
Apple Is Taking Legal Action Against a Small Company Because of Its Logo - Simturax
https://www.simturax.com/2020/08/apple-taking-legal-action-small-company-pear-shaped-logo.html?m=1
======
gmb2k1
Other ridiculous examples:

Apple vs. Apfelroute - A bike path through a apple producing region
[https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article192836621/Apple-
will-A...](https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article192836621/Apple-will-Apfel-
Logo-fuer-Fahrradweg-in-Nordrhein-Westfalen-verbieten.html)

Apple vs. Apfelkind - A small coffeeshop [https://www.dw.com/en/german-
caf%C3%A9-owner-takes-on-apple-...](https://www.dw.com/en/german-
caf%C3%A9-owner-takes-on-apple-and-wins/a-17138587)

~~~
numlock86
> Other ridiculous examples:

Actually I can see the relevance here, especially for that first case.

But as others probably mentioned already, if you don't actively defend your
trademark it becomes void and you actually lose it. They don't do it for
profit, as this actually costs them money. They rather don't really have any
other option than doing that. Well, run the risk of losing the trademark of
course. However the case with the pear confuses me, too ...

~~~
bkor
Trademarks are per industry/category. So going after companies where the
similarly is already questionable and further, the industry isn't the same is
not needed. The second link is about some coffee shop and the case was lost.
Meaning, good example where Apple shouldn't have started the case.

There's also a difference between defending your trademark and going after
things were the overlap is vague at best (e.g. the pear thing).

~~~
numlock86
> Trademarks are per industry/category. So going after companies where the
> similarly is already questionable and further, the industry isn't the same
> is not needed.

Most of that is a myth, because people keep mixing it up with protected
designs, names and the like. Trademarks are another league, though. Otherwise
we'd have plenty of real estate businesses called Coca Cola and Apple with
equally designed logos for example, and cases like Apple vs some Café would
just disappear or not happen at all. Again, they don't do this for fun and
giggles. It costs money and is necessary.

------
taspeotis
Previous discussion [1]

    
    
        Apple takes legal action against small company with pear logo (iphoneincanada.ca)
        738 points by lapcatsoftware 1 day ago | 329 comments
    

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24094143](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24094143)

------
kypro
Does Apple have some nefarious reason to do this? Because on the surface it
makes little sense why Apple would take this action.

While I can see a couple of similarities between Apple's and Prepear's logos -
they're both 2D images of fruits - they're almost completely different in
every other way: one is a pear, one is an apple; one is green, the other is
black; one is outlined, one is a block colour; one has a chunk taken out of
it, the other doesn't; one is rotated slightly, the other is upright.

Given that I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Prepear's logo for Apple's,
why would Apple be concerned about this, or even dedicate the time and money
to go after Prepear? Not to mention the risk Apple is taking of attracting bad
press for aggressively going after a small company in this way.

Is this just a case of a legal team trying to justify their value by bumping
up the number of trademark violations they've managed to prevent this month?
Otherwise what would the motivation be to do this given there is obviously no
trademark risk here?

~~~
simsla
IANAL, but in general there are two reasons for things like this.

1 - Preventing trademark erosion. Companies have a duty to be proactive and
continually challenge trademark infringements. If not, the trademark can
become invalid. e.g. this happened with Sony's Walkman (TM).

However, they don't seem to have good grounds for it in this case. They are
dissimilar enough (both in visual style and domain) that no reasonable
consumer would get confused.

2 - Over-eagerness from the legal department. [Speculation, may not apply to
Apple.] Pressure to get billables, to prove individual relevance, or even just
busywork can -- in the absence of clear guidelines and policy -- lead to the
legal dept taking unnecessary action. This becomes more true the more silo'd
the different departments in a company are.

I believe this is a natural thing for big companies to evolve into, which can
be addressed amongst other things through SOP's, guidelines, oversight (i.e.
more people signing off).

Suffice to say that your average conglomerate cease and desist has not passed
the desk of the CEO.

~~~
sebazzz
> Preventing trademark erosion. > However, they don't seem to have good
> grounds for it in this case.

Does that mean this is just suing companies for the sake of suing?

~~~
simsla
That might be jumping the gun a bit. Malice for the sake of malice is usually
one of the least credible options.

Other valid possibilities:

\- They don't agree with me on the first point.

\- Someone followed an un-nuanced SOP.

\- They expect a strategic benefit from this kind of attitude.

\- People are making choices from a job-security perspective rather than a
greater good (or even greater good of the company) perspective.

\- ...

------
mirekrusin
Apple should provide them with beautiful logo suggestions that are designed to
be further from their own logo.

~~~
dogma1138
Preferably something that doesn’t look like a side view of your crotch on
STDs.

------
trollied
They're opposing a trademark application.

I'm all for calling out big companies when they do crappy things, but you have
to be seen to defend your trademarks & the system to allow businesses to
contest trademark applications is there for a reason.

~~~
syshum
Apple is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing
it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a
trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. Genericide
occurs when a trademark becomes the standard term for a type of good (‘zipper’
and ‘escalator’ being two famous examples). This is very rare and would not be
a problem for Apple unless people start saying “Apple” simply to mean “smart
device.” Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of
total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential
infringer does not show abandonment

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-
not...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-
companies-tirelessly-censor-internet)

~~~
JetSpiegel
> ‘zipper’ and ‘escalator’ being two famous examples

Or "iPad".

~~~
syshum
I dont think that has caught on to use anything other than referring to a
Apple Made tabelt device

Tablet is still the naming for other non-apple devices though it seems the
market has given up on them instead perfering larger phones

------
threeseed
Please flag this.

It's been discussed before and it's basically another spam site.

------
phlhar
I remember a case in Germany, where Apple did the same to a small shop with an
Apple in their logo. They had to change their logo back then

------
FerretFred
That is _nothing_ like an apple. Srsly!

------
princevegeta89
Lol, this is so silly and meaningless.

------
nix23
What a shit company!

