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

101–110 of 187 posts

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

#101

Post by atchoo »

Closi wrote: post #87
phpisthebest wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks.

Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide.

Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.

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

#103

Post by fredoralive »

atchoo wrote: post #70
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.

It's the logo for Apple Corps, The Beatles' company. The final settlement for the trademark dispute between the two Apples saw Apple Corps's trademarks transferred to Apple [Computer] Inc and licenced back to Apple Corps Ltd.

I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration if needed.

Then someone not understanding trademark law and that registering a trademark for a Granny Smith apple as a logo for a record label doesn't mean you're trying to claim all apples for every use.

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

#104

Post by kiicia »

Closi wrote: post #87
phpisthebest wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

No seller of apple fruits is “riding on apple logo/name bandwagon”, it won’t be genericized because of fruit existing as long as memory

Genericization is only for newly invented words/phrases, it’s apple that is actively stealing common words and makes trademarks out of them

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by another2another »

kramerger wrote: post #100
fmajid wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apple Computer broke the first agreement that stated they would never get in the music business You know, like iTunes...

Yeah? Sosumi

(I actually loved that sound and used it on my Performa Mac lots)

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

#107

Post by atchoo »

fredoralive wrote: post #103
atchoo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's the logo for Apple Corps, The Beatles' company. The final settlement for the trademark dispute between the two Apples saw Apple Corps's trademarks transferred to Apple [Computer] Inc and licenced back to Apple Corps Ltd. I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration i…

Ugh, thanks.

That shows the absurdity of trademark infringement and confusion if a company deliberately licenses their trademark to an independent company. I'm surprised they can be said to be using a mark if all they are doing is licensing it to someone else. IMHO it should be used in a court as a self-admission that there are no confusion concerns and it's just legally wrapped asset fuckery.

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

#108

Post by reportgunner »

konfusinomicon wrote: post #85
chii wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would be extra cool if "vinyl" is a new name for a design concept that shall replace skeumorphism.

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

#109

Post by tdy721 »

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…

Also good to remember that Apple Inc. infringed on Apple Corps until 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

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

#110

Post by tdy721 »

fmajid wrote: post #86
varjag wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because Steve took the name off a Beatles Album. It wasn't extortion
Post reply on HN