71–80 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So technically Apple should change their logo?
Well one is a fruit company and apples are fruits and it did it first, and the other is a tech company that came after it and is saying the logos are similar, in an ideal world a judge would say ok I believe you now you change it. But hey, Apple is a 2 trillion dollar company, wars have been started for a lot less, so the discussion isn't even worth having unless you also believe in Santa.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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 .
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
This myth, and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.
"Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression."
-- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So technically Apple should change their logo?
Well one is a fruit company and apples are fruits and it did it first, and the other is a tech company that came after it and is saying the logos are similar, in an ideal world a judge would say ok I believe you now you change it. But hey, Apple is a 2 trillion dollar company, wars have been started for a lot less, so the discussion isn't even worth having unless you also believe in Santa.
first they have to pay compensation for all theyears of misleading customers
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 .
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
It's actually a case of "news gonna clickbait". Afaik nothing really happened here other than a Swiss company voicing concerns about the possibility of Apple registering a trademark for more than just specific product categories.
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 .
Lord forbid the fruit company and its employees make an extra buck when the customers get confused and buy a bunch of fruit instead of an iPhone. "So, how do I start the metaverse on this..." I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?
It assumes a lot of conditions will be met including Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely), them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely), and winning litigation (unlikely).
TL;DR click bait
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Before trademarks: How dare you produce fake watches that look like mine! I'm so mad... I could crochet an entire BLANKET!