

Apple takes Chinese food company to task over their logo - anderzole
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/apple-takes-chinese-food-company-task-over-th

======
dolinsky
For those who choose not to read the article and merely comment that Apple is
haphazardly suing another company, the article describes one of the basic
principles of trademark law and why Apple must sue:

 _Now here's where things get a little tricky.

Fangguo Foods produces items like snack foods, flour and noodles, which
obviously have nothing at all to do with any Apple products. As a result,
Apple's trademark assertions seem misplaced and without merit. Recently,
though, Fangguo had filed applications to extend its trademark to 16 different
product categories, one of which includes "notebook computers" and
"electronic-game software."

And therein lies the rub.

Fangguo received the status of "Famous Nanchong City Trademark" in 2007 and
"Famous Sichuan Province Trademark" the following year. Zhao explained that he
registered Fangguo's logo under so many seemingly unrelated product categories
not because he had specific plans to expand to other types of manufacturing,
but just in case he did meet somebody who wanted to produce, say, Fangguo
computers, he would be able to expand the brand name.

In the world of trademark law, a company that doesn't actively seek to protect
its trademarks is more likely to lose the ability to enforce them.
Consequently, it makes a whole lot of sense to go after Fangguo for their
trademark given that they are looking for trademark protection in an area
where Apple already operates._

------
byoung2
The logo looks more like the LG logo (<http://www.lg.com/us/img/logo-lg.png>)
than the Apple logo

~~~
matmann2001
This is exactly what I thought.

------
51Cards
That logo looks like the love child between Apple and LG. In fact it reminds
me more of LG than Apple.

------
sorbus
> Seeing the Fangguo logo in a super market clearly doesn't conjure up images
> of Apple products, but imagine an electronics store featuring products
> plastered with the Fangguo logo - it stands to reason that consumers might
> get confused and mistake one company's product for another.

I suppose that if you had never seen the Apple logo, and merely had it
described to you very badly then you might confuse the two. Maybe, if it was a
_really_ bad description and you had poor eyesight. I didn't even get that
Fangguo's logo was supposed to be a stylized apple until the article said so.

~~~
pavel_lishin
How often do you see food company logos in electronics stores? I suppose if
there's snacks by the checkout, but people mistaking that logo for Apple's and
thinking that Jobs started manufacturing candy bars doesn't really pass the
straight-face test.

~~~
Hoff
Target and Walmart are among the retailers that sell both groceries and Apple
products in the same store.

------
vvpan
So.... everything that has a logo that resembles an apple (the most popular
fruit after banana?) violates Apple's rights?

------
coderdude
I'm all for defending your IP but this is ridiculous. That logo looks nothing
like the Apple logo. I mean this is from China where they wouldn't give two
squirts of piss when it comes to ripping the rest of the world off, but this
is what Apple decides to go after?

~~~
ams6110
_Recently, though, Fangguo had filed applications to extend its trademark to
16 different product categories, one of which includes "notebook computers"
and "electronic-game software."_

In that light it's a _bit_ more understandable. If they had stayed strictly in
the food segment I doubt it would have been an issue. Trademarks have to be
defended or they can be voided; companies tend to err on the side of caution.

~~~
coderdude
That makes a little more sense, but I still do not think that anyone would
ever mistake Apple's "I look like an apple" logo for the Chinese company's "I
don't look like anything but I have a leaf" logo. Their logo looks more like
an old hand grenade.

~~~
stan_rogers
It's a "where do you draw the line" thing -- Apple has to demonstrate that, in
their opinion, things are getting a little too close for comfort. LG should
probably do the same. Neither, I don't think, would be launching an action
with the expectation of winning (necessarily), but having a filed grievance on
record for something at this level would certainly help in a case where the
offending logo were a little closer to theirs.

------
Create
AAPL is obviously not in the music business, therefore can use the name Apple.
And it _doesn't_ sell Beatles anyway ...or isn't that the _case_?

Are these the same people, who deliberately manipulate photographs which they
submit as evidence to courts?

hypocrites. and their followers. and their propagandists who pay attention to
the hype.

~~~
Locke1689
If you were paying attention this _was_ an actual case and ended up with
Apple, Inc. buying the Apple trademark and then licensing it back to Apple
Corp.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer>

~~~
Create
I was paying attention, and am paying attention.

What you are referring to, in plain terms, is that Apple Inc. had more money
than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do.
(don't misunderstand: I have no empathy for the record industry either).

~~~
Locke1689
Are you seriously arguing that _The Beatles_ are the underdog in this
scenario? Also, "Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it
can afford to do whatever it wishes to do" implies there was something
improper, which is clearly not the case. It's not like Apple, Inc. bribed the
courts to force Apple Corp. to hand over their trademark; Apple, Inc.
reportedly paid as much as $500 million to Apple Corp. to control the
trademark. Sounds like the real winner was Apple Corp.

------
Julie188
It ticks me off that Apple uses its gadzillions in profits for frivolous
lawsuits like this. Dear Apple, the shape of an apple belongs to the fruit,
not to you ... if you can use it, so can others.

~~~
T-hawk
To be fair, remember how trademark law works. Apple doesn't necessarily
actually think Fangguo is infringing on them. The law is such that Apple must
defend their trademark against anything that may appear to be an infringement,
or else Apple may _lose the right to defend it later against actual
infringement._

