Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Apple

Apple Is Fighting Trademark for Prepear's Pear-Shaped Logo (daringfireball.net) 84

In a legal filing, says Apple: Consumers encountering Applicant's Mark are likely to associate the mark with Apple. Applicant's Mark consists of a minimalistic fruit design with a right-angled leaf, which readily calls to mind Apple's famous Apple Logo and creates a similar commercial impression, as shown in the following side-by-side comparison. John Gruber, writing at DaringFireball: Here's the comparison. I could actually see this being a reasonable objection if Prepear were selling computers or phones or watches. But they're a recipe app. Their logo clearly looks like a pear, not an apple, and their pear does not even look like an Apple-logo-like pear. Back in the old days Apple didn't even pursue legal action against the Banana Junior series of personal computers, and their logo was a six-color banana.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Is Fighting Trademark for Prepear's Pear-Shaped Logo

Comments Filter:
  • Doesn't US trademark law have a "use it or lose it" principle that effectively compels trademark holders defend marks, no matter how inconsequential the usage may seem?
    • by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @09:57AM (#60385525) Homepage

      The first part is true. The second part is not. You do need to defend as inconsequential a use as necessary, but the idea that you'd lose the mark because something unrelated wasn't defended isn't how it works.

      • My understanding is by not defending a mark, you don’t "lose" it as much as it is implied that you are okay with someone using it.
      • by timholman ( 71886 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @11:33AM (#60385921)

        The first part is true. The second part is not. You do need to defend as inconsequential a use as necessary, but the idea that you'd lose the mark because something unrelated wasn't defended isn't how it works.

        On the other hand, who decides whether another mark is dissimilar enough to be "inconsequential"? Certainly not Apple, or Prepear. That's up to the court to decide.

        Playing devil's advocate for a moment, Prepear's mark does look very vaguely like Apple's mark. Enough to be a violation? Probably not (at least in my opinion), but obviously Apple's attorneys want to be certain. The problem is that Prepear is marketing their app in Apple's own store, which is a particularly sensitive issue to them. They don't want software vendors in any way, shape, or form trying to confuse the customer about the owner of the app.

        This is Apple's way of sending a message to all developers ... steer well clear of their trademarks. If the court rules against Apple, then their attorneys will only say they were performing due diligence. And even if Apple is forced to pay Prepear's legal fees, for them it's just the cost of doing business.

        • The Apple legal staff apparently needs to generate more billable hours during this COVID time.

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          On the other hand, who decides whether another mark is dissimilar enough to be "inconsequential"? Certainly not Apple, or Prepear. That's up to the court to decide.

          Playing devil's advocate for a moment, Prepear's mark does look very vaguely like Apple's mark. Enough to be a violation? Probably not (at least in my opinion), but obviously Apple's attorneys want to be certain. The problem is that Prepear is marketing their app in Apple's own store, which is a particularly sensitive issue to them. They don't wa

        • by dschnur ( 61074 )
          Didn't Microsoft make a business of suing their own customers also?
    • I thought the "use it or lose it" was just for copyright, not trademark. Because trademarks are registered at the trademark office and has a date range.
    • Yes. Apple might be more aggressive in defense than people like though.
    • It is more the case if someone used a very Apple like Logo for years and Apple knew about it, then they decided they no longer liked that company and then sued them for violating their trademark.

      The pair logo and the Apple Logo, after looking at the pictures, I could see them being considered very similar. AKA failing the "Grandma getting the kids the wrong brand" test. However they do seem rather different so Apple may not win it, mostly on how the Pair is hollow vs filled in, and there isn't a bite take

    • by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @10:32AM (#60385655)

      No, you have to protect the name and logo. This is clearly two very different fruit in very different styles. The Apple logo is solid with a bite out of it, and the Prepear logo is a pair drawn with a very thick outline and no inner coloring. Prepear's logo has more in common with the Linux Mint logo, and if I had to guess what its logo was representing without context I'd think it was a distro.

      But no that's not it at all, they're not even involved in tech, they're a fucking recipe app. Pears have more to do with cooking than apples have to do with technology. This is just Apple trying to bully a tech and try to have claim on all fruit logos in the world. Watch out Fruit of the Loom, The Ghost of Steve Jobs is coming for you.

    • I was going to say "Apple needs to be taken behind the shed and shot"

      However, after seeing this I have realised

      "The American legal system needs to be taken behind a shed and shot".

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      You need to defend against confusingly similar marks in the same trade.

      That's why Apple doesn't get sued by the people who make underwear in spite of both using an apple in their marks.

  • dicks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stooo ( 2202012 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @09:56AM (#60385519) Homepage

    What a bag of dicks is apple ?

  • Absurd comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @09:57AM (#60385523)

    To me the comparison image says it all, there is zero similarity.

