Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

androidauthority.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 187 posts

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#61

Post by sbuk »

magnat wrote: post #30
expertentipp wrote: post #11

You are going at war with Poland, Sir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...

They already did in 2015, when they (unsuccessfully) sued a.pl (polish online grocery store) for their domain name.

Apple 'owns' apple.pl

    DOMAIN NAME:           apple.pl
    registrant type:       organization
    nameservers:           a.ns.apple.com. 
                           b.ns.apple.com. 
                           c.ns.apple.com. 
                           d.ns.apple.com. 
    created:               1998.08.26 13:00:00
    last modified:         2023.01.13 18:06:41
    renewal date:          2023.08.25 14:00:00

    option created:        2023.04.05 15:47:12
    option expiration date:       2026.04.05 15:47:12

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#62

Post by protontypes »

praptak wrote: post #10

Trademark protection should only apply where it prevents customer confusion. A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a similar logo for selling fruit .

This is one of those typical cases of legal departments that have run out of work and are looking for legitimacy for their own existence. Many lawyers are able to expand their own economic sphere without generating any added value for the general public.

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#63

Post by harry8 »

dghughes wrote: post #49
Paul-Craft wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. The logos are not even vaguely similar, either! Besides, didn't we already go through this decades ago with Apple Records? ¯\\\_ (ツ)_/¯ Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," because US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it. SMH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Apple Computer Inc should always be used in advertising and on products. Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples. The Apple Store is misleading they don't sell fruit.

> Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples.

Or fans of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Starr who definitely had "Apple" as their corporate name first.

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#64

Post by oniony »

cjs_ac wrote: post #35

When it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from. I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. The…

So you're saying trademarks prevent arson and violence.

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#65

Post by nirimda »

kachnuv_ocasek wrote: post #47
magnat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already did in 2015, when they (unsuccessfully) sued a.pl (polish online grocery store) for their domain name.

…what? I just cannot comprehend what Apple’s strategy is. Can somebody with more business intuition please explain to me what Apple’s endgame might be with all these litigations?

Much fewer people hear and get offended about the lawsuit vs their benefit from having all the related names/trademark/domain, so it's simply the benefit of obtaining the name/trademark/domain.

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#67

Post by prvc »

magnat wrote: post #30
expertentipp wrote: post #11

You are going at war with Poland, Sir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...

They already did in 2015, when they (unsuccessfully) sued a.pl (polish online grocery store) for their domain name.

They should be subject to some kind of penalty for engaging in this kind of behavior.

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#68

Post by atchoo »

oniony wrote: post #64
cjs_ac wrote: post #35

When it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from. I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. The…

So you're saying trademarks prevent arson and violence.

Or they are reward for it...

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#69

Post by oleganza »

oniony wrote: post #64
cjs_ac wrote: post #35

When it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from. I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. The…

So you're saying trademarks prevent arson and violence.

As any laws, regulations and private agreements: they provide an up-front framework for conduct so that people do not get creative in the heat of the moment.

Re: Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo

#70

Post by atchoo »

JW_00000 wrote: post #29

The title is quite deceptive. Reading the Wired article, Apple seems to be pursuing a trademark in Switzerland on a depiction of an apple (without bite mark, and in black-and-white). The Swiss authorities granted this but only on limited product categories. Apple filed an appeal about this, which is ongoing. Now, the Fruit Union is fear-mongering / spreading the message that, if this appeal is granted, they would be…

> without bite mark

Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.

Post reply on HN