Apple opposes logo for new German bike path, claiming too many similarities



  • Reply 21 of 30
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    I think Apple should follow in the footsteps of Slack with a logo redesign. I even created a draft to get them started :)
    (I also charge way less than Michael Bierut / Pentagram)

    edited May 2019
  • Reply 22 of 30
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,171member
    dysamoria said:
    bmatthews said:
    This might look like an evil corporation going after something frivolous, but they actually have to take action because of the way trademark cases go these days. As someone that has seen the flip side of trademark disputes, for every trademark that is in anyway similar to yours that you don't dispute can actually be used against you by another company to demonstrate a lack of suitable protection. It's the law that's messed up, not the companies.
    You aren’t required to defend your trademark *by attacking things that aren’t in any way confuse-able with your trademarks*!
    Yes actually, as a practical matter, they are.  At least under U.S. law.  If they do not "attack", they risk losing a case which is clearly infringement, based on the court seeing a lack of defense in other cases.

    As a previous poster noted, blame the U.S. court system for this state of affairs, not Apple.
  • Reply 23 of 30
    FFabianFFabian Posts: 1member
    chasm said:
    Reminder to commenters: under US law

    Reminder: This isn't the US but Germany and US law doesn't apply worldwide.
  • Reply 24 of 30
    beowulfschmidtbeowulfschmidt Posts: 2,171member
    FFabian said:
    chasm said:
    Reminder to commenters: under US law

    Reminder: This isn't the US but Germany and US law doesn't apply worldwide.
    But Apple is a U.S. company, and failing to defend one's trademark, even in other countries, can be seen as detrimental by U.S. courts.  In addition, other countries' trademark laws are ofttimes very similar to U.S. laws.  I don't know anything specific about German law in this respect, but I've seen other countries do something similar wrt defense.
  • Reply 25 of 30
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,288member
    chasm said:
    Reminder to commenters: under US law, trademark holders are required to vigorously (and yes, excessively) protect and defend their trademarks or risk losing control of them. This stems from Domino’s sugar failing to protect their logo until Domino’s Pizza was a huge national brand — and that’s why we have both today (even though I don’t think there was, or is, any consumer confusion with the two).

    Apple literally has no choice but to threaten legal action against anything that even vaguely implies a similar mark or (worse) any possible endorsement. Don’t blame Apple for this one — this happens all the time between companies. Blame the courts for setting the precedent that even unrelated marks such be defended.

    Quick example: “Pizzeria Uno” sued a Cuban restaurant called “Numero Uno” in Orlando FL — the latter having been around two decades earlier than Pizzeria Uno — and the Cuban restaurant lost. Would anyone in their right mind think Pizzeria Uno had opened one outlet of a Cuban restaurant? No. Did that help? No. And guess what was brought up as the precedent? Domino’s Pizza.
    Do the same rules apply to other countries? Truly curious as this one is in Germany. 

    EDIT: I found my own answer source.
    edited May 2019
  • Reply 26 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jurassic said:
    the only similarity in the logos is the leaf.

    Actually... No.

    In addition to the leaf (which is the same shape, and in the same position as Apple's logo), the line that ends in an arrow head is a copy of the left edge of the "apple" portion of Apple's logo. And in addition, the sign uses the word "Apple". These three elements combined makes it look like the designer intentionally wanted to create a logo that reflected the Apple logo.

    Look again it reads apfel
  • Reply 27 of 30
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    kevin kee said:
    Do I miss something or that we are not allowed to protect our own trademark anymore?
    You're trademark is a naturally occurring fruit. 
  • Reply 28 of 30
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,423member
    This is standard business practice to vigorously protect a trademark and related imagery. No big deal. It's kind of surprising that Paul McCartney, et al, and Apple Corps is not marshaling their legal team around this as well. Like most of these "Look at Apple being a big bully" stories it's just bait to bring out the Apple Haters Club membership to air their petty grievances against a company they love to hate.

  • Reply 29 of 30
    Yes in this case it seems petty, the tourism logo isn't about selling iPhones, Macs, iPads or anything remotely electronic that would cause a conflict of interest. Let it go Apple.
    edited May 2019 cgWerks
Sign In or Register to comment.