    The only reason I can think of for Apple to go after this logo is the the pear thing is aesthetically ugly and they may want to remove it from the universe, but with Ives gone I can't think of anyone at Apple that would care enough to try and destroy it.

    • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @10:07AM (#60385567)

      To me the comparison image says it all, there is zero similarity.

      Are you sure? One might argue that Apple went pear-shaped quite some time ago and therefore there's a lot of similarity.

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Yeah that must be it. Thanks for the deep thinking, SuperKendall.

    • I wouldn't say zero similarity.
      Their is a single leaf, that goes in the same direction. They are both a similar type of fruit. The Logo is just the Fruit and a Leaf.
      Granted Apple may not win the case, but I would say they are close enough for careful legal review.

      I use to work for a company that used the Hourglass nebula. for its logo. They got it trademarked, and they had to fight it, because they said it looked too much like a Normal Hourglass that another company had. It looked nothing alike. We we

      • Their is a single leaf, that goes in the same direction.

        That's what I was expecting, but even that is not the case! The leaf on the Apple logo is located on the top of the apple, pointing upper right

        The lear on the pear is located on the side, pointing downward, lower right.

        It's not a 180 degree difference but it's extremely distinct.

        Just to go into the many other differences, the pear logo is hollow vs filled, the pear is leaning vs. straight, there is no bite removed from the pear, the pear has a stem wh

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          I hope Apple loses, but if, AIU, this is merely lawyers exchanging letters with the trademark agency, it's probably nothing vile. Search for the origin of the name "Exxon" to get an idea of the kind of gyrations that typically go on.

          That said, while this is typical, it's also an example of the barriers to entry faced by a small company in a world run for the benefit of large companies.

          • I hope Apple loses, but if, AIU, this is merely lawyers exchanging letters with the trademark agency, it's probably nothing vile.

            That's a good point, it's probably not at the lawsuit stage yet... however like you say, what is a small company to do when it gets a complaint from a company the size of Apple?

            If nothing else maybe the publicity will cause Apple to call off the lawyers in this case.

      • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        I'm not sure I would call them "both a similar type of fruit". They are both fruit but I don't think an apple is all that similar to a pear. Maybe you just didn't articulate your statement correctly and meant "They are similar in the sense that they are both a type of fruit." If that is what you meant then I could agree with that statement.

        The biggest problem here is that trademarks (traditionally anyway) are only valid in similar fields. If Prepear was in a technology field Apple may have a slightly valid

        • by Rhipf ( 525263 )

          Doh. When I wrote the above I was thinking that Prepear was in actual food preparations and forgot that they are just a food related app so they are actually a tech company. I still don't think many (anyone?) would confuse Prepear as an Apple related product.

      • I wouldn't say zero similarity.
        Their is a single leaf, that goes in the same direction. They are both a similar type of fruit. The Logo is just the Fruit and a Leaf.

        Sounds legit, right up until the moment you actually look at the two images.

  • Between this and the ridiculous decision regarding xCloud, I am considering leaving Apple's ecosystem again. I used to use Android, but personally feel that the quality of iOS is better. But, I am tired of their hubris. Fortunately, I left Mac OS for Linux and Windows late last year, I no longer use their watch, and maybe it is time to ditch the phone and have my iPad Pro be my only Apple device.
  • I don't see it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @10:07AM (#60385565)
    ... aside from both being fruit. For example, Apple calls out the pear's "right-angle leaf" yet Apple's logo has no right-angle leaf feature. Apple's logo is solid, the pear is outline. Apple's logo has a bite out of it, the pear does not. In other words, Apple does not own the entire fruit genre of logos as their own just because they are fruit.
    • Yes, one would think that the lawyer for "Prepear" could be a mime and win the case. I can not imagine one person in a thousand exposed to the Prepear logo thinking iPhone or Macbook.

      Should be dismissed as an abusive application and Apple should be punished.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Apple does not own the entire fruit genre of logos

      Perhaps Apple should switch to a Durian fruit. Because they both stink.

    • btw, for clarification... "Apple does not own the entire fruit genre of logos as their own just because they are fruit." should have been written... "Apple does not own the entire fruit genre of logos as their own just because the logos are fruit."
    • In other words, Apple does not own the entire fruit genre of logos as their own just because they are fruit.

      Ruh, Roh! The Raspberry Pi Foundation better watch out! Their logo is also a roundish fruit with leaves.
      And the WiFi Pineapple folks.

      Really, this is why companies should make up silly sounding names and not use actual objects for trademarks. eg. Windows

    • by Jahta ( 1141213 )

      Agreed. Looking at them both, I think this would pass the "Moron in a Hurry" [ipglossary.com] test quite easily.

    • Certainly visually distinct.

    • A right angle is 90 degrees. I measured the leaf And it's not at a right angle.

