Apple files a lawsuit to stop upcoming indie 'Apple Man' film

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2022
Apple is seeking to halt the distribution of an action-comedy film titled "Apple-Man," fearing consumers may believe the film is associated with the Cupertino-based tech giant.




In 2020, Ukrainian film director Vasyl Moskalenko wrapped up a successful Kickstarter campaign for his indie action-comedy movie, "Apple Man." The film centers around a superhero who has the power to levitate apples -- the fruit.

Now, as the film enters post-production, Apple has begun the process of shutting down the world's first healthy lifestyle superhero film before it ever reaches consumers.

According to the film's creator, Apple has filed a 467-page lawsuit against him, stating that consumers may believe "Apple Man" is "associated with, or approved, endorsed, or provided by Apple."

Moskalenko notes that his movie has been approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Apple is now attempting to have the trademark registration application denied.





"If my registration would be denied, there are no guarantees that Apple wouldn't demand to delete my film after its release," Moskalenko told iPhone in Canada.

"It actually looks like a trademark bullying," added Moskalenko. "I still hope this situation is just a misunderstanding. I am open to negotiations and hope we can resolve this dispute."

Apple has a history of stepping in when it believes its trademarks are being infringed upon. For example, in 2017, Apple sued Swiss watch conglomerate Swatch for emblazoning "Tick different" on specific watch models, a phrase Apple claimed is a play on its 1990s "Think Different" ad campaign.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    In other news, Apple filed a lawsuit against the US Apple Association, an amalgam of growers, packers, shippers, and marketers of apples, for trademark infringement. An Apple spokesperson was quoted as saying, We can’t have people mistaking Gala, Fuji, and Granny Smith apples for our products. The public might become confused.”
    bonoboburaharadarkvadergrandact73williamlondonzoetmb
  • Reply 2 of 15
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,093member
    For what it's worth, when I first read the headline it did make me think it was some kind of Apple-hating troll film.  Kind of reminded me of “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” where that clown Mike Daisy fabricated all kinds of nonsense about Apple and got called out for it.
    Beatsmwhitewilliamlondonlkruppwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 15
    timmilleatimmillea Posts: 243member
    Apple has some previous history. Apple Computer was sued by the Beatles company, Apple, for the use of the name. The eventual settlement required Apple Computer never to move into music. Over the subsequent years, Apple Computer dropped the "Computer" and moved into music. I imagine this all happened before Apple's current lawyers grew up. 

    These pointless litigations do not portray Apple in a good light. 
    edited February 2022 ravnorodomdarkvaderwilliamlondonCluntBaby92
  • Reply 4 of 15
    ravnorodomravnorodom Posts: 694member
    The name “Apple” is just opened up for all sorts of trouble. Should “Intel” prohibit CIA or FBI for using the word intel? I think Apple is just overly sensitive on this matter just because the company is becoming so big now. This is like the modern version of “don’t mock the king or you will be executed”. Long live “Apple” but perhaps leave the small guy alone. 
    edited February 2022 darkvaderwilliamlondonCluntBaby92watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 15
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,016member
    This is a bad look for Apple.  It's completely ridiculous.  No one in his or her right mind would confuse the two.  
    darkvadergrandact73williamlondonCluntBaby92watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 15
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member
    The solution is simple.  All trademarks on common English words should be revoked.  Apple loses their trademark, anybody can call anything Apple.  If they want a trademark, they can trademark the word combination Apple Computer, but not apple or computer alone.

    (And yes, the company changing their name to just "Apple" was stupid.)
    grandact73williamlondon
  • Reply 7 of 15
    foregoneconclusionforegoneconclusion Posts: 2,672member
    Trademark law requires you to actively protect your trademark. This is just another example of that. Regardless of the outcome, it serves the purpose of showing Apple is serious about its trademark. I would guess that this particular example is due to Apple being in the tv/film business now. 
    JWSCwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 15
    lowededwookielowededwookie Posts: 1,143member
    Of course no one’s taking the stand that this is fake news and drumming up interest in his film and Apple isn’t actually carrying out any of this?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 15
    uraharaurahara Posts: 733member
    @ moderator,  I appreciate you deleting a hate comment. Thank you!
    edited February 2022 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 15
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    foregoneconclusion said:
    Trademark law requires you to actively protect your trademark. This is just another example of that. Regardless of the outcome, it serves the purpose of showing Apple is serious about its trademark. I would guess that this particular example is due to Apple being in the tv/film business now. 
    True. Regardless of whether they win or lose, the lawsuit will put Apple on record as attempting to protect their trademark, which could come in handy in future lawsuits that may be more applicable. Nevertheless, actions like this tarnish their reputation in the public eye. One can only hope that Apple weighed the costs and benefits carefully before making this decision.
    ravnorodomwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 15
    OutdoorAppDeveloperOutdoorAppDeveloper Posts: 1,293member
    This should help with the anti-trust case, but not how Apple will want. This company is out of control. The disconnect between what the execs want and what the customers want is growing in leaps and bounds. Here is the classic "Think Different" type of person that Jobs gushed about and now Apple Legal comes along to step on his neck.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,324member
    foregoneconclusion said:
    Trademark law requires you to actively protect your trademark. This is just another example of that. Regardless of the outcome, it serves the purpose of showing Apple is serious about its trademark. I would guess that this particular example is due to Apple being in the tv/film business now. 
    It's like no one has ever worked at a company that has a brand worth protecting. Every company that is serious about marketing does brand strategy, this is nothing new as you so rightly state! Already in here people have admitted it sounded like the Apple in the title is associated with Apple the company, that's why they're doing it, fiduciary responsibility.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 15
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,417member
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    This should help with the anti-trust case, but not how Apple will want. This company is out of control. The disconnect between what the execs want and what the customers want is growing in leaps and bounds. Here is the classic "Think Different" type of person that Jobs gushed about and now Apple Legal comes along to step on his neck.
    That's not what anti-trust means.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 15
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,324member
    fastasleep said:
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    This should help with the anti-trust case, but not how Apple will want. This company is out of control. The disconnect between what the execs want and what the customers want is growing in leaps and bounds. Here is the classic "Think Different" type of person that Jobs gushed about and now Apple Legal comes along to step on his neck.
    That's not what anti-trust means.
    One of these days the pile of those myriad corrections to that member’s posts will… continue to be ignored and/or misunderstood by said member.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 15
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,654member
    JWSC said:
    foregoneconclusion said:
    Trademark law requires you to actively protect your trademark. This is just another example of that. Regardless of the outcome, it serves the purpose of showing Apple is serious about its trademark. I would guess that this particular example is due to Apple being in the tv/film business now. 
    True. Regardless of whether they win or lose, the lawsuit will put Apple on record as attempting to protect their trademark, which could come in handy in future lawsuits that may be more applicable. Nevertheless, actions like this tarnish their reputation in the public eye. One can only hope that Apple weighed the costs and benefits carefully before making this decision.
    A film is not a trademark and if the film has nothing to do with computers or phones, there’s no confusion (as long as the film doesn’t use anything that looks like Apple’s Apple logo) and IMO (I’m not a lawyer, but I have a great deal of professional experience with rights management) Apple has absolutely no case. If we’re getting the full story, this is ridiculous overreach by Apple’s lawyers. 

    The film will probably disappear quickly.  But if this lawsuit gets publicized, Apple will look bad for a long time and at a time when Apple and other tech companies are considered to be too powerful, it’s an especially stupid move by Apple, IMO. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.