Technically this isn't copyright infringement since you can't copyright a logo. You can only trademark a logo. I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes.
This is China. Who says you can’t copyright a logo in China? Are you a Chinese copyright lawyer?
The Chinese know they have Apple by the short hairs. Apple basically has no choice but to manufacture there and the Chinese consumer market is vital for their profitability so Apple is stuck and vulnerable to the whims of the government and its courts. Like parasitic lamprey sucker fish they see Apple as a tasty host to suck the blood out of, living just enough blood so as not to kill the host.
While your are attacking with this case, let use not forget in US there are also patent troll companies and law firms salivating over huge pile of cash from Apple.
I like the “popsicle stick” app icon. For whatever reason, my eyes locate it easily and easier than the previous icon. The simpler the icon, the easier it is to find, e.g., the new politically correct Contacts icon (with male and female silhouettes) is harder to find than the previous icon with the single, larger male silhouette.
I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes.
Apple does sell clothing, but I don't think that matters when it comes to trademarks if the plaintiff can successfully argue that if the infringement confuses the customer and hurts sales.
Then, at least in the US, you have to actively defend your trademark even if there is no loss of revenue—and in this case potentially revenue gained from the extra media attention to a company with such a high mindshare—or else it can be used against you with future issues in other trademark disputes.
Those are completely different¡ One is silver and the other pewter. One has a round opening for the power cord and the other an oval. One has the USB ports to the left and the other to the right.One has a thinner arm at the pivot which is thicker toward the base and the other with a thicker arm at the pivot which is thinner toward the base. One has a flat base and the other an angled base.
Technically this isn't copyright infringement since you can't copyright a logo. You can only trademark a logo. I don't see how this company has a case since Apple isn't selling clothes.
This is China. Who says you can’t copyright a logo in China? Are you a Chinese copyright lawyer?
The Chinese know they have Apple by the short hairs. Apple basically has no choice but to manufacture there and the Chinese consumer market is vital for their profitability so Apple is stuck and vulnerable to the whims of the government and its courts. Like parasitic lamprey sucker fish they see Apple as a tasty host to suck the blood out of, living just enough blood so as not to kill the host.
That's a lot of jobs relying on Apple manufacturing in China... but it's not like anyone really cares. They'd sell their mothers if it helped them even a little bit.
According the The Verge, Kon is basing the lawsuit on owning the trademark, not the copyright. However, I'm not so sure they have a basis for suing even in China. Logos based on triangles that are constructed of various shapes are not unusual at all, so the fact that Apple's logo is contained within a box, has a different color scheme, and also different shapes to make the triangle...not sure it's close enough. For example, the Amblin Resources logo is pretty similar to both of those logos and obviously came before both (1988).
http://www.logobook.com/shape/triangle/page/2/
I don't see how this is even a case. The App Store logo, while changed to a simpler design, predates the existence of Kon. Plus, how could there possibly be monetary damages? Apple isn't selling clothes.
They're not being sued for the old pre-existing logo. They are being sued for the similarities between the current logo and the KON logo. Their old logo is immaterial.
According the The Verge, Kon is basing the lawsuit on owning the trademark, not the copyright. However, I'm not so sure they have a basis for suing even in China. Logos based on triangles that are constructed of various shapes are not unusual at all, so the fact that Apple's logo is contained within a box, has a different color scheme, and also different shapes to make the triangle...not sure it's close enough. For example, the Amblin Resources logo is pretty similar to both of those logos and obviously came before both (1988).
http://www.logobook.com/shape/triangle/page/2/
I don't see how this is even a case. The App Store logo, while changed to a simpler design, predates the existence of Kon. Plus, how could there possibly be monetary damages? Apple isn't selling clothes.
They're not being sued for the old pre-existing logo. They are being sued for the similarities between the current logo and the KON logo. Their old logo is immaterial.
The old logo was distinctly more different. They should go back to the old one.
The Woolworths lawsuit obviously failed as that logo is currently in use.
I don't think these are typically meant to succeed in the sense of getting companies to change their logos. I chalk it up to being like animals that make themselves look bigger to appear more threatening than they really are.
Comments
Wow, now that's embarrassing. These guys have no shame.
I didn’t notice the logo changed, and likely 99.9999% of Apple users don’t care... so what’s the risk of switching back?
Putting the number at “millions” is ridiculous. It would probably take 10min. to throw it into the next update.
Then, at least in the US, you have to actively defend your trademark even if there is no loss of revenue—and in this case potentially revenue gained from the extra media attention to a company with such a high mindshare—or else it can be used against you with future issues in other trademark disputes.