All of you who are trashing Apple over this completely underestimate the abject stupidity of the human race. Who would confuse a pear logo with an apple logo? Millions upon millions of the stupid class.
As a longtime graphic designer, I am keenly aware of issues related to company branding. Logo creation is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking. When a company's brand becomes associated with attributes such as success, quality goods and services, and strong reputation, defending that branding becomes critical both commercially and legally.
Just as important, a fledgling company must create a brand that distinguishes it from others, regardless of how similar or dissimilar the companies may be. In its endeavor to stand apart, the nascent company must be free to adopt a compelling design while taking great care not to create confusion in the marketplace.
In this case, I would say Apple is being heavy handed and not at all reasonable. Apple's case has nothing to do with the likelihood of product confusion or diminution of company value. It simply comes down to getting pissy simply because another company has dared to represent itself with a minimalist piece of fruit.
I would love to see this dispute go to trial, with Apple being liable for Prepear's total accumulated legal expenses, plus some punitive damages.
Didn’t you hear that Apple is opening a chain of fruit stands? Pears will be their specialty.
While this appears heavy-handed, it’s amazing to me that even graphic designers on this post don’t understand what’s happening here. This is not a legitimate legal dispute. This is defending one’s intellectual property at all costs and making sure everyone knows it. Is it reasonable on its face? No. Obviously the logos don’t look anything alike.
This is about Apple sending a message to anyone who might be using a logo that is even remotely similar to theirs: Don’t. In the end, they will likely great permission in some way. But everyone knows not to try to ape them moving forward.
Cook was probably so preoccupied with this logo issue and the 20 macs that went to SK instead of Japan that he probably decided to skip the meeting with Elon Musk that could have gotten Tesla for Apple! He is so focused on the irrelevant these days that he missed the chance to make revolutionary changes. As a shareholder I love Cook. As an Apple fan he is a major disappointment. Iterative update after iterative update ... ORCL, IBM, XOM, MSFT, APPL ... except for the laughably overpriced new headphone. Do they really think that anyone but the dumbest fanboys or people with too much money are going to buy those?
So is any headphone that costs $500.00 or more laughably overpriced and bought by only the dumbest fanboys, or people with too much money?
You can pretty much apply that logic to any apple product. There are cheaper alternatives to anything they make? As a shareholder you don't mind making money from the sales of these headphones or any other overpriced product they make, but your disappointed with Tim Cook? Really?
Cook was probably so preoccupied with this logo issue and the 20 macs that went to SK instead of Japan that he probably decided to skip the meeting with Elon Musk that could have gotten Tesla for Apple! He is so focused on the irrelevant these days that he missed the chance to make revolutionary changes. As a shareholder I love Cook. As an Apple fan he is a major disappointment. Iterative update after iterative update ... ORCL, IBM, XOM, MSFT, APPL ... except for the laughably overpriced new headphone. Do they really think that anyone but the dumbest fanboys or people with too much money are going to buy those?
So is any headphone that costs $500.00 or more laughably overpriced and bought by only the dumbest fanboys, or people with too much money?
All other headphones on the market have better sound, offer more features, are better quality, and are half the price. Other headphones that cost $500 and up are far superior to the lousy product Apple produced, and those other headphones are definitely worth the price of $500+. Even the faithful Mac tech sites can't justify Apple's price for everything lacking in Apple's headphones. Big difference there. So yes, only the "dumbest fanboys and people with too much money" are buying them.
This is Apple being the big bully by suing anyone with a logo that is a fruit. Anyone trying to defend Apple is just plain sad.
As noted above, remember when Apple Records sued Apple Computer, Inc. for violating their original agreement of never entering the music business because Apple Records initially threatened Apple Computer, Inc. with legal action for being too similar to Apple Records? In that case, both had Apple in their names and both used the Apple fruit as their logo. When the iTunes Store was announced, Apple Records politely reminded Apple Computer, Inc. of their original agreement. Apple had to beg and plead to get out of that agreement. Now Apple is the big bully suing anyone that uses a fruit? They are not even in tech and a pear is in no way shape or form similar to an Apple. Nor would anyone confuse a pear with an apple. This other company would not have harmed Apple or their business in any way. It is nothing like the eMachines iMac clone back in the day.
While this appears heavy-handed, it’s amazing to me that even graphic designers on this post don’t understand what’s happening here. This is not a legitimate legal dispute. This is defending one’s intellectual property at all costs and making sure everyone knows it. Is it reasonable on its face? No. Obviously the logos don’t look anything alike.
This is about Apple sending a message to anyone who might be using a logo that is even remotely similar to theirs: Don’t. In the end, they will likely great permission in some way. But everyone knows not to try to ape them moving forward.
And look like Grade A a-holes in the process. Why bother with all that corporate branding marketing budget, then.
Way to go.
I sure am glad that the whole world isn't -- at least, not yet -- run by lawyers.
... except for the laughably overpriced new headphone. Do they really think that anyone but the dumbest fanboys or people with too much money are going to buy those?
The fact that Apple's new headphones are "overpriced" for you, that you're not a "dumbest fanboy", and you don't have "too much money" is obvious.
