Cartier sues Apple over third party iPhone watch software

[AppleInsider]

Luxury watch maker Cartier International filed suit against Apple today for allowing a third party iPhone developer to post an application depicting a watch image which Cartier claims infringes on its designs. Later, however, it withdrew the complaint.

The watch maker originally insisted that it has never authorized Apple to use images that appear similar to the company's watches, despite the fact that the iPhone title, named Fake Watch, was only a software representation of certain famous watch designs. But in a quick retreat from its stance earlier in the day, Cartier pulled the lawsuit after Apple removed the allegedly offending software from the App Store.

"Our concerns have been addressed," Fox Rothschild LLD attorney Jonathan Lagarenne said on behalf of Cartier.

The free Fake Watch application did enable users to obtain the time using their iPhone or iPod touch, a direct blow to Cartier's fancy watch business. The software developer also offered a premium, paid version of the app under the name "Fake Watch Gold Edition."

Both versions shamelessly offered to present the time using a images of "look-alike famous wristwatches." Apple did not offer a public comment on the suit.

The suit would have had an impact on Apple's mobile software approval process, which has frequently been maligned by developers annoyed by the length of time it takes to get an application approved, frustrated by the occasional rejection of applications based on issues that may seem arbitrary or unfair, or shocked by the nature of certain titles that do manage to make it through the approvals process.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11306)

[addabox]

I just read where Apple denied Eucalyptus, a very nicely executed e-book reader app, because one of the public domain titles it allows you to access is the Kama Sutra.

This despite the fact you can get that on several other e-book readers already in the App Store, on via Mobile Safari, for that matter.

You get the feeling that the App Store approval process is just some guys who were tasked with keeping up with the flood of applications, and that they weren't really given any guidelines beyond something vague and not very binding, so they just go by their gut. Like there's one guy who's really a prude, and if he happens to see something that offends him he rejects, whereas the next guy might be paranoid about IP, and the next guy thinks fat jokes are right out, and so on.

Whatever it is, it's totally broken and Apple needs to do something yesterday. It just make them look amateurish and erratic.

[Kibitzer]

I wonder if Cartier made any effort first to contact either Apple and Fake Watch to demand that they cease and desist from presenting the Cartier watch images. Otherwise, a combination of overaggressive Cartier marketers and junkyard dog lawyers could have launched their suit out of the box, for the free product publicity that Cartier would reap.

[Adjei]

Who gives a damn, there are bigger issues to deal with than this crap.

[anantksundaram]

Cartier.... whatever.... the product will be dead in another generation.....

[cwfrederick]

I am sure Judge Judy will be able to deliver a fair and impartial verdict.

[MacTripper]

Jesus H Christmas!!

Will Cartier International just calm the hell down?

Dam, talk about nuking the site from orbit...

Apple should counter sue for a frivolous lawsuit.


Heck why don't we Mac users sue Apple over missing the Java exploit?

That will teach them huh? Just as stupid.

[JeffDM]

I wonder if Cartier made any effort first to contact either Apple and Fake Watch to demand that they cease and desist from presenting the Cartier watch images. Otherwise, a combination of overaggressive Cartier marketers and junkyard dog lawyers could have launched their suit out of the box, for the free product publicity that Cartier would reap.

I think C&D is a part of the process, but that usually isn't presented to the public. If they don't respond, then they file.

Cartier.... whatever.... the product will be dead in another generation.....

You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time. I expect that watches will stick around as long as there are people who want to wear metal knick-knacks. It's not as if very expensive watches were about getting much more accurate time anyways, they're jewelry and status symbols.

[lightstriker]

Cartier, like all luxury brands, has bigger problems with imitation goods on the streets and eBay. A cease and desist would have been enough.

[bigpics]

Like there's one guy who's really a prude, and if he happens to see something that offends him he rejects, whereas the next guy might be paranoid about IP, and the next guy thinks fat jokes are right out, and so on.

Whatever it is, it's totally broken and Apple needs to do something yesterday. It just make them look amateurish and erratic.

But not erotic.......!

;)

[Shookster]

The free Fake Watch application did enable users to obtain the time using their iPhone or iPod touch, a direct blow to Cartier's fancy watch business.

