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

81–90 of 187 posts

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

#81

Post by usrusr »

harry8 wrote: post #63
dghughes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If Lennon was still alive they'd probably have sued him for wearing "Steve Jobs glasses" by now...

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

#83

Post by varjag »

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…

> However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him.

Apple Records would like to have a word.

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

#85

Post by konfusinomicon »

chii wrote: post #60
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 .

who knows, Apple (the computing company) might be considering selling apple (the fruit) as they reach market saturation in computers!

they should branch into selling vinyl windows and really throw the world off

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

#86

Post by fmajid »

varjag wrote: post #83
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…

> However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him. Apple Records would like to have a word.

The Beatles extorted Apple Computer, twice, for their trademark.

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

#87

Post by Closi »

phpisthebest wrote: post #74
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

>>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it. 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 whe…

It’s not entirely a myth, see a list of trademarks that have been “lost” due to insufficient protection or other reasons here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici...

There are definitely examples where brandnames have moved into common usage and then lose their trademark.

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

#88

Post by Obscurity4340 »

phpisthebest wrote: post #74
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

>>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it. 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 whe…

Come to think of it, are there actually any anecdata or in the caselaw where companies that didn't litigate every potential infringement case sufficiently paid the hypothetical/mythical price of genericizatio. Or whatever the implied threat is...

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

#90

Post by ant6n »

chaosbolt wrote: post #59
traveler01 wrote: post #56

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.

Well a Swiss judge can only tell Apple to use a different brand in Switzerland. I doubt the Apple Switzerland business is worth 2 Trillion.
Post reply on HN