by xslvrxslwt on 6/21/23, 9:00 AM with 181 comments
by jsnell on 6/21/23, 9:44 AM
by cjs_ac on 6/21/23, 10:32 AM
I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. They were exported across the British Empire and to America, and were very popular.
The chair trade in Wycombe started in a particularly cold winter, when it was too cold for the farmhands to work outdoors. The farmhands were taught how to make the round parts of the chairs by the town wheelwright (who otherwise made wheels for the carts made by the town cartwright). In recognition of this, a wheel design was cut into the backs of the chairs as a decorative device. This design became the distinguishing mark of a chair made in Wycombe.
A chair factory opened in Birmingham, but found that their chairs didn't sell as well... until they started adding the wheel design into their chairs. Business was good for the Birmingham factory, until some of the Wycombe lads paid them a visit. Strong words were had, but the Birmingham factory continued making chairs with wheel designs for a few weeks, until the factory mysteriously burned down in the middle of the night.
The wheel design functioned as an early trademark: it clearly and unambiguously attested the provenance of the item. Trademarks are a consumer protection mechanism: it is the buyer who needs to know the provenance of the item in the absence of a trustworthy seller.
To the man on the Clapham omnibus[0], the presence or absence of the wheel design was the only attestation to the chair's origin: this trademark was a necessary innovation. However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus
by mattmaroon on 6/21/23, 12:48 PM
From the source:
“ Apple's attempts to secure the trademark in Switzerland go as far back as 2017, when the Cupertino, California–based giant submitted an application to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) requesting the IP rights for a realistic, black-and-white depiction of an apple variety known as the Granny Smith—the generic green apple. The request covered an extensive list of potential uses—mostly on electronic, digital, and audiovisual consumer goods and hardware. Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods—like apples—to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal.”
So what’s really happening: Apple is trying to prevent others from using apples, including ones that don’t look particularly like Apple’s apple (2d, monochrome, bite out of it) from being used to compete with them. You couldn’t start “granny smith’s headphones and use an apple as your logo.
You can debate if this is good or bad but any mention of the fruit company is meritless sensationalism.
by praptak on 6/21/23, 9:48 AM
A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a similar logo for selling fruit.
by grey_earthling on 6/21/23, 10:27 AM
by JW_00000 on 6/21/23, 10:26 AM
Now, the Fruit Union is fear-mongering / spreading the message that, if this appeal is granted, they would be forced to change their logo. However, it seems there is no direct threat from Apple to the Fruit Union. Also, it seems unlikely Apple's appeal will actually be granted, as there is "a legal principle that declares generic pictures of common goods to be in the public domain".
by Ecstatify on 6/21/23, 9:37 AM
by mihaic on 6/21/23, 1:13 PM
The bureaucrats only stop when public opinion/regulators force the executives to step in and issue a directive to stop the nonsense.
If any Apple executive is listening, please stop the nonsense, it's only hurting your brand.
by NoGravitas on 6/21/23, 12:22 PM
by raverbashing on 6/21/23, 9:41 AM
by xslvrxslwt on 6/21/23, 9:00 AM
by expertentipp on 6/21/23, 9:49 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...
by hilbert42 on 6/21/23, 10:28 AM
Welcome to government by MegaCorporation.
by Szpadel on 6/21/23, 10:20 AM
by helsinkiandrew on 6/21/23, 11:26 AM
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-co...
by dghughes on 6/21/23, 10:53 AM
by soneil on 6/21/23, 10:17 AM
by bastard_op on 6/21/23, 4:52 PM
Tough luck Nissan motors, at least the Japanese court stood up for the man and his rights. The owner finally died after covid in 2020, and the domain still sits parked.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/35179/the-man-who-fought-nissa...
Something tells me if this were Apple in the US, he's have been steamrolled like a piece of dung left in the road and domain taken as these poor bastards daring to use a fruit borne from the beginning of time before Apple Inc will now get.
by Ekaros on 6/21/23, 10:36 AM
by NicoJuicy on 6/21/23, 11:03 AM
Pick something unique.
by stjohnswarts on 6/21/23, 7:05 PM
by hk1337 on 6/21/23, 12:19 PM
by fmajid on 6/21/23, 12:03 PM
by jpswade on 6/21/23, 10:30 AM
by gregjw on 6/21/23, 10:08 AM
by nostromo on 6/21/23, 11:07 AM
Apple is applying for a trademark. That’s it.
Apple is not forcing anyone to do anything. I doubt Apple knows or cares about the old fruit company.
by NoRelToEmber on 6/21/23, 10:27 AM
Basically, if it's possible to consider that fruit company is infringing on Apple, then it is equally possible that Apple is the one infringing on the older company.
In fact, by filing the suit, Apple is implicitly admitting that they are infringing, since they would not have filed if they didn't believe the logos could be confused, and since the other company is older...
by mensetmanusman on 6/21/23, 12:09 PM
by veave on 6/21/23, 10:50 AM
by coliveira on 6/21/23, 12:59 PM
by jonnycomputer on 6/21/23, 1:35 PM
by INTPenis on 6/21/23, 9:51 AM
Journalists gonna journalist.
by julienreszka on 6/21/23, 10:56 AM
by Luc on 6/21/23, 1:37 PM
The old Swiss Fruit logo looked more like a tomato.
by Xenoamorphous on 6/21/23, 12:57 PM
by marckohlbrugge on 6/21/23, 11:49 AM
It assumes a lot of conditions will be met including Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely), them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely), and winning litigation (unlikely).
TL;DR click bait