Er... what? Do they really think people will strap iPhones to their wrists instead of a watch? If anything, it helps their brand.

I can now see why Apple was so cautious with the Eucalyptus situation - there really are people who will sue for anything (although a little consistency would be nice).

[Felix01]

Lots of times we malign Apple in the various forums for what many view as frivolous cease and desist letters to protect their trademarked/copyrighted names, images, etc. I don't see this as being much different except that Cartier rolled out the big guns first...a lawsuit vs a cease and desist to Apple and the developer. Probably overkill but it got Apple's attention fast and was solved to Cartier's satisfaction so I guess they achieved their objective.

Appears though that the developer knew from the start he was on thin ground due to the "fake" reference. A lick on him and because of that indiscretion he'll have an extremely hard time getting any future apps approved. Worth it? Probably not.

[iGod 2.0]

Cartier sues Apple over a SIMULATED version of their wristwatch (mind you again, you can't literaly put this watch on your wrist) while people on the street and eBay resell the actual product for a way cheaper price and then keeping 100% of the profit...Cartier, you guys have bigger problems on your hand, like preventing your product from being leaked on the streets, yet you find time for something as frivolous as this... Hmm...I can see where Apple can be a threat, the way the Apple is so innovative and intuitive, the might just figure out a way to generate one on your wrist directly from the iPhone...

[TBell]

You make little sense. You can get the same content from just about any number of other ebook reader, including Amazon's ebook reader. You can buy the book online. Further, you can use Safari to read the text. In addition, this application doesn't even violated Apple's own terms, which prohibit the application from containing objectionable content. This application is nothing more then a search engine that allows you to view the content you searched for.

So, what is there to be cautious about? The only thing we have going on here is a complete lack of common sense and consistency.

This is why the Electronic Frontier Foundation is fighting to make it clear that jail breaking an iPhone must be legal. The guy who developed Eucalyptus says he works on the application for a year. Nobody with common sense would think the guy violated Apple's terms. So, all his work is for nothing. Further, as an iPhone OWNER I want the application.



Er... what? Do they really think people will strap iPhones to their wrists instead of a watch? If anything, it helps their brand.

I can now see why Apple was so cautious with the Eucalyptus situation - there really are people who will sue for anything (although a little consistency would be nice).

[Fast Fred 1]

I think C&D is a part of the process, but that usually isn't presented to the public. If they don't respond, then they file.



You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time. I expect that watches will stick around as long as there are people who want to wear metal knick-knacks. It's not as if very expensive watches were about getting much more accurate time anyways, they're jewelry and status symbols.
Yeah... I'm saving my money for the Nose Watch.

[MacTripper]

Lawsuit pulled.

A legal battle over iPhone application software appears to have ended almost as soon as it began.

A lawyer representing Cartier International N.V. late Friday said it is withdrawing a suit the company filed earlier in the day against Apple Inc. The suit alleged that two applications for the iPhone infringed on the trademark for the luxury brand's Tank watches.

The applications have been removed from Apple's App Store. "Our concerns have been addressed," said Jonathan Lagarenne, the attorney for Fox Rothschild LLD representing Cartier.


Yea fsck you too Cartier, a phone call would have been just fine. Assh*les.

Rest of article here...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303659766448885.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[JeffDM]

Lawsuit pulled.

Yea fsck you too Cartier, a phone call would have been just fine. Assh*les.

That's making some assumptions. How do you know that a C&D wasn't submitted? How do you know that hypothetical C&D wasn't ignored? Some people do ignore C&Ds if they don't think it's serious, sometimes it takes actual filing to get the attention of the other party.

[JeffDM]

Yeah... I'm saving my money for the Nose Watch.

Har har.

You know what I meant.

[solipsism]

Whatever it is, it's totally broken and Apple needs to do something yesterday. It just make them look amateurish and erratic.
It seems that the success has outgrown their expectations, but the approval process, which I like in theory, is very erratic, as you say. This Fake Watch app is not one I’d consider an odd inclusion. I can easily see them approving these kind of apps for years to come with them being taken down immediately after content trademark holders inform Apple of a potential issue, but the baby shaker app shouldn’t have gotten through when fart apps are denied and so forth. Though it is still under a year old so I guess we can’t be too critical, we have to expect some growing pains for new services and products.


