161–170 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 .
There is a clause in trademark law (both Swiss and US) which allows owners of "famous" trademarks to pursue infringement even when the marks in question do not overlap in commerce areas. Apple's trademark certainly meets the "famous" standard.
In Swiss law, see Article 15:
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en
In US law, see section (c) 1 of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
I imagine the reason for these clauses is, say, to prevent someone from making a Nike Swoosh Refrigerator with the purpose of selling units by drawing from Nike's luster.
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…
I also want to trust the Swiss courts, much more than I'd trust the American courts, to no accept any Apple claim against the Swiss company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Providence is like providing something (provide ence) and Provenance is like it stems from something like a vine (pro vine ance).
Wait, that's completely false ! Provenance comes from the Latin "pro" (from) and "venire" (come), so that's where an item comes from, while Providence (capital P) is "the care and control of God or of a force that is not human in origin" according to Cambridge dictionary.
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…
International IP laws come from the time of Dickens, when people were copying his books in the states because he couldn't enforce ownership from over here. America didn't really play ball until the situation started affecting their own economy (Americans being copied by people in other countries, or other Americans, enough to affect the national bottom line). China is in a similar state: international IP isn't enforc…
Copyright is a different game to trademarks. Copyright has its origins in the Statute of Anne (also known as the Copyright Act 1710), and was designed specifically to protect the investment of publishers and printers in royalties to authors: copyright protects neither producers nor consumers, but rather distributors, whereas trademarks protect consumers.
The idea of extraterritorial and multi-jurisdictional copyright is, as you say, a more recent innovation; the American film industry is based in Hollywood because California refused to enforce Edison's claim on all films made with his cameras.
> The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
All of international politics works like this. Western politicians and diplomats are naturally supportive of the 'rules-based order' we keep hearing about: we wrote the rules in our favour after the Second World War.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right? All the comments here are mocking Apple for trying to own all depictions of a fruit, or make it seem like the other company had been happily using the logo for a century, but no, Apple is just trying to say they can’t use the logo they switched to in 2011 which was clearly based on the Apple logo.
"clearly based on" is doing a whole lot of work in your comment. I would never confuse the two.
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/54990-111552-001-pr...
to this new one:
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/54990-111553-000-le...
it seems to me that they were clearly using the Apple logo as their inspiration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right? All the comments here are mocking Apple for trying to own all depictions of a fruit, or make it seem like the other company had been happily using the logo for a century, but no, Apple is just trying to say they can’t use the logo they switched to in 2011 which was clearly based on the Apple logo.
> clearly based on the Apple logo Uh, the design is clearly based on an apple, which they sell
Tough luck Nissan motors, at least the Japanese court stood up for the man and his rights. The owner finally died after covid in 2020, and the domain still sits parked.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/35179/the-man-who-fought-nissa...
Something tells me if this were Apple in the US, he's have been steamrolled like a piece of dung left in the road and domain taken as these poor bastards daring to use a fruit borne from the beginning of time before Apple Inc will now get.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> clearly based on the Apple logo Uh, the design is clearly based on an apple, which they sell
Do you believe it could ever be possible for a company that sells apples to design a logo based on the Apple logo?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe it could ever be possible for a company that sells apples to design a logo based on the Apple logo?
Do you believe that regardless of the existence of Apple a company that sells apples could want to use a generic picture of an apple as their logo?