      The pear body and leaf are at 68 degrees to each other. The pear 23 degrees off the vertical. The leaf is at 45 degrees.

      Sorry to be pedantic, but this is a trademark infringement submission by a multi-billion dollar company. Protractors are not very expensive.
      • Mod parent up. This is the first thing I noticed that was clearly wrong about the objection also. Let alone the whole premise for the objection is hogwash.
  • A guy I knew back in middle school used that comic to convince his mother to buy him a computer. She got him a Sinclair but wouldn't spring for the tape drive so he had to type in any program he might want to run fresh each time he turned it on. Last I heard from him he had dropped out of college to go clubbing full time.

    • A perfectly understandable objection, IMHO.

      Typing is a useful skill. Besides, if he had a tape drive he might have played heavy metal music on it. We all know where that leads to...

    • by pruss ( 246395 )

      I just used an ordinary Radio Shack tape player/recorder instead of any branded tape drive. :-)

  • It's really awful Apple is suing because of a fruit logo. It would be really ridiculous if they can have a trademark on all fruit related logo's (in the IT market).
  • ... and I'm a 27 year design veteran, with lots of brand and logo designs under my belt. This is one of the most dickish moves I have seen Apple pull. There is no way the two logos are close enough to confuse, and the fields of industry aren't even the same. Apple's lawyers must love their money way more than their own sense of what's right, and you wonder why people think all lawyers are soul-less jerks? They can do this because no five-person small app company has the resources to fight this. Really hate

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Relying on what others have said above, you're overreacting. And I haven't been an Apple fan for well over a decade now. (System 10.4 was the last Apple product I owned.)

      IIUC, this is a letter to the trademark agency, not a court case. And this is something that companies have to expect and deal with. There will probably be lots of silly objections, and the trademark agency will look them over and decide whether any have any validity. And then either issue the trademark or reject it.

      That said, this ent

      • by HiThere ( 15173 )

        System 10.4 was the last Apple I owned because in a security update to that they modified the license agreement to claim to right to "add, modify, update, delete, or copy any file on this computer". (Well, that's a paraphrase. It's well over a decade now.) My reaction was to immediately disconnect the Apple from the Internet and switch to a totally Linux online presence. I *do* have a cell phone, but it's only used as a phone. And I avoided switching to a "smart phone" as long as I could.

        So when I say

  • by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Monday August 10, 2020 @10:51AM (#60385723)

    What good is a monopoly if you can't abuse it?

    • by Merk42 ( 1906718 )
      Monopoly? Oh no no no, because of Android/Windows marketshare, Apple is the plucky underdog! The plucky, 1 trillion dollar, underdog! Anti-competitive behavior couldn't possibly apply to them.
  • In the Silicon Valley you can see lots of trucks with the Sysco name and logo. Cisco and Sysco are not suing each other over this, any more than Carrier and Ford ever did over their logos. You people at Apple are being belligerent, ridiculous, and just plain stupid.
    • If Sysco and Cisco were both making/selling networking equipment, I might see them having a cause for complaint. But they are very different companies.

      Same here. Apple sells computers, music, etc. Prepear is an app for cooking. I'm not sure I see how there's any overlap.

      • Apple needs to learn from their own history.

        The Beatles' record label was called Apple Records. They let Apple Computer use the name Apple because computers had nothing to do with music.... Until iTunes came along. As I recall, Apple and the Beatles settled out of court.

        Maybe Apple is just looking for a quick out-of-court settlement here.
  • " Claim denied: you can't compare apples and oranges.... or pears."

    On appeal, they offer as evidence this research. https://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.php [improbable.com]

  • http://apricotcomputers.com/ [apricotcomputers.com]
    Currently a brand without a product, but they put out some interesting machines around the Atari / Amiga / early Mac / PCjr days.

  • The logos are similar only in the respect that they are both black and white and happen to depict a fruit. Apple categorically does *NOT* own any trademark on all possible black and white representations of fruit. I'd see a stronger argument for Apple's case if Prepair were using the same 6 colors on their logo that Apple used to use on its logo, but as far as I know, that's not applicable here, so it seems to me that the folks at Apple are just being dicks.

    The only reason Prepair's image might draw

  • You don't own the "general concept of fruit as an icon".

    I know you think you SHOULD. You might even find a tame judge to agree with you, but it'd be nice if the court stuck this one right back up your backside.

  • Based on what I'm seeing here, Apple might as well insist that a circle infringes on their trademark.
  • The similarities between the two logos -- https://daringfireball.net/mis... [daringfireball.net] -- are nonexistent. Different stylized fruits, stylized differently. No chance you'd mistake one for the other.

    Now, walking through a parking lot, trying to figure out which silver sedan is my Camry, that's a harder task. Don't see Toyota suing, or being sued.

    Somebody in Apple's legal department bored, or lose a bet? Silly lawsuit.

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Working...