Who gives a damn, there are bigger issues to deal with than this crap.
For example? World peace, world hunger, human rights, human trafficking, why Adam should have won American Idol? There are always more pressing issues and none of them will be addressed at Appleinsider.com.


Cartier.... whatever.... the product will be dead in another generation.....
This turned out to be some good free advertising for them. I didn’t even know they were still in business. :p

[MacTripper]

That's making some assumptions. How do you know that a C&D wasn't submitted? How do you know that the C&D wasn't ignored? Some people do ignore C&Ds if they don't think it's serious, sometimes it takes actual filing to get the attention of the other party.

Would be interesting if that was the case, hopefully Cartier would explain the reasons for their overreaction.

Which of course would shed some light on Apple's behavior... or lack of it.

Drama, yea baby, yea.

Drama - an exciting, emotional, or unexpected series of events or set of circumstances

[baredd]

Heck, I think with all the stupid lawsuits apple are getting for pointless apps, they are doing pretty well. the watch this week, shazam last week, im sure there was one the week before. Im not surprised if there legal team must be having a nightmare, "wait deny this app someone will sue because it is using 1 pixel less than the iphone is designed for, quick pull that app its so happy it made someone cry!" Christ. Would be worse than hell in my eyes.

[hillstones]

Anyone dumb enough to waste their money on a Cartier, Rolex, or other "luxury" watch is a moron. They are telling the world...look at me, I have no self esteem and I need to try and look cool by showing off my wrist watch. No one cares who makes your watch.

On the other hand, using a company's name without permission is a foul. I am sure Apple would not approve if he made a watch with an Apple logo without obtaining permission first. Going after the developer would have been the smart thing to do, maybe they did, and Apple was right to remove the program. Filing a lawsuit? Now that was a waste of money on Cartiers part.

[Dr Millmoss]

Would be interesting if that was the case, hopefully Cartier would explain the reasons for their overreaction.

Because you have to actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, or you lose control of them. This kind of action is so routine I have to wonder why anyone would get excited or outraged about it.

[ouragan]

The free Fake Watch application did enable users to obtain the time using their iPhone or iPod touch, a direct blow to Cartier's fancy watch business. The software developer also offered a premium, paid version of the app under the name "Fake Watch Gold Edition."

Both versions shamelessly offered to present the time using a images of "look-alike famous wristwatches." Apple did not offer a public comment on the suit, but appears to have yanked the offending Fake Watch titles from the iPhone App Store.


To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.

A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.

And please understand that the owner of a brand name has a legitimate right to defend the name, the image and the likeliness of its products. In most cases, the owner doesn't need any additional publicity for an already famous product.

The owner of a brand name product would probably insist on approving, controlling any publicity for fear that it might damage its own brand (through a defective or misbehaving application, for instance) and might ask for compensation because no one should profit, make money from their brand without paying for it.

I have to side with Apple and Cartier on this one, despite the best intentions of the application's authors.


:\:\:\

[solipsism]

To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.

A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.


Good point.

[Eriamjh]

Apple is being sued because an APP has a PICTURE of a watch that LOOKS like a Cartier? Crazy!

[allblue]

This is Lauren. She told us she wanted a watch that "went on my wrist" and "told me the time" for under $1000. We told her "You find it, you keep it!"

Cut to shot of Lauren walking into the entrance of a Cartiers store and walking straight back out again. "Well they looked nice with the diamonds and all, but they're really not in my budget. I guess I'm just not cool enough to be a Cartier owner" she sighs wistfully.

Cut to Lauren talking to street vendor with some watches stuck to a piece of cardboard with sellotape. "Oh look, that one's got a kitten on it" she exclaims gleefully. "Wow! That one tells the time of every country in the world!' she shrieks.

Cut to Lauren in a car park waving her left arm about. "I love it! It goes on my wrist and it tells me the time and it only cost ten bucks! Oh, here's your nine-ninety change by the way."

Congratulations Lauren, you are a

[foobar]

Come on people... I know Cartier might be an unsympathetic, rich cooperation, but it certainly has the right not to have their designs ripped from under them.

