Apple wants to control every image of an apple, says Swiss fruit firm
Fruit Union Suisse says Apple is not just contesting its trademark apple logo, it wants to get exclusive rights to all depictions of actual apples.
Left: Apple's logo. Right: Fruit Union Suisse's current logo
Apple has been here before, and it will be again -- as a trademark owner, it is required to contest all challenges to its famous mark. That's easy to see in the case of any deliberate infringement, but less so with coincidental or even hard-to-spot similarities between logos.
Now according to Wired, Apple is continuing a six-year fight against Fruit Union Suisse, an association that has been promoting the interests of Swiss fruit growers for over 100 years. Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariethoz says that, for at least the majority of that time, it has used a logo of a red apple with a white cross on it.
"We have a hard time understanding this [case with Apple], because it's not like they're trying to protect their bitten apple," said Mariethoz. "Their objective here is really to own the rights to an actual apple, which, for us, is something that is really almost universal... that should be free for everyone to use."
"We're concerned that any visual representation of an apple -- so anything that's audiovisual or linked to new technologies or to media -- could be potentially impacted," continued Mariethoz. "Theoretically, we could be entering slippery territory everytime we advertise with an apple."
Fruit Union Suisse's logo up to 2011
While it's true that the association has long used a logo of a red apple with a white cross, the company revised it in 2011 to celebrate the group's 100th year. It's arguable whether the current logo resembles Apple's enough that consumers could be confused, but it is considerably more like Apple's than the pre-2017 one.
In 2017, Apple applied to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) asking for the rights to what Wired describes as a realistic black-and-white depiction of a Granny Smith apple. Note that Fruit Union Suisse appears to exclusively use a red logo, but it's possible that it may use it in documentation done with only two-color printing, rendering it black and whote.
The 2017 IP application had to specify usage, and Apple submitted an extensive list centered on digital and electronic consumer goods.
The IPI reportedly gave Apple a partial win in late 2022, saying that the company could have the rights to only certain of the submitted categories. Apple is now appealing to win the rest of the rights.
So far the IPI have released what trademark uses were denied to Apple, saying that the case is still under review.
It's not clear whether Fruit Union Suisse chose now to comment publicly, or exactly under which trademark categories its association may be falling foul of Apple.
However, Wired notes that the World Intellectual Property Organization says Apple has made a number of similar trademark requests worldwide.
In a previous case against Prepare in 2021, the company revised its logo in order to end what it called "bullying" tactics from Apple.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Q: what color is "whote"?
If there is any duplication with reference to 'apple' shapes, it should be understandable why, and no, Apple should not be able to use that argument.
As for similarities, again no. There are not anywhere near enough to provoke confusion.
I have to side with Apple on this one. Clearly the Fruit Suisse people wanted to leverage the recognition and popularity of Apple when they revamped their logo. I struggle with the "+" symbol, too, as to me that relates to medical / first aid due to Red Cross. But I know that an "apple with a plus" predates Apple, so that may give the case legs.
If it was possible Apple would file a trademark for the letter A, P L and E ... the very idea a company is even trying to trademark a the image of a common fruit (something that the company has in no way contributed - in this case not even a tiny whiny bit) goes to show that the 'rules' around trademark and IP are morally about as corrupted as the Opiod dedaling pharma industry!
I'm siding with Fruit Union Suisse in this. An apple is so common shape.. you can differentiate really only by depicting crippled one. WHY?
EDIT: Just one more thing.. I would be more concerned, if even way more different shape of an apple, like their previous logo, had a bite on it.. on any side! To me, bitten apple says "sin", "desire", "tasty". While un-bitten, whole apple says "fruit", "food" instead.
I must also say, that each logo have it's disruption. Apple have bite, Fruit Union Suisse logo have plus symbol. They should have not put this plus symbol clearly to the upper right corner, like where Apple's bite is. I would put it elsewhere, perhaps the center - like on the Swiss flag! This element is teasing for sure!
Who or what actually benefits from this litigation? Or it's resolution? Who's going to be surprised by thinking they ordered an iMac and receiving a crate of pears instead?
I have no desire to support the spending of millions of dollars to "protect" the dumbest among us.
I don't think Apple is going after or challenging Fruit Union Suisse's logo. If someone is aware of an action in which it is, I'd appreciate a pointer. It isn't even the iconic Apple logo (pictured in the OP) which is at issue here. This is about the Apple Corps logo which the Beatles used and which Apple acquired the rights to in 2007.
Apple, understandably, has filed for international trademark protections for a black and white version of that logo as used in various ways associated with music, videos, performances and recordings. Individual countries take their own actions with regard to such applications. They might grant protection, they might deny protection, they might grant protection only with regard to certain (of the asked for) uses. Switzerland apparently granted protection with regard to certain uses while denying it with regard to others. Apple has apparently appealed that partial denial.
To be clear, Apple isn't asking for trademark rights with regard to all images of Apples. This is about a particular image which has been used for half a century. Apple's attempts to protect that trademark also aren't new. It's sought and acquired protections, and sought to renew such protections, for well over a decade.
Fruit Union Suisse apparently opposes Apple's appeal. It doesn't want Apple to be granted protections in Switzerland for that trademark even though such protections would be limited to uses which wouldn't seem to overlap much with what Fruit Union Suisse does and, at any rate, its logo looks nothing like the trademark Apple seeks protections for. That's understandable I suppose; it's better from Fruit Union Suisse's perspective to keep future possibilities - in terms of different logos and different uses - open. But its apparent claims about what Apple is doing and the implications thereof seem a bit disingenuous to me.