Why begrudge those who don't think it's overpriced, don't mind being Apple fanboys, and have too much money? Do you also judge people for, e.g., whether and how they look different, talk differently, walk differently, and dress differently than you?
McDonald's sued a hotel chain called McSleep in 1988 and won. Trademarks don't have to be identical to cause confusion. Users on this forum are hardly a good sample of the general population to determine what might be confusing.
If Prepear wins, then you're definitely going to see copycats calling themselves:
Hmm, those emoji don't seem to be supported on this website, but trust me, they are the emoji for those fruits which also contain a leaf.
Don't you think McDonalds had a stronger claim for consumer confusion? McDonalds has a lot of "Mc" trademarks like McFlurry, McMuffin, McCafe, McRib, McChicken. If someone wants to start Lemon Computers, nobody would confuse it with Apple. That someone would discover that it was the product and not the name that brought Apple success.
There are two things wrong with your response (and Williamh's). 1. I was talking about the confusing the logos, not the name. 2) There actually was a company called Orange computers in 1979, who made Apple clones, and Apple used the courts to stop them, probably on the basis of trademark infringement on the name. But I can't find a web link to back me up. So most likely Apple would succeed with a case for trademark infringement on the name, just like they did before.
P.S. I'm happy the website has started rendering the emoji correctly. I didn't do anything to fix it, it just started working on its own.
P.S. My dad didn't buy me an Apple computer in those days because he was afraid I would become a computer geek. Well, I became one anyway. Sorry, dad.
Trademark law requires that you actively defend your trademark (logos or names). If you don't defend it, then your lack of defense can be construed by future infringers that you didn't care, and you can lose it in court. Here are some relevant examples:
Yoyo - this was a trademark owned by Duncan but because Duncan wasn't suing everyone who used the word yoyo, they lost the trademark in 1965. Escalator - this was a trademark and not a generic word, but because the trademark owner (Otis) didn't use the word "TM" when they used the word "escalator" in their ads, they lost the trademark Chapstick - this is still a trademark (owned by Pfizer) but since it hasn't been defended in court, the trademark is now no longer protected Photoshop - this is a trademark by Adobe, but the word is being used so often by so many, Adobe is likely to lose the trademark, in much the same way that the word "zipper" has lost its trademark. However Adobe is fighting hard to maintain it.
If Apple doesn't defend its trademarks, that can directly cause them to lose it.
And here are some other cases that may be funny and related:
Dumpster - this was a trademark and not a generic word, but the trademark owners failed to re-register and now the word is public domain Taser - this is a trademark, and when another company, Karbon, made a Taser clone, the Taser company launched a variety of legal efforts to put them out of business. Aspirin - this was a trademark by Bayer in Germany but Germany lost WWI and the Treaty of Versailles declared that Bayer had to give up the trademark. They also lost the trademark to "heroin" at the same time. Coke - this wasn't a trademark for Coca-Cola until millions of people called it that, and in 1949 Coca-Cola decided to give up the fight and call it Coke too. If anyone had trademarked "Coke" before 1949 they probably could have been rich.
While this appears heavy-handed, it’s amazing to me that even graphic designers on this post don’t understand what’s happening here. This is not a legitimate legal dispute. This is defending one’s intellectual property at all costs and making sure everyone knows it. Is it reasonable on its face? No. Obviously the logos don’t look anything alike.
This is about Apple sending a message to anyone who might be using a logo that is even remotely similar to theirs: Don’t. In the end, they will likely great permission in some way. But everyone knows not to try to ape them moving forward.
And look like Grade A a-holes in the process. Why bother with all that corporate branding marketing budget, then.
Way to go.
I sure am glad that the whole world isn't -- at least, not yet -- run by lawyers.
LOL. You actually think that Apple entering negotiations with this company over their logo makes them look like a**holes and destroys their corporate brand? Yeah, the question is to whom do they look like that? I think you mean *you* think they look like that. Anything else is just you projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. Apple’s customers clearly don’t care in any number that matters. This is a news item on an Apple fan site. And yes, this part of the world IS run by lawyers.
While this appears heavy-handed, it’s amazing to me that even graphic designers on this post don’t understand what’s happening here. This is not a legitimate legal dispute. This is defending one’s intellectual property at all costs and making sure everyone knows it. Is it reasonable on its face? No. Obviously the logos don’t look anything alike.
This is about Apple sending a message to anyone who might be using a logo that is even remotely similar to theirs: Don’t. In the end, they will likely great permission in some way. But everyone knows not to try to ape them moving forward.
And look like Grade A a-holes in the process. Why bother with all that corporate branding marketing budget, then.
Way to go.
I sure am glad that the whole world isn't -- at least, not yet -- run by lawyers.
LOL. You actually think that Apple entering negotiations with this company over their logo makes them look like a**holes and destroys their corporate brand? Yeah, the question is to whom do they look like that? I think you mean *you* think they look like that. Anything else is just you projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. Apple’s customers clearly don’t care in any number that matters. This is a news item on an Apple fan site. And yes, this part of the world IS run by lawyers.