Sure, an iPhone imitation probably won't cost them any profit, but the developer saved the time to design his own watch, too. Why should s/he profit from the work of designers Cartier pays for?

If I sell an Apple-branded bittorrent client, for example, I won't cost Apple any money. (They don't sell bittorrent software.) But certainly I make money off their brand I don't deserve or paid for.

Sounds fair to me....

(And sure, they could have sued the developer instead of Apple. But Apple decided to make themselves mandatory publisher for any app. So they share the responsibility.)

[anantksundaram]

You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time. I expect that watches will stick around as long as there are people who want to wear metal knick-knacks. It's not as if very expensive watches were about getting much more accurate time anyways, they're jewelry and status symbols.

I meant that it was a generational thing.

[samab]

Because you have to actively protect your copyrights and trademarks, or you lose control of them. This kind of action is so routine I have to wonder why anyone would get excited or outraged about it.

I agree with you completely.

It's just funny how all the apple fanbois reacted in this thread.

The most simple explanation is the most likely:

(1) Cartier sent out a C&D letter to Apple's legal department and ask them to yank out the offending app.
(2) Apple's iphone app department is the most under-staffed place on the planet and even Apple's own legal department can't find a live person from the iphone app department to speak to.

Apple was busy trying to put out the flame on the baby shaker app so they didn't have the time to yank out an app because of a "routine" copyright infringing C&D letter.

[hill60]

Maybe the purpose of the App was to help law enforcement officers and consumers identify fake Cartier watches as the title suggests.

Now how will I be able to tell a fake Cartier from a real one without consulting this community service application?

To paraphrase the famous quote "What's in a name?", I believe the first problem is the name of the application which seems to approve and encourage the use and sale of illegal copies of luxury brand name watches.

A better approach would be to change the name of the application to something like "Famous Watches" which would serve as additional free publicity for luxury brand name watches and to seek a permission to use the name and likeliness image of famous brand name watches because most people would assume that the application was approved by the owners of brand name watches.

And please understand that the owner of a brand name has a legitimate right to defend the name, the image and the likeliness of its products. In most cases, the owner doesn't need any additional publicity for an already famous product.

The owner of a brand name product would probably insist on approving, controlling any publicity for fear that it might damage its own brand (through a defective or misbehaving application, for instance) and might ask for compensation because no one should profit, make money from their brand without paying for it.

I have to side with Apple and Cartier on this one, despite the best intentions of the application's authors.


:\:\:\

[robogobo]

who the fuck cares?

[solipsism]

who the fuck cares?

Cartier, Apple, and the app developer?

[McDave]

Probably pulled the suit after sales went up! I'm sure the iPhone ALSO appeals top Cartier's target market and would be a great way to mainline into it.

McD

[captaincore]

this is just ridiculous

[hezekiahb]

Anyone dumb enough to waste their money on a Cartier, Rolex, or other "luxury" watch is a moron. They are telling the world...look at me, I have no self esteem and I need to try and look cool by showing off my wrist watch. No one cares who makes your watch.

On the other hand, using a company's name without permission is a foul. I am sure Apple would not approve if he made a watch with an Apple logo without obtaining permission first. Going after the developer would have been the smart thing to do, maybe they did, and Apple was right to remove the program. Filing a lawsuit? Now that was a waste of money on Cartiers part.

Some luxury watches are worth it. My sister got me a SKAGEN for my birthday while ago & it's been an incredible watch. It's Titanium, very slim design & very durable. I don't wear it to look cool, in fact I've dinged it up a bit, but the thing never quits & I have had every watch I've owned previously die on me (sometimes after a year, sometimes 3, yes I know how to change batteries).

I agree Rolex is a waste of money, though they often cost so much because they are fitted with diamonds & made of gold or platinum. Probably worth what you pay for them but I think you could probably file them under BLING.

[shamino]

Unfortunately, nobody here has actually seen the app, so we can't judge if there is any merit to this threat or not.

If the author actually scanned in a Cartier watch face, then he is infringing on their copyright. If he drew his own design, inspired by Cartier's design, then there is no infringement (unless they are going to try and claim a patent for what can't possibly be protected beyond the bounds of copyright law.)

