade mark because you don't
sue a company which has a very different trade make which barely shoes any
resemblance with a clear different context around it.

Only if your trade mark (or something _extremely_ similar) becomes a generic
trade mark would you lose it.

But in this case not only is the trademark not extremely similar there is also
no chance that it becomes generic at all.

------
Yaa101
That is what you get with a 2T gorilla in the room... Some china is going to
fall and some arms turned out to be twisted...

------
manojlds
So Apple is allowed to trademark a common word and now they go after another
fruit in a completely different domain and the logos don't even come close to
being similar? How is this fair?

------
vkaku
Food delivery and a Pear logo? Canada is usually very good with their laws and
enforcement in general. This case will not bode well for Apple, given how
they're trying to generalize fruit logos as identifiable business marks, when
tons of businesses, including Fruit farmers have been running things here.

I hope Apple lose, and they lose big!

------
Guidii
Wait, is this Apple the music label? They've always been litigious[1], haven't
they?

/s (Not sure if sarcasm and/or humour works on hn...;)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)

------
coeneedell
I have a real problem with this statement from prepear: "As is the case in all
bullying, silence about the behavior of the bully is the same thing as
support."

This is deeply untrue, and problematic. In situations of bullying, people who
remain silent may be afraid, may be disenfranchised in some other way to make
them powerless, or may simply feel powerless. I've been seeing arguments like
this crop up in other contexts as well, from social issues to personal
disputes and it's more than just wrong, it can also be tactically unsound, and
can lead to worse social outcomes.

In terms of tactics: the organizer who uses this tactic is trying to
accomplish two things, they're trying to rile up their supporters and they're
trying to recruit new supporters. This tactic is extremely successful in the
former, by artificially generating a new out-group to unite against: the
innocent bystander. The tactic of attacking bystanders is however abysmal at
recruiting new supporters, no matter one's beliefs, they're less likely to
side with the person pointing the finger at them.

Use of this tactic has bad social outcomes for the very same reason. Getting
pepople riled up makes them less likely to make logical decisions, it makes
them more likely to turn to violence, it makes them more likely to entrench
their views and polarize.

Given all this, why do people use this tactic when they're trying to rally
people? Why would you spend energy attacking people with no power to help?
Unfortunately there's a perverse incentive to do so. When your supporters are
fervent, they support you more wholeheartedly, increasing their financial
contribution as well as contributing to your power. For the supporter, it
_feels_ like you're helping when you attack people, period, whether they're
actually your opponent or not, and the innocent bystander is both powerless to
stop your attack and is less likely to fight back. Taking out your
frustrations on the powerless feels a lot like bullying to me, and maybe you'd
get better results if you addressed people who actually have the power to
help.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
At the very least, I know Apple (as a company made up of people) is not
universally supportive of action like this (at face-value: assuming Prepear
isn't hiding anything from us) - nor the whole App Store tax situation - and
many other controversies Apple gets embroiled into: I've got many software-eng
friends at Apple who share their personal opinions with me with fair criticism
of the company all the time. Apple practically bans their FTEs from
identifying as Apple employees on social-media (all the Apple FTE SEs I know
all have private Twitter accounts - and they _never_ talk about their work
online) so obviously you won't see anyone Retweeting AAPL SWEs voicing their
support of Prepear (or Epic Games...). I know their social-media policy stems
from their culture of secrecy, but it also has the effect of making it seem
like everyone toes the company-line.

~~~
coeneedell
This is partially what I'm concerned about. From the basic facts that I've
seen about this case I believe that Apple is in the wrong. That being said,
seeing prepear resort to dehumanizing tactics in trying to rally the public
beside them is disconcerting. I think there's an "every foot counts" mentality
in activism these days that's not just destructive to the state of discourse,
but is actually counterproductive as well.

------
alashley
I have a question that's related to something like this, I haven't been able
to find a definitive answer through Google.

So let's say I want to create an app called "X this, not that!" But "Eat this,
not that!" already exists and is an established brand.

Their product is in the health/diet space, while mine is in alternative
medicine. Could this be considered copyright infringement?

My gut says it could be, but I think that if the product is very different
then it should be fine.

~~~
aarong11
If you are in the U.S, you can get sued for anything (See patent trolls).
Doesn't mean they will successfully win, but can you afford to fight?

~~~
alashley
Thanks for your answer, and no, I certainly couldn't afford to fight :)

------
jooize
Does anyone support Apple in this at any level? I see no reason.

------
schappim
Again, this is wrong.

It is near impossible to fight an opponent with infinite money. Courts should
impose spending caps similar to some sports leagues.

~~~
sjwright
Apple isn’t suing and this isn’t going to court. It’s just a bit of paperwork
that will be ignored.

------
shultays
Do lawyers at Apple have a quota to fill?

------
sam0x17
I literally thought this was an onion article. What competent judge would rule
that those logos are remotely similar. Does apple get free reign of all fruit-
based logos in the tech space simply because apple? WTF?

------
ihaveajob
Nonsense, that's an apples to pears comparison.

------
reddotX
Orange and Banana republic next

~~~
gramakri
I think you maybe a bit disappointed like me with the orange company logo :)

------
dgiol
The formerly world leading innovator has basically become a rent seeking
bully.

------
HelloNurse
I'd love to see Apple's trademark terminated because they appear unable to
tell a pear from an apple and are therefore unfit to use trademarks with fruit
images.

------
FpUser
I hope Apple looses this case and I hope they'll loose even more money as a
result of bad PR from it.

~~~
sjwright
It’s not a case, Apple isn’t suing anyone.

~~~
FpUser
I thought they are preparing.

~~~
sjwright
You probably misread the title. _Prepair_ is the name of the company whose
logo Apple is filing a trademark objection.

