Some comments have been removed from this thread. As per general practice, we get the root and the stem, so apologies to anybody who made reasonable posts addressing the original. I should also apologize to people who reported earlier that it took so long for somebody here to see them. We're working on that 👍
I was late to see the email notifications for those reported messages because I’m 12 hours shifted in time, having semi-retired to The Philippines. Sometimes that time shift is advantageous as I catch the ones where it’s the middle of the night in the states.
We don't expect you to get everything all the time, you do a great service for us. Don't worry about it
Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.
If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission.
Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.
Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer.
Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?
In California, the posthumous right to publicity is 70 years after death, assuming you live(d) in California. Each state has their own laws and statutory time period. Given the deep pockets, I would have assumed apple would have obtained permission; but most of those people are long dead.
This campaign, however, would be a clear violation without permission.
The right to Steve Jobs belongs to his family not Apple.
Not sure how to parse that one. Perhaps his family retains the right to his image. But it's certain that Apple Inc. retains the rights to the Apple logo and the "Think Different" motto, even if it mutated into an adverb from an adjective.
“Think Different” was itself a take on IBM’s slogan “Think”. With that in mind Apple would have a hard time arguing against other people using an adapted version of their slogan for different ends.
Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.
If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission.
Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.
Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer.
Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?
In California, the posthumous right to publicity is 70 years after death, assuming you live(d) in California. Each state has their own laws and statutory time period. Given the deep pockets, I would have assumed apple would have obtained permission; but most of those people are long dead.
This campaign, however, would be a clear violation without permission.
The right to Steve Jobs belongs to his family not Apple.
Not sure how to parse that one. Perhaps his family retains the right to his image. But it's certain that Apple Inc. retains the rights to the Apple logo and the "Think Different" motto, even if it mutated into an adverb from an adjective.
“Think Different” was itself a take on IBM’s slogan “Think”. With that in mind Apple would have a hard time arguing against other people using an adapted version of their slogan for different ends.
IBM may or may not have tried to trademark the word, "Think," but a common noun is not in any way eligible for protection. The phrase "Think Different" is certainly eligible.
The Poke Bros restaurant chain tried to trademark "Poke" and were quickly denied. They do own "Poke Bros." Apple would win this case definitively, should they pursue.
Well, it's a blatant trademark infringement, and an unauthorized reproduction. But it's also a well-intentioned tribute to Jobs and vegetarianism.
If I was making the decision, I'd let this one slide. Unless other companies started doing it too. Then, I'd get the lawyers involved.
Tribute or not, it’s a blatant infringement on Apple’s “Think Differently” campaign and there’s no indication that they’re using Jobs’ likeness with family permission.
Apple didn't have a "Think Differently" campaign, they had a "Think Different" campaign. The real problem here would be using Jobs likeness without permission, if they have not obtained that.
Still, I'm not sure Jobs is the poster boy they want since he died at the young age of 56 from cancer.
Did Apple have to get the approval of the families of Einstein, Picasso, Gandhi, etc. to use their likenesses in their commercial?
In California, the posthumous right to publicity is 70 years after death, assuming you live(d) in California. Each state has their own laws and statutory time period. Given the deep pockets, I would have assumed apple would have obtained permission; but most of those people are long dead.
This campaign, however, would be a clear violation without permission.
The right to Steve Jobs belongs to his family not Apple.
Not sure how to parse that one. Perhaps his family retains the right to his image. But it's certain that Apple Inc. retains the rights to the Apple logo and the "Think Different" motto, even if it mutated into an adverb from an adjective.
“Think Different” was itself a take on IBM’s slogan “Think”. With that in mind Apple would have a hard time arguing against other people using an adapted version of their slogan for different ends.
And IBM "Think IBM" ad campaign was itself a take on Coca Cola "Drink Coca Cola". " Drink Coca Cola" was Coca Cola first ad slogan in 1886. Who here had never seen just word "Drink" (though in smaller letters), above "Coca Cola", in their logo. It wasn't till 100 years later, (in the 1990's") that they changed it to "Enjoy".
That being said, it would depend on how good of a job the ad slogan was in making consumers think of the company behind it. I doubt that Coca Cola would have any problem arguing against Samsung, if they were to use ....... "Things go better with a Galaxy" ... in an ad campaign for their phones. It doesn't matter that the ad is not for sugar water, nearly all consumers would still think of Coca Cola when they see/hear that ad. Or that General Mills would have any problem arguing against Subway, if they were to advertise their sandwiches as ....... "The lunch of champions".
Apple "Think different" ad campaign is rated one of the best and well known ad campaign ever. Will be hard to find any consumers that will not associate it (Think different) or any similar variation of it, with Apple Inc., no matter what is being advertised. It's not like IBM "Think" or Coca Cola "Drink", where most will not associate either of those words with the companies that used it as a slogan in their ad campaign.
Yeah, it is a bit ironic that they’re using Steve Jobs to promote a ‘healthy vegetarian diet’ when he died young of cancer.
I don’t think Apple necessarily has a claim here but his family may. That said we don’t know that the ad agency didn’t get permission
Apple would have a claim if they can prove that the image of Jobs they are using, is a derivative of the image of Jobs from this "Think Different" poster. And it would be a copyright infringement claim, not just a trademark infringement, as I'm sure Apple would own the copyright to that image, not Jobs family.
Comments
Also, Apple haven’t used Think Different in a long time. They’d very likely lose, since they already did: https://www.courthousenews.com/think-different-about-that-slogan-eu-court-orders-apple/