Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's Trademark Exploit

blog.giovanh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#71

Post by dwaite »

enragedcacti wrote: post #42
threeseed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you are talking about. From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border. Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.

> Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. TFA: The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold

Are there any updates in the five years since this happened? An appeal or lawsuit actually filed?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#72

Post by threeseed »

enragedcacti wrote: post #42
threeseed wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you are talking about. From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border. Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.

> Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. TFA: The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold

> the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold

Because other companies are incapable of putting an Apple logo on their products ?

It's literally what counterfeiters do.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#73

Post by AdamTReineke »

emodendroket wrote: post #55
mherdeg wrote: post #25

Huh. What happened with the lot of 2000 seized OnePlus Buds? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-state... ) Did the company just write off that shipment and keep selling them?

I wondered about that. CBP affirmed they didn't make a mistake and then you just never heard about it again.

I had a pair of white Denon Wireless Earbuds that I tried to sell on Facebook Marketplace, still in shrink and with my own photos. They were kicked off as counterfeit items, presumably because I described them as knockoff Air Pods and that triggered some filter. I wonder if Apple is also coaching classified ad sides with the same trademark messaging they're giving CBP?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#74

Post by dwaite »

CivBase wrote: post #47
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfei…

That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as On…

> In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified.

But they aren't "internal components", because they aren't inside anything. There were Apple logos on a display assembly which was not manufactured for Apple and which, I suspect, were not otherwise labelled as being a non-genuine part.

Under that suspicion - at import, there would be no indication these parts weren't meant to be sold to other third party repair shops as genuine Apple display assemblies.

Since Jessa Jones had two shipments seized back in 2018 there hasn't been any news that I know of updating on an appeal or lawsuit, or of any other seizures on her imports.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#75

Post by dwaite »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #49
CivBase wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as On…

In the first situation from the article, it explicitly states briefly that they are “hybrid” parts: > The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment. Which brings up my Chanel hand…

> As for OnePlus; that one never made any sense and probably embarrassed Apple too because… it’s not like Walmart has had any problem selling AirPods knockoffs.

As it was one shipment rather than the product line, and since CBP confirmed that they had not made a mistake, I suspect something was up with that shipment in particular.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#77

Post by wolrah »

emodendroket wrote: post #59
enragedcacti wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. > How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts? That is…

> Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it. What if I get some shoe laces with a pattern of the Louis Vuitton logo and put them in generic shoes?

> Seems like a plausible test but it's easy to poke holes in it. What if I get some shoe laces with a pattern of the Louis Vuitton logo and put them in generic shoes?

Since the specific example was explicitly marked third party screens that shipped with a official Apple cable included that happens to have Apple logos on it in an invisible way, your analogy is not great.

If I sold a pair of generic shoes labeled as just generic shoes, but lace them with a set of laces from Louis Vuitton shoes that have a small logo hidden on the tip, never advertising this fact in any way, that would be the comparison.

No one is claiming that the whole assembly is an official Apple product, they're not even marketing the official cable, so why should the fact that they did actually use an official cable suddenly make the whole product "counterfeit"?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#78

Post by Clamchop »

ChickeNES wrote: post #27
pests wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's digital and involved copyright though. If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)

It's digital /now/ but Nintendo also used the design of their logo embossed on FDS disks as a (very) primitive form of DRM (there was a corresponding piece of plastic in the drive that would only sit flush if the disk had the right cutouts).

I wonder if this would have held up in the US if it had been disputed. Neither trademark nor copyright is allowed to be functional and Nintendo effectively made their mark a functional requirement for a disk to fit.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#79

Post by lozenge »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #52
enragedcacti wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here’s a thought experiment We don't need a thought experiment! We already have an expert legal opinion! > “Assuming that: (1) the cable bearing the Apple mark is a genuine Apple product, (2) the cable used on these screens is the same as the one Apple uses in the U.S., and (3) the importer/seller clearly communicates that the screens are a non-Apple aftermarket product, then Apple’s case for treating these as ‘cou…

Venture to speculate why Apple’s lawyers thought it might work then? (Sorry, I’m just being cynical because every sane argument has a more insane counter argument that often ends up the more legal one.)

The legal costs to recover a single shipment are not worth the value of the shipment, and they also don't prevent the border police from siezing the next shipment.

Businesses want to make money, not tilt at windmills.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#80

Post by zote »

threeseed wrote: post #23
kmeisthax wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you buy phones with cracked screens, you have a supply of iPhone flex cables. Apple does not own those flex cables, but them putting their holy sigil[0] on the cables lets them pretend that they do to cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple. Furthermore, the parts were seized on trademark grounds; the program in question only deals with trademark. There are different processe…

> cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple It's $190 to register a copyright and is open to any copyright holder. And it makes sense to enforce this at the border rather than allowing counterfeit products into the market.

pretty sure Apple is paying more than $80 to the CBP
Post reply on HN