Prepear revises logo to settle Apple trademark dispute

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 24
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,962member
    mainyehc said:
    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.
    And your post just solidifies the point I made in my previous post - if the difference pictured above is worthy of a lawsuit then the entire advertising industry is deeply out of touch with the rest of the world. But then we knew that. After all, this is the industry that makes deception and borderline lying acceptable.

    Just so everyone is clear, below is a comparison of the two logos. The only people that would confuse them are a brain-dead advertising exec and a lawyer.


    muthuk_vanalingamchemengin1
  • Reply 22 of 24
    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.
    Yes. You are most likely right. 
    Common people think they are smart and “only idiots would confuse these logos”. 
    And I was thinking the same... And then I read your comment. And realized: even elements of the logo could impact our subconscious mind anf influence the (buying) decisions we make. 
    So I changed my mind on this topic: from “Apple - this is stupid” to “we need to pay attention to the details”. 
    Thank you, Chasm, for helping me to feel that I got smarter. ;)
  • Reply 23 of 24
    Trademark holders are REQUIRED to fight infractions otherwise they LOSE their trademark. If there's one company on earth that needs to protect its trademark, it's the one whose brand is the most valuable on earth, namely Apple. 

    https://www.forbes.com/the-worlds-most-valuable-brands/

    The Apple brand is the most valuable brand on earth. That means Apple could actually sell the word "Apple" and the Apple logo for $240 BILLION. Yes, they actually can sell their name if they wanted to. Just the name, by itself. And the name itself, just Apple's trademark name and logo, is valued at $240 BILLION.

    There's no way Apple should allow any company to dilute the value of its brand.
    jony0
  • Reply 24 of 24
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,078member
    MplsP said:
    mainyehc said:
    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.
    And your post just solidifies the point I made in my previous post - if the difference pictured above is worthy of a lawsuit then the entire advertising industry is deeply out of touch with the rest of the world. But then we knew that. After all, this is the industry that makes deception and borderline lying acceptable.

    Just so everyone is clear, below is a comparison of the two logos. The only people that would confuse them are a brain-dead advertising exec and a lawyer.


    (1) Apple didn't sue over the Prepear mark. It didn't even ask that Super Healthy Kids not be allowed to use the mark. Rather, it opposed a federal registration of the mark in classes of goods and services which were the same as those in which Apple has registered trademarks. Super Healthy Kids was asking for special protections for its mark - those that come with federal registration - and that is what Apple opposed.

    (2) Apple didn't just argue confusion. It argued dilution; that's about association, not confusion. The issue is the likelihood that people would associate (again, not confuse) goods and services, which overlap with those offered by Apple, bearing the Prepear mark with Apple.

    (3) If people think the difference between the marks is sufficient enough that such association wouldn't be made, then whey do they not use the actual Prepear mark at issue when making side-by-side comparisons to Apple's mark in an attempt to show how different they are? Why not use the actual mark Prepear tried to register (which is black and white and claims no color), and let the actual difference speak for itself?
    jony0
Sign In or Register to comment.