Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change its Apple logo • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by wkat4242 » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 1:47 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #91

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.

Because they don’t want people to sell laptops and phones with an uneaten apple on them. It’s pretty simple. The article is written to be ragebait, and judging by the comments here, it’s been successful.

If that were the case, why do they apply for all categories instead of just electronics?

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

#142

Post by Izkata » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

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…

> and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.

IIRC, this one used to be true but was overturned.

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

#143

Post by judge2020 » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

Paul-Craft wrote: post #15

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 .

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

For reference, Apple has not taken action against the company with the logo in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785

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

#144

Post by hummer_embark » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 1:50 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

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

#145

Post by vetinari » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

denkquer wrote: post #122

vetinari wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither did Apple Inc.; the current flat one is from 2017.

This is incorrect. Old company logos don't lose their trademark. This logos shape dates back to 1977.

It is correct; you are moving the goalpost.

If they were using the 1977 logo, including the color scheme, it would be impossible to argue, that the similarity can lead to confusion of them and the point of the article would be moot.

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

#146

Post by otherme123 » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 1:56 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #143

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

For reference, Apple has not taken action against the company with the logo in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785

Because the first step is to get exclusive apple trademark for everything, then force everyone out.

The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?

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

#147

Post by hospitalJail » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC

hilbert42 wrote: post #33

I see, so Apple is now real government in our so-called democracies. Welcome to government by MegaCorporation.

Kind of scary given how many people defend every possible action too.

Reminds me of GOP/Dem politics.

My side has a good reason for doing it, but when they do it, its bad.

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

#148

Post by vGPU » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 2:01 PM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #137

tdy721 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Steve took the name off a Beatles Album. It wasn't extortion

He got the idea up on a farm when he did an Apple fast. I suspect LSD was involved.

I’d be more surprised if LSD wasn't involved.

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

#149

Post by ClumsyPilot » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #72

oniony wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying trademarks prevent arson and violence.

Definiyyely, we will have a tidal wave of arsonand violence withng 3 to 5 years due to climate changje and lack of law

To all the downvoters - do you seriously believe, that once damage from climate change starts to bite, and millipns of people are displaced, there won't be any social disorder?

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

#150

Post by judge2020 » Wed, Jun 21, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #113

This title is clickbait. If you read the article, it’s pretty clear that Apple has taken no action against the fruit company and there’s no reason to think they will, or that they’d even be able to if granted the trademarks requested. It also seems as if they’re trying to retain rights to use the whole apple for specific products. From the source: “ Apple's attempts to secure the trademark in Switzerland go as far ba…

The appeal (download) https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2... per Wired UK https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-ba...

Google Translate:

The appellant is the holder of the international registration IR 1'028'240 [Apple] (fig.) based in the USA, which is claimed for Class 9 goods. The goods include im Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers.

The registration involves the following figurative mark:

(real apple)

The complainant applied for the protection of the disputed sign to be extended in Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property dismissed the request from September 2, 2022 partially withdrawn. As justification, the institute stated that the figurative mark belong to the commons. The disputed sign shows a true-to-life image of an apple and will be understood as an indication of the thematic content of part of the disputed goods. The sign thus lacks the necessary distinctiveness. Against this raised the Complainant Complaint to the Federal Administrative Court. She essentially complains not every thematic reference for the entry is a hindrance. The distinctiveness of A trademark only occurs when there is a sufficiently specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services lost. This reference is absent in the present case.