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.
Is this as legal necessity? (Score:2)
Re: Is this as legal necessity? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Is this as legal necessity? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The Apple legal staff apparently needs to generate more billable hours during this COVID time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That might be interesting if that was the only requirement.
A mark is the SUM of what the mark looks like and the category of commerce it was registered for use within.
Apples logo is the mark and the category of computing devices and services.
You could take a literal copy/paste of their logo, and register it in a completely different and unrelated category, and the two are now completely unalike.
I'm not sure about the rules in Canada, but at least in the U.S., Apple is almost certainly a "famous mark", so that would not be true.
Apple is betting they have enough money and cloud to ignore that detail of the law, and claim each and every single existing trade category somehow is theirs so long as it shows up for legal use in an app on their store.
They're not, actually. They're actually only complaining to the Canadian Intellectual Property office in categories where Apple has registered their mark based on actual use in commerce, even though ostensibly they could complain in all the categories, assuming Canada has a "famous mark" rule.
Of course, I still think Apple should be ashamed of themselves for thinking that t
Re: (Score:2)
It's not 0% likeness. E.g. they're both rounded with only a few sharp angles on the external edges. So say 1% likeness. (I don't think that there's any non-subjective way of getting an exact percentage. I might go up as high as 5%, or down as low as 0.1%, but not 0%.)
OTOH, the typical Apple logo is a filled design with multiple colors. If that's not true of Prepear, which it wasn't for the logos a brief search turned up (generally a light green outline), then that's a strike against them, and I might l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is this as legal necessity? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's trademark. Copyright remains whether you defend it or not.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing for copyright. You do not have to 'defend' copyright at all. Trademarks have two potential 'use it or lose it' scenarios. First, your mark must be in commercial use or it will become invalid. Second, if you don't defend your trademark you run the risk of the trademark becoming 'generic'. Neither of these apply in the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
AKA failing the "Grandma getting the kids the wrong brand" test.
Grandma must be suffering from dementia if you ask for a computer/phone/watch/tablet and she gets you a meal planer.
Re: (Score:2)
"Grandma, my meal is too bumpy!"
Grandma gets the meal planer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The pair logo and the Apple Logo, after looking at the pictures, I could see them being considered very similar.
Huh? It's absolutely nothing like it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Is this as legal necessity? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is this as legal necessity? (Score:2)
They're not in the same line of business, therefore their claim has no standing or legal basis.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Apple has more dollars, so their legal team wins. Its not like America is actually a democracy or anything.
Re:Is this as legal necessity? (Score:4)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The Raspbian logo is just a image of a fruit as well...
Re: (Score:2)
However, after seeing this I have realised
"The American legal system needs to be taken behind a shed and shot".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
dicks (Score:4, Insightful)
What a bag of dicks is apple ?
Re: (Score:2)
What a bag of dicks is apple ?
Just don't use an eggplant or they'll sue you, too.
Re: (Score:1)
What a bag of dicks is apple ?
A bag of rotten apples?
Absurd comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Absurd comparison (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that must be it. Thanks for the deep thinking, SuperKendall.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Absolute Zero (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Apple really is pissing me off. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't be able to anyway, that comes under fair use as it's a parody of the brand.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use and parody are concepts in copyright law, not trademark law.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also covered in trademark law, though slightly different. When you parody a trademark it's to be done in a manner that basically says "This is meant to be a Mac but we're not allowed to say that" and can't be construed as a product placement, endorsement, or be deemed as an attempt to harm the brand, so I can have an episode where the characters are going to the movies to see Larry Trotter and the Chamberpot of Secrets, but shit would go south really fast if I made a poster from the episode into a real
Re: (Score:2)
It is hard to go after trademark infringement against a prop. 8^)
Now if Disney were to actually sell those Pear laptops as a tie-in to iCarly Apple may take a second look at the case.
I don't see it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does not own the entire fruit genre of logos
Perhaps Apple should switch to a Durian fruit. Because they both stink.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Looking at them both, I think this would pass the "Moron in a Hurry" [ipglossary.com] test quite easily.
Apples and Oranges... (Score:1)
Certainly visually distinct.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Buy your kid a banana 9000 or you'll regret it (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
It leads to the same horrible fate as fornication.
It leads to dancing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I just used an ordinary Radio Shack tape player/recorder instead of any branded tape drive. :-)
Awful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prepare is a recipe application.
Owned Apple computers since my Apple ][ ... (Score:2)
... 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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
All your fruit are belong us! (Score:4, Funny)
What good is a monopoly if you can't abuse it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's ridiculous, Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Judges say: (Score:2)
" 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]
The other tasty tech fruit, Apricot (Score:2)
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.
They aren't that similar, really. (Score:2)
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
Fuck off Apple (Score:2)
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.
Obligatory "rounded edges" (Score:2)
The similarities between the two logos are ... (Score:2)
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.