Prepear revises logo to settle Apple trademark dispute

Posted:
in General Discussion
Prepear, which has been embroiled in a trademark dispute with Apple for nearly six months, on Tuesday said it settled the issue by changing the shape of a leaf in its logo.

Prepear


Company co-founder and COO Russ Monson in a statement to iPhone in Canada said it had "amicably resolved its trademark issue with Apple." Monson said the company will "make a small change to our logo in the coming weeks," adding that Prepear is "happy" with the settlement terms.

The remedy, it seems, is a slightly tweaked logo. Prepear has adjusted the shape of a leaf in its pear emblem to make it visually distinct from Apple's iconic mark. The developer will use the revised symbol in its logo and app icon.

Apple first aired grievances over the app's logo when it formally objected to a trademark application from meal planning firm Super Healthy Kids last August. The mark is a simple outline of a pear with a singular almond-shaped leaf. Apple argued the design too closely resembled its "famous Apple Logo" and "creates a similar commercial impression."

Prepear later accused Apple of engaging in "bullying" tactics that cost the company "many thousands of dollars" and resulted in the layoff of at least one employee. Monson appealed to the public with a petition to "save the pear" and "end Apple's aggressive opposition of businesses with fruit logos."

"Apple has been opposing small businesses with fruit-related logos by starting expensive legal action even when those logos don't look anything like Apple's logo, or aren't in the same line of business as Apple at all," the petition read.

In December, Apple and Prepear entered settlement negotiations in the U.S.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    It was already visually distinct. 
    bulk001elijahgchemengin1dysamoriaviclauyycjony0
  • Reply 2 of 24
    cg27cg27 Posts: 109member
    Think of all the “free” publicity.  Probably worth whatever their legal bill was.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 24
    @cg27 ; Tell that to the employee who was laid off over such a ridiculous claim and minor change.  
    elijahgbala1234dysamoriaviclauyycurahara
  • Reply 4 of 24
    Remember how Apple records,… The record label for the Beatles… Made Apple computer and litter Apple Inc. jump through hoops in the past before they finally settled?
    jony0
  • Reply 5 of 24
    Are those two logos even from the same company?  The top one is indistinguishable from the Apple logo and the bottom is something completely different.  /s
    dysamoriaviclauyyc
  • Reply 6 of 24
    It was already visually distinct. 
    The thing that did it for me was the words "prepair" and the picture of a pear.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    It was already visually distinct. 
    The thing that did it for me was the words "prepair" and the picture of a pear.
    I agree although I think the pear itself was distinct. 
  • Reply 8 of 24
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 2,958member
    Are those two logos even from the same company?  The top one is indistinguishable from the Apple logo and the bottom is something completely different.  /s
    I didn't even notice the difference at first. Honestly, this seems like a case of Apple being  a bit heavy handed/bullying, if you ask me. If the little change they made was sufficient then there wasn't an issue to begin with.
    muthuk_vanalingamrandominternetpersonchemengin1dysamoriajony0
  • Reply 9 of 24
    The revision looks just a little bit sadder. 
    randominternetpersonviclauyyc
  • Reply 10 of 24
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,581member
    Should not have settled. Logo was significantly different than apples’s 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 11 of 24
    chasmchasm Posts: 2,345member
    Trust me this sort of thing is VERY standard in trademark disputes. If ANY ELEMENT of a trademark is close to the element in another trademark -- including such minutia as the exact SHADE of colour or the exact THICKNESS of a line used similarly in another trademark, this is legally worthy of dispute.

    Normal people see a pear that looks nothing like an apple, but the leaf component is similar to Apple's leaf. The revised logo proves that it was Prepear, not Apple, that was trying to bully (through bad publicity) their way into using a logo with a similar element. Apple would have told them on the first meeting "you need to change the leaf, everything else is fine" but apparently Prepear didn't want to, resulting in costing THEMSELVES thousands of dollars etc.

