Chinese clothing label sues Apple, says App Store logo breaks copyright

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 61
    berndog said:
    And there I was the other day looking a my little screen trying to find the App Store icon and after finding it thinking. Wow couldn’t Apple with all its artistic prowess come up with a better icon? Just saying.....
    Push 11.2.1 (16C153)..... done!
    Define “better”. The white symbol is an easel and the letter A at once, this is effective. Different doesn’t mean better. 
  • Reply 42 of 61

    lkrupp said:
    Speaking of Chinese ripoffs...

    Man, the asian knockoffs are shameless... So many blatantly ripped off elements there. 
  • Reply 43 of 61
    spice-boy said:
    Apple, pay up and dump that logo, I never liked it anyway. 
    In US courts awards are based on demonstratable damages. I don’t know Chinese IP courts of course (sounds like an oxymoron), but I wonder how damages could be proven here?
  • Reply 44 of 61

    lkrupp said:
    Speaking of Chinese ripoffs...

    Man, the asian knockoffs are shameless... So many blatantly ripped off elements there. 
    Hmmm, KON is an Asian company... Chinese even.  Where is their knockoff?  They don't have one, you say.  Well, let's just point our deflection finger at a random unaffiliated Asian company instead of addressing the actual issue.  It's much easier to point at someone else amirite.  Look at what those guys did.  Especially someone who has nothing to do with... ahh never mind.
    muthuk_vanalingam[Deleted User]mac_128
  • Reply 45 of 61
    Soli said:
    I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes. 
    Apple does sell clothing, but I don't think that matters when it comes to trademarks if the plaintiff can successfully argue that if the infringement confuses the customer and hurts sales.

    Then, at least in the US, you have to actively defend your trademark even if there is no loss of revenue—and in this case potentially revenue gained from the extra media attention to a company with such a high mindshare—or else it can be used against you with future issues in other trademark disputes.
    Yup, exactly why this company has no case since no people would mistakenly buy an iPhone because one of the the Apps icon it uses confuse them and hurts the clothes sales.
  • Reply 46 of 61
    tzeshan said:
    I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes. 
    The case is in China itself, so that’s the reason. They’ll likely win.
    They probably won't win.  But Apple probably will settle in order not to take bigger risk.  
    You sound like the PR department of the PRC. 
    Public Relations of China
    radarthekat
  • Reply 47 of 61
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,617member
    Soli said:
    hentaiboy said:
    The Woolworths lawsuit obviously failed as that logo is currently in use. 
    I don't think these are typically meant to succeed in the sense of getting companies to change their logos. I chalk it up to being like animals that make themselves look bigger to appear more threatening than they really are.

    The purpose is to protect your logo, or others will start copying it more blatantly to try and rip people off thinking they are buying Apple stuff. It wasn’t actually about woolies, but to make real potential rip off merchants think very carefully before they leap, and maybe bottom feed off some other company.

    In the case at hand, Apple probably did it accidently, but I think Kon is still right to defend its logo.  
    I think that what should happen is Apple changes the AppStore logo back to the old design at least temporarily and apologises for the inadvertent mistake. Not sure there should be money in it though, they are in different markets after all so it’s difficult to see any monetary or economic harm.

    Maybe they could do some sort of partnership to sweeten the apology.

  • Reply 48 of 61
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,678member
    entropys said:
    Soli said:
    hentaiboy said:
    The Woolworths lawsuit obviously failed as that logo is currently in use. 
    I don't think these are typically meant to succeed in the sense of getting companies to change their logos. I chalk it up to being like animals that make themselves look bigger to appear more threatening than they really are.

    The purpose is to protect your logo, or others will start copying it more blatantly to try and rip people off thinking they are buying Apple stuff. It wasn’t actually about woolies, but to make real potential rip off merchants think very carefully before they leap, and maybe bottom feed off some other company.

    In the case at hand, Apple probably did it accidently, but I think Kon is still right to defend its logo.  
    I think that what should happen is Apple changes the AppStore logo back to the old design at least temporarily and apologises for the inadvertent mistake. Not sure there should be money in it though, they are in different markets after all so it’s difficult to see any monetary or economic harm.

    Maybe they could do some sort of partnership to sweeten the apology.
    It probably was never in their purview and I don't Apple will change anything because of Kon, for reasons I've already mentioned.

