Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#151

Post by BowBun » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 8:50 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #130

BowBun wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The only mandate for a corporation is growth and revenue. These goals are at odds with the good of people and our planet, as we've seen countless times. Corporations consume most of our resources, produce the most waste, and damage _everything_ more compared to any individual. This won't change, because those with the power to do something benefit from the status quo and don't feel the damage they cause. Capi…

Do other forms of government not rape the land, build industry, dump chemicals and pollutants, etc? Not sure the history of North Korea, China, Soviet Union, etc is an environmentalist paradise.

Capitalism isn't a type of government. You seem to have missed the point. The ever expanding need for material wealth is what destroys. It doesn't matter by whom or to what ends or under what name.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#152

Post by spacebanana7 » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 8:52 PM UTC

hakfoo wrote: post #150

spacebanana7 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree parents are too often harmful but trademarks seem necessary for trust. If I’m buying a can of Coca Cola with the logo I want it to be the real drink and not some fake import.

Why not some sort of "certificate of origin" instead. Maybe it's a ugly looking government label or even a QR code, and misuse of it would be under deceptive-trading laws. The point is for it to be functional, rather than letting rich firms land-rush anything (colours, shapes, fonts) that might be marketing assets. In the end, you'd have 35 red cans with white text on the shelf, but the boring square label on the box…

Certificates can be a useful backstop but consumers would be taken advantage of by bad actors if marketing assets were otherwise identical.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#153

Post by fatfingerd » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 9:07 PM UTC

dathinab wrote: post #96

mcv wrote: post #69

If Apple's trademark conflicts with an older established trademark, shouldn't the older one win, and therefore invalidate Apple's trademark? I would strongly support a law that automatically invalidates trademarks when abused for silly nonsense like this. Give the big corps something to lose.

yes, through only the trademark in context of this specific field Trademarks are in general not for all fields, e.g. Apple for "computers" but not for literally selling apples or medizine. The problem is they can just abuse various laws to continuously sue a company in all kinds of fields going again and again into revision until the smaller company can't afford the legal fees anymore even if they win.

If I were their competition, I would bank roll every organization's trademark feud with them in the hopes that one is as successful as Budvar.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#154

Post by woobar » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

Springtime wrote: post #2

Was puzzling they didn't include an image of said logo[1]. IIRC I've observed this for some other articles in the past covering trademark disputes. Is there a common reason they might do this? [1] https://www.swissfruit.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/sov_new...

Here is the logo they used before 2011. [1] Not sure what inspired the new one.

[1] https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/54990-111552-001-pr...

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#155

Post by tpmoney » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

krono wrote: post #133

tpmoney wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No other explanation except that they’re registering a very specific logo which they are now the owners of but has been used in trade since the 60s within the domain of trade relating to the historical use of that trademark (that is music and related media). You know, exactly the sort of thing you might expect the owner of a trademark to do in all the relevant legal jurisdictions where it might be using that mark in…

That's precisely the point I was trying to make in response to my parent; Fruit Union's fears are fully justified as there'd be no reason for Apple to pursue this trademark if they weren't intending to exploit the perks of its ownership in the future.

Yes, the perks of its ownership like enforcing their trade mark in the trade they are engaged in. Specifically the sale of music and the licensing of that mark back to Apple Records. Again they aren't trademarking the concept of apples, or all pictures of apples, nor is the application for anything more than the categories under which that trademark was. Further more, the application is not really any different from any number of other trademarks for which the Swiss government has already registered for Apple, such as:

https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....

or perhaps most relevantly this one which is the other Apple Records mark that they own and was granted full protection for:

https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....

Realistically this article is pure rage bait mixed with some clever marketing by the Swiss fruit union. They're not seriously worried, they're getting free press by stirring up controversy over an absolute nothing. And you can tell because of this weasel word line:

>“We have a hard time understanding this, because it’s not like they’re trying to protect their bitten apple,” Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariéthoz says, referring to the company’s iconic logo.

They would understand if Apple were (and indeed already has as linked above) trademarking their Apple Computer logo, but they somehow don't understand why Apple is also trademarking the logo of Apple Records which they also own? Either everyone involved in this article from the fruit union reps all the way up to the editors are completely ignorant of Apple Records, their logo and the previous IP battles regarding that logo or they're playing dumb for the sake of making a story.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#156

Post by friend_and_foe » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 9:54 PM UTC

You don't get to name your company after an object that literally grows on trees and then start to restrict people's ability to depict such an object or use it in some way commercially. I hope Apple gets rightfully fucked on this.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#157

Post by rajanaccros » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 10:00 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #130

BowBun wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The only mandate for a corporation is growth and revenue. These goals are at odds with the good of people and our planet, as we've seen countless times. Corporations consume most of our resources, produce the most waste, and damage _everything_ more compared to any individual. This won't change, because those with the power to do something benefit from the status quo and don't feel the damage they cause. Capi…

Do other forms of government not rape the land, build industry, dump chemicals and pollutants, etc? Not sure the history of North Korea, China, Soviet Union, etc is an environmentalist paradise.

Certainly begs the question... are corporations and governments inextricable?

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#158

Post by tpmoney » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 10:54 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #49

Varqu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a penalty for such bogus trademark claims, best as % of the global revenue. Then, maybe, they would learn that a corporation cannot bully others only because it has unlimited legal resources.

Those proceedings are expensive, and I can’t imagine Apple expects to win. I suspect it’s one of those proceedings that they feel compelled to run because they expect to lose the value of their trademark if they don’t. To me, it sounds like airlines flying empty because they wanted to keep their airport slot: give them a guarantee that they’ll keep their spot and they’ll be happy not to waste fuel and pilot hours on…

The thing is, there's no expensive proceeding happening. There's no "battle". Apple owns two "apple image" trade marks that were formerly logos used by Apple Records (of The Beatles fame). The Swiss government approved one of them and provisionally denied the other, and Apple is appealing that denial. It's normal every day business proceedings trumped up with fear mongering and hypothetical drama to make a story out of nothing.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#159

Post by tpmoney » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 10:59 PM UTC

hakfoo wrote: post #150

spacebanana7 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree parents are too often harmful but trademarks seem necessary for trust. If I’m buying a can of Coca Cola with the logo I want it to be the real drink and not some fake import.

Why not some sort of "certificate of origin" instead. Maybe it's a ugly looking government label or even a QR code, and misuse of it would be under deceptive-trading laws. The point is for it to be functional, rather than letting rich firms land-rush anything (colours, shapes, fonts) that might be marketing assets. In the end, you'd have 35 red cans with white text on the shelf, but the boring square label on the box…

For the same reason you probably want your domain registrar to prevent the registration of РayРal.com even though the SSL certificate would surely indicate that it was a russian scam site rather than the barely better american business.

Re: Apple wants rights to the image of apples in Switzerland

#160

Post by tpmoney » Mon, Jun 19, 2023, 11:06 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #69

If Apple's trademark conflicts with an older established trademark, shouldn't the older one win, and therefore invalidate Apple's trademark? I would strongly support a law that automatically invalidates trademarks when abused for silly nonsense like this. Give the big corps something to lose.

The trademark isn't being abused though. There's no actual battle here. All that's going on is Apple is attempting to register one of two trademarks for the Apple Records logos that they have owned since 2007 and has been in trade usage since the 60's. One was granted, the other was provisionally denied, Apple is appealing that denial. This whole article is speculative nonsense that feels like a publicity stunt for the fruit union.