    I know it is hard for non-industry people to understand, but Prepear would certainly have lost their case had this gone to court, because they were unwilling to change the similar leaf element only very slightly to avoid objections.
    EsquireCatsDAalsethmacplusplusmike1randominternetpersontundraboyapplguytenthousandthingsuraharajony0
  • Reply 12 of 24
    entropysentropys Posts: 2,892member
    MplsP said:
    Are those two logos even from the same company?  The top one is indistinguishable from the Apple logo and the bottom is something completely different.  /s
    I didn't even notice the difference at first. Honestly, this seems like a case of Apple being  a bit heavy handed/bullying, if you ask me. If the little change they made was sufficient then there wasn't an issue to begin with.
    The aim wasn’t to get them to radically change their trademark, it was to be seen to have defended the Apple logo. Tweaking the identical leaf was enough. For the time it really is egregious.
    edited February 10 dysamoriatenthousandthings
  • Reply 13 of 24
    crowleycrowley Posts: 7,650member
    Jfc, what a fucking waste of time.  Scummy behaviour from Apple over the shape of a leaf.
    lkruppdysamoriachemengin1
  • Reply 14 of 24
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 2,958member
    chasm said:
    Trust me this sort of thing is VERY standard in trademark disputes. If ANY ELEMENT of a trademark is close to the element in another trademark -- including such minutia as the exact SHADE of colour or the exact THICKNESS of a line used similarly in another trademark, this is legally worthy of dispute.

    Normal people see a pear that looks nothing like an apple, but the leaf component is similar to Apple's leaf. The revised logo proves that it was Prepear, not Apple, that was trying to bully (through bad publicity) their way into using a logo with a similar element. Apple would have told them on the first meeting "you need to change the leaf, everything else is fine" but apparently Prepear didn't want to, resulting in costing THEMSELVES thousands of dollars etc.

    I know it is hard for non-industry people to understand, but Prepear would certainly have lost their case had this gone to court, because they were unwilling to change the similar leaf element only very slightly to avoid objections.
    If the only people who would notice or care are the people in advertising then it strikes me as an excellent example of how out of touch they (and the courts) are with the general public and reality. Laws shouldn’t exist just because a few people get obsessive over the shape of a leaf.
    chemengin1
  • Reply 15 of 24
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,744member
    All these overnight experts on trademark law coming out of the woodwork.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,214member
    cg27 said:
    Think of all the “free” publicity.  Probably worth whatever their legal bill was.
    Oh get off it. 
  • Reply 17 of 24
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,214member
    This continues to be stupid. Apple was always in the wrong here.
    chemengin1
  • Reply 18 of 24
    Only an idiot would confuse Apple’s with Prepear’s in the first place. 
    chemengin1
  • Reply 19 of 24
    Design PhD student (specialised in graphic design, namely typography and all related disciplines, including branding and corporate identity) here: Apple was absolutely in the right here. The leaf shape, while generic and very pure in a geometric sense (just like Apple's, and yes, you might argue that those shouldn't be accepted in the first place as intellectual property because of prior art and for being too generic, but context here is key) was waaaaaaaay too similar in proportion and orientation (it was just mirrored). If you look at AI's original coverage of the lawsuit, you can definitely see it: https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/apple-legal-action-pear-logo/

    Sure, Apple was a bit overzealous about it, but that's kind of par for the course for a billion-dollar company. If it was resolved amicably, that kind of lays the “bullying” angle to rest, now, doesn't it? The guys at Prepear were throwing a tantrum, IMHO. Especially considering how, yes, they are a tech company (if they were, say, some random agricultural business I could see how Apple might be overreaching to branches of business their own Nice classification codes likely don't even cover, except Prepear has… apps. In App Stores).

    No, really. What's more, I actually like the revised version better. The contrast between the more continuous contour of the pair and the leaf is starker, and the latter's half-circle shape not only pairs better with the tops and bottoms of the pear, but it also somewhat echoes the counter-shape (or the “eye”) of the lowercase “e” in their logo.

    TL;DR: Not only did they not lose an expensive lawsuit, Apple actually forced them to better their own design and, as someone else said, this actually brought them some publicity. Win-win, if you ask me.
    edited February 10 applguyjony0
  • Reply 20 of 24
    gc_ukgc_uk Posts: 112member
    tstump said:
    Remember how Apple records,… The record label for the Beatles… Made Apple computer and litter Apple Inc. jump through hoops in the past before they finally settled?
    Remember how Apple Inc agreed not to enter the music market to maintain a distinction, and then just did it anyway?
    muthuk_vanalingamjony0
Sign In or Register to comment.