Cook was probably so preoccupied with this logo issue and the 20 macs that went to SK instead of Japan that he probably decided to skip the meeting with Elon Musk that could have gotten Tesla for Apple! He is so focused on the irrelevant these days that he missed the chance to make revolutionary changes. As a shareholder I love Cook. As an Apple fan he is a major disappointment. Iterative update after iterative update ... ORCL, IBM, XOM, MSFT, APPL ... except for the laughably overpriced new headphone. Do they really think that anyone but the dumbest fanboys or people with too much money are going to buy those?
The idea of Apple buying Tesla is the new equivalent of the "Apple Buying Sony" or "Apple Buying Disney" hoax. It never was going to happen. Apple has no roots in the car business. It has more potential making systems for automakers to buy... such as Car Play.
I sure am glad that the whole world isn't -- at least, not yet -- run by lawyers.
Bravo on preaching that truth!
After reading every single post in this discussion, the only people defending Apple on this are the wannabe lawyers and extreme legalists, always trying to defend the unreasonable because they prefer the letter of the law over the spirit.
It's important we remember our Apple history. The Beatles' created a green apple as their Apple Corps logo in the 1960's, and both Steve Jobs and Woz knew that but created an Apple logo for their computer company anyway. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement in 1978 and in 1981 Apple Computer agreed to pay $80,000 and never enter the music business. As we all know, Apple later entered the music business anyway -- a case of double infringement.
So when comparing a pear logo that looks nothing -- I mean NOTHING -- like the Apple logo at all, one must consider that our beloved Apple, Inc. originally created its logo in the full knowledge that their apple would be quite similar to the Beatles' apple, but did it anyway. That's all the more reason why Apple should punch its legal team in the nose over this, bow their heads in apology, and then get busy on the next great thing.
McDonald's sued a hotel chain called McSleep in 1988 and won. Trademarks don't have to be identical to cause confusion. Users on this forum are hardly a good sample of the general population to determine what might be confusing.
If Prepear wins, then you're definitely going to see copycats calling themselves:
Hmm, those emoji don't seem to be supported on this website, but trust me, they are the emoji for those fruits which also contain a leaf.
Don't you think McDonalds had a stronger claim for consumer confusion? McDonalds has a lot of "Mc" trademarks like McFlurry, McMuffin, McCafe, McRib, McChicken. If someone wants to start Lemon Computers, nobody would confuse it with Apple. That someone would discover that it was the product and not the name that brought Apple success.
Actually as explained in the whole SCP logo mess trademarks are really weird as McDonald's Family Restaurant kept their name after McDonalds had spent 26 years pounding their head into that wall . (Small Fry Wins Mcdonald's War -- Farm Town Ronald Mcdonald Leaves Rival With Fallen Arches Seatle Times Aug 16, 1996). Based on McSleep hotel chain loosing their case and a restaurant winning their's the whole trademark thing is all dependent on what the judge decides and it looks like that is a crap shoot. On a side note there is a McDonald's Fine Furniture our and about.
Comments
As noted above, remember when Apple Records sued Apple Computer, Inc. for violating their original agreement of never entering the music business because Apple Records initially threatened Apple Computer, Inc. with legal action for being too similar to Apple Records? In that case, both had Apple in their names and both used the Apple fruit as their logo. When the iTunes Store was announced, Apple Records politely reminded Apple Computer, Inc. of their original agreement. Apple had to beg and plead to get out of that agreement. Now Apple is the big bully suing anyone that uses a fruit? They are not even in tech and a pear is in no way shape or form similar to an Apple. Nor would anyone confuse a pear with an apple. This other company would not have harmed Apple or their business in any way. It is nothing like the eMachines iMac clone back in the day.
Way to go.
I sure am glad that the whole world isn't -- at least, not yet -- run by lawyers.
Why begrudge those who don't think it's overpriced, don't mind being Apple fanboys, and have too much money? Do you also judge people for, e.g., whether and how they look different, talk differently, walk differently, and dress differently than you?
P.S. I'm happy the website has started rendering the emoji correctly. I didn't do anything to fix it, it just started working on its own.
P.S. My dad didn't buy me an Apple computer in those days because he was afraid I would become a computer geek. Well, I became one anyway. Sorry, dad.
If Apple doesn't defend its trademarks, that can directly cause them to lose it.
And here are some other cases that may be funny and related:
After reading every single post in this discussion, the only people defending Apple on this are the wannabe lawyers and extreme legalists, always trying to defend the unreasonable because they prefer the letter of the law over the spirit.
It's important we remember our Apple history. The Beatles' created a green apple as their Apple Corps logo in the 1960's, and both Steve Jobs and Woz knew that but created an Apple logo for their computer company anyway. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer for trademark infringement in 1978 and in 1981 Apple Computer agreed to pay $80,000 and never enter the music business. As we all know, Apple later entered the music business anyway -- a case of double infringement.
So when comparing a pear logo that looks nothing -- I mean NOTHING -- like the Apple logo at all, one must consider that our beloved Apple, Inc. originally created its logo in the full knowledge that their apple would be quite similar to the Beatles' apple, but did it anyway. That's all the more reason why Apple should punch its legal team in the nose over this, bow their heads in apology, and then get busy on the next great thing.