carnegie

mac_dog said:

Indirectly infringed?

They’re referring to Apple inducing others - iPhone users - to infringe the patents. Under 35 USC §271(b) you’re guilty of infringing a patent if you actively induce others to infringe it. This requires a showing that you induced them to do something which you knew (or thought was high likely) to be an infringement and that infringement actually took place.

13485 said:

mainyehc said:

Objectively and geometrically speaking, the leaf design is way too similar and it’s on the same side. Also, its angle is similar, only mirrored. Apple does have a bit of a leg to stand on here, I’m afraid.

Not really. A trademark doesn't infringe if it does not cause confusion in the marketplace. There is absolutely no possibility that Apple's customers would be confused by seeing this pear logo in a completely different commercial use.  Further, good luck if Apple can show this AND demonstrate damages related to that. 

Infringement isn’t the only basis on which one can oppose federal registration, which is what Apple is doing here. One can get injunctive relief against the use of a mark or successfully oppose the federal registration of a mark based on dilution. And unlike infringement, dilution doesn’t require a showing that a mark is identical or otherwise likely to cause confusion. Someone opposing the registration of a mark, or seeking injunctive relief against a mark, doesn’t need to demonstrate actual dilution - only the likelihood thereof.

Apple is arguing, among other things, dilution by blurring. That doesn’t require substantial similarity. It’s about association, not confusion,

M68000 said:

mainyehc said:

Objectively and geometrically speaking, the leaf design is way too similar and it’s on the same side. Also, its angle is similar, only mirrored. Apple does have a bit of a leg to stand on here, I’m afraid.

And no, I’m not (just) a fanboy, but a future PhD in design, and even an undergrad with a keen eye would spot the similarities right away… This isn’t much different from spotting plagiarism in typography, you just have to overlay the curves and see how well they match. Do you want me to?

If you and Apple lawyers are upset about the Leaf part of the graphic,  that is truly sad.  So, in other words, no other company in the world can now have a tiny bit of whatever logo they have include such a leaf.  WOW.    It does not take a PHD to see that this is BS.  The color they are using is green as well,  does Apple have a problem with that too??   

The service mark application doesn't claim color. The design submitted is black.

I don't mean to suggest that Apple has a strong case for opposing the registration based on confusion or dilution. But why is the applicant, when making their case to the public and asking for support, juxtaposing a green mark against Apple's black mark? The service mark registration application doesn't claim color, and the design submitted is black. I find the use of a green mark when asking for support to be a bit disingenuous. Why not use the black mark from the application? It seems they are trying to create the impression that there's even more difference between the marks than there really is. If the applicant is right, then the differences between the marks should be clear enough even when both are presented in black as they appear in the registration applications.

Not that it matters too much, but Apple had 4,275,634,000 shares outstanding as of July 17th. At today's closing price of $425.04, that gives Apple a market cap of $1.817 trillion.

I've seen other comparisons to Saudi Aramco's market cap. I don't think it makes for an apt comparison. Saudi Aramco is still almost entirely owned by the government of Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of its shares aren't available for trade. I think the public float is still around 2%. A market capitalization based on that small a float isn't necessarily as a good a reflection of the company's value as one based on a substantial float. That said, Saudi Aramco has - as recently as the first quarter - been more profitable than Apple, even with an effective tax rate around 50%.


EDIT: I meant to add, since some will probably be watching for a $2 trillion market cap for Apple, that the new share price for that is $467.77.