    I don't think that logo databases are branding trademark databases are currently setup to look for similar designs, but that would be a nifty modern feature if it did exist.
  • Reply 49 of 61
    kevin kee said:
    Soli said:
    I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes. 
    Apple does sell clothing, but I don't think that matters when it comes to trademarks if the plaintiff can successfully argue that if the infringement confuses the customer and hurts sales.

    Then, at least in the US, you have to actively defend your trademark even if there is no loss of revenue—and in this case potentially revenue gained from the extra media attention to a company with such a high mindshare—or else it can be used against you with future issues in other trademark disputes.
    Yup, exactly why this company has no case since no people would mistakenly buy an iPhone because one of the the Apps icon it uses confuse them and hurts the clothes sales.
    It's not about confusing people, that doesn't even figure into it. As I see it, it cheapens the brand image, this company and it's consumers might have had a certain level of respect and pride wearing that specific logo which now just looks like the app-store logo. Compared to the "apple" logos that apple went after (posted above), this is FAR more similar at a glance.
  • Reply 50 of 61
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,280member
    Soli said:
    entropys said:
    Soli said:
    hentaiboy said:
    The Woolworths lawsuit obviously failed as that logo is currently in use. 
    I don't think these are typically meant to succeed in the sense of getting companies to change their logos. I chalk it up to being like animals that make themselves look bigger to appear more threatening than they really are.

    The purpose is to protect your logo, or others will start copying it more blatantly to try and rip people off thinking they are buying Apple stuff. It wasn’t actually about woolies, but to make real potential rip off merchants think very carefully before they leap, and maybe bottom feed off some other company.

    In the case at hand, Apple probably did it accidently, but I think Kon is still right to defend its logo.  
    I think that what should happen is Apple changes the AppStore logo back to the old design at least temporarily and apologises for the inadvertent mistake. Not sure there should be money in it though, they are in different markets after all so it’s difficult to see any monetary or economic harm.

    Maybe they could do some sort of partnership to sweeten the apology.
    It probably was never in their purview and I don't Apple will change anything because of Kon, for reasons I've already mentioned.

    I don't think that logo databases are branding trademark databases are currently setup to look for similar designs, but that would be a nifty modern feature if it did exist.
    A quick and dirty way to check is paste your logo in a Google Search image bar and search for similar.

    But if you really want to dig in (and probably spend a great deal of time and effort) both the USPTO and WIPO have databases to search,
    http://tess2.uspto.gov/tmdb/dscm/index.htm - These are the image codes you'd need to reference to use this next link more effectively
    http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4807:8x3v1p.1.1

    Internationally:
    http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/

    FWIW Google Image Search is good enough for me. 
    edited December 2017 SpamSandwichSoli
  • Reply 51 of 61
    croprcropr Posts: 914member
    Technically this isn't copyright infringement since you can't copyright a logo. You can only trademark a logo. I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes. 
    Having one single app who sells clothes is enough to have confusion
  • Reply 52 of 61
    They are not the same.  The Apple App store logo has rounded corners. /s
  • Reply 53 of 61
    How about if some Chinese company presented a trademark that looked just like Apple's logo? What if they produced washing machines? Apple doesn't produce washing machines. Would Apple sue? You bet they would. Note that this is different than all the fake Apple Stores in the country - Apple would just about hire a hitman to get rid of them - and they should! Likewise they should sue over logo use because whether they are infringed in one of their actual trademark categories or not, use of their symbol might reasonably lead someone to purchase one of those washing machines thinking Apple made them. This degrades the value of Apple's property. Likewise, how about the Disney logo? Remember that as a trademark it doesn't matter that the symbol actually spells out the company name, it's the symbol value. You can follow this logic all the way back to the NABISCO logo (look it up.) Point being, the Chinese company is well within their rights to preserve their rights to their trademark. If Apple fights them over this, it's just arrogance. FYI I'm an Apple-only designer, but get real.
    edited December 2017
  • Reply 54 of 61
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,034member
    tzeshan said:
    How about all the Chinese Android smartphone copycat companies using app icons that too closely resemble iPhone apps?  I see the phone app looks so much like iPhone phone app.  Infac, even the color is the same. 
    China is it's own world. See they can flat out copy everyone else, but it's not OK to supposedly copy them. I just find it all laughable. The Courts generally side with the Chinese company's.
    tallest skil
  • Reply 55 of 61

    lkrupp said:
    Speaking of Chinese ripoffs...