But until someone posts side-by-side pictures of the FakeWatch app and a Cartier watch, most of us will never be able to decide what the deal really is.
You mean watches? AFIAK, they're now bought as jewelry, not to tell time.
And that's a big part of this suit - proving damages. People buy Cartier watches as jewelry. Nobody willing and able to buy one would consider buying a cheap knock-off, and absolutely nobody would consider an iPhone-based software clock applet as an alternative.

There's no way Cartier could ever prove damages, even if they manage to justify a claim of copyright infringement.
That's making some assumptions. How do you know that a C&D wasn't submitted? How do you know that hypothetical C&D wasn't ignored? Some people do ignore C&Ds if they don't think it's serious, sometimes it takes actual filing to get the attention of the other party.
I remember reading that many lawyers routinely advise their clients to ignore all C&D letters. These letters are typically generated by the thousands for the most frivolous and pointless reasons. Any company that actually reads them is going to find itself bogged down in nothing but responding to wastes-of-skin that would be better off serving humanity by being homeless.

Apple really should have nothing to do with this. If Cartier has a complaint about the app, they should sue the author. You don't sue Best Buy because a musician sold on their shelf is copying another artist's work.

Apple has been very stupid in yanking the app. By doing so, they are assuming responsibility for this app, and for everything else they resell, even though they have no such legal responsibility (and I'm sure the standard iPhone developer license explicitly says so.) They may well have created sufficient precedent to invalidate a major piece of their iPhone developer license.

[samab]

I remember reading that many lawyers routinely advise their clients to ignore all C&D letters. These letters are typically generated by the thousands for the most frivolous and pointless reasons. Any company that actually reads them is going to find itself bogged down in nothing but responding to wastes-of-skin that would be better off serving humanity by being homeless.

Apple really should have nothing to do with this. If Cartier has a complaint about the app, they should sue the author. You don't sue Best Buy because a musician sold on their shelf is copying another artist's work.

Apple has been very stupid in yanking the app. By doing so, they are assuming responsibility for this app, and for everything else they resell, even though they have no such legal responsibility (and I'm sure the standard iPhone developer license explicitly says so.) They may well have created sufficient precedent to invalidate a major piece of their iPhone developer license.

No lawyer would advise their clients to ignore C&D letters --- it is the job of the lawyer to actually review the C&D letters first and give legal opinion later.

Cartier can sue whoever they want --- and companies always sue the people with money (Apple) instead of "independent" software developer who lives in his parent's basement.

Apple yanking the app isn't taking the responsibility for anything --- after Cartier withdrew the lawsuit against Apple, Cartier can still sue the independent developer (they don't because the independent developer doesn't have any money). Apple is just yanking the app, not taking responsibility for anything --- the iphone developer license gives them broad powers to yanking the app for any reason (like competing with itune's podcasting function).

[zoetmb]

Come on people... I know Cartier might be an unsympathetic, rich cooperation, but it certainly has the right not to have their designs ripped from under them.

Sure, an iPhone imitation probably won't cost them any profit, but the developer saved the time to design his own watch, too. Why should s/he profit from the work of designers Cartier pays for?

If I sell an Apple-branded bittorrent client, for example, I won't cost Apple any money. (They don't sell bittorrent software.) But certainly I make money off their brand I don't deserve or paid for.

Sounds fair to me....

(And sure, they could have sued the developer instead of Apple. But Apple decided to make themselves mandatory publisher for any app. So they share the responsibility.)

I still think it was silly. As far as I'm concerned, the app almost falls under the category of satire (which is protected.) The developer should just change the name from Cartier to Kartier or Carteea or something and change a few design elements so it doesn't replicate a Cartier watch exactly. And I'd bet Cartier and/or its lawyers don't even realize that anyone can post almost anything on the Apple App Store. They probably think Apple designed and/or paid for the app.

[bigpics]

I still think it was silly. As far as I'm concerned, the app almost falls under the category of satire (which is protected.) The developer should just change the name from Cartier to Kartier or Carteea or something and change a few design elements so it doesn't replicate a Cartier watch exactly. And I'd bet Cartier and/or its lawyers don't even realize that anyone can post almost anything on the Apple App Store. They probably think Apple designed and/or paid for the app.I forwarded the story to a friend and they complained that I'd promised not to send them any more fake stories from "The Onion"