    Man, the asian knockoffs are shameless... So many blatantly ripped off elements there. 
    Hmmm, KON is an Asian company... Chinese even.  Where is their knockoff?  They don't have one, you say.  Well, let's just point our deflection finger at a random unaffiliated Asian company instead of addressing the actual issue.  It's much easier to point at someone else amirite.  Look at what those guys did.  Especially someone who has nothing to do with... ahh never mind.
    Nonsense. The conversation is free to ebb and flow, and in this case I was commenting on the picture posted -- a shameless asian knockoff of an Apple product. Why does identifying the knockoffs bother you so much? Hmm if only we had a word for that...
  • Reply 56 of 61
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,885member
    How about if some Chinese company presented a trademark that looked just like Apple's logo? What if they produced washing machines? Apple doesn't produce washing machines. Would Apple sue? You bet they would. Note that this is different than all the fake Apple Stores in the country - Apple would just about hire a hitman to get rid of them - and they should! Likewise they should sue over logo use because whether they are infringed in one of their actual trademark categories or not, use of their symbol might reasonably lead someone to purchase one of those washing machines thinking Apple made them. This degrades the value of Apple's property. Likewise, how about the Disney logo? Remember that as a trademark it doesn't matter that the symbol actually spells out the company name, it's the symbol value. You can follow this logic all the way back to the NABISCO logo (look it up.) Point being, the Chinese company is well within their rights to preserve their rights to their trademark. If Apple fights them over this, it's just arrogance. FYI I'm an Apple-only designer, but get real.
    This is not how trademark should work for the businesses.  A successful business is afraid copycats will rob  its business with inferior products. On the other hand, an inferior business will very much like to infringe on a successful business trademark. Therefore the reason Kon filed lawsuit against is very likely for monetary purpose. Its business will only be helped by being similar to Apple's icon. 
  • Reply 57 of 61

    lkrupp said:
    Speaking of Chinese ripoffs...

    Man, the asian knockoffs are shameless... So many blatantly ripped off elements there. 
    Hmmm, KON is an Asian company... Chinese even.  Where is their knockoff?  They don't have one, you say.  Well, let's just point our deflection finger at a random unaffiliated Asian company instead of addressing the actual issue.  It's much easier to point at someone else amirite.  Look at what those guys did.  Especially someone who has nothing to do with... ahh never mind.
    Nonsense. The conversation is free to ebb and flow, and in this case I was commenting on the picture posted -- a shameless asian knockoff of an Apple product. Why does identifying the knockoffs bother you so much? Hmm if only we had a word for that...
    Daaang son.  That was a super quick transition to passive aggressive personal accusation.  What gave you the impression that the identification of knockoffs bothered me?  Couldn't I have been bothered more by the deflective nature of your comment than anything to do with knockoff product?  I mean, a cursory glance says my comment has very little to do with the knockoff and everything to do with my opinion of your comment.  
    gatorguy
  • Reply 58 of 61

    lkrupp said:
    Speaking of Chinese ripoffs...

    Man, the asian knockoffs are shameless... So many blatantly ripped off elements there. 
    Hmmm, KON is an Asian company... Chinese even.  Where is their knockoff?  They don't have one, you say.  Well, let's just point our deflection finger at a random unaffiliated Asian company instead of addressing the actual issue.  It's much easier to point at someone else amirite.  Look at what those guys did.  Especially someone who has nothing to do with... ahh never mind.
    Nonsense. The conversation is free to ebb and flow, and in this case I was commenting on the picture posted -- a shameless asian knockoff of an Apple product. Why does identifying the knockoffs bother you so much? Hmm if only we had a word for that...
    Daaang son.  That was a super quick transition to passive aggressive personal accusation.  What gave you the impression that the identification of knockoffs bothered me?  Couldn't I have been bothered more by the deflective nature of your comment than anything to do with knockoff product?  I mean, a cursory glance says my comment has very little to do with the knockoff and everything to do with my opinion of your comment.  
    I love it.  What part of the South are you from?
    Don't get pissed, I'm with ya.
  • Reply 59 of 61
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,399member

    lkrupp said:
    Speaking of Chinese ripoffs...

    Man, the asian knockoffs are shameless... So many blatantly ripped off elements there. 
    Hmmm, KON is an Asian company... Chinese even.  Where is their knockoff?  They don't have one, you say.  Well, let's just point our deflection finger at a random unaffiliated Asian company instead of addressing the actual issue.  It's much easier to point at someone else amirite.  Look at what those guys did.  Especially someone who has nothing to do with... ahh never mind.
    You mean a strawman? That would never happen here ... /s ;-)
  • Reply 60 of 61
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,730member
    Nor would a thread necro...
Sign In or Register to comment.