Agreed 100%. The logos are not even vaguely similar, either! Besides, didn't we already go through this decades ago with Apple Records?

¯\\\_ (ツ)_/¯

Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," because US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it.

SMH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Another interesting case, where company has lost

https://casetext.com/case/fitbug-ltd-v-fitbit-inc-2

Apple Computer Inc should always be used in advertising and on products. Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples. The Apple Store is misleading they don't sell fruit.

> Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples.

Or fans of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Starr who definitely had "Apple" as their corporate name first.

If Lennon was still alive they'd probably have sued him for wearing "Steve Jobs glasses" by now...

>US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it

I don't mean this as a criticism of your post and it's more of a launchpad for my own, but this always comes up as "the defense" of bad trademark enforcement actions and it really seems like papering over the problem rather than a worthy explanation of anything. "It's always been awful and bad" has rarely evinced much enthusiasm from anyone and I wonder if there's any chance of changing this rickety IP system.

Especially why should Apple enforce US Law in Swiss?

>>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it.

This myth, and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.

"Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression."

-- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

It’s not entirely a myth, see a list of trademarks that have been “lost” due to insufficient protection or other reasons here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici...

There are definitely examples where brandnames have moved into common usage and then lose their trademark.

I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks.

Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide.

Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.

I mean, yeah, because they probably know what an iPad is and can infer what I meant. That just means the brand name is recognized, not that it’s generic. If you put a Coke on the table and asked the subject to pass the Pepsi, it would probably work too — as well as vice versa.

Well if another competitor starts using your protected term and you don’t protect it, it is more likely to become generic.

(Ie if Apple does not protect the word iPhone and then Google and Samsung use the term iPhone for 5 years unchallenged, it risks becoming a generic name for a smartphone)

No seller of apple fruits is “riding on apple logo/name bandwagon”, it won’t be genericized because of fruit existing as long as memory

Genericization is only for newly invented words/phrases, it’s apple that is actively stealing common words and makes trademarks out of them

Come to think of it, are there actually any anecdata or in the caselaw where companies that didn't litigate every potential infringement case sufficiently paid the hypothetical/mythical price of genericizatio. Or whatever the implied threat is...

They still do it as if it were not a myth is the problem.

> and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.

IIRC, this one used to be true but was overturned.

> Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer,"

It's actually a case of "news gonna clickbait". Afaik nothing really happened here other than a Swiss company voicing concerns about the possibility of Apple registering a trademark for more than just specific product categories.

Then Apple must be very afraid to lose it's trademark, I guess.

An investigation in 2022 by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit that researches Big Tech, found that between 2019 and 2021, Apple filed more trademark oppositions—attempts to enforce its IP over other companies—than Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google combined. Those companies also have trademarked common terms such as “Windows” or “Prime.”

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle...

For reference, Apple has not taken action against the company with the logo in the article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36417785

Because the first step is to get exclusive apple trademark for everything, then force everyone out.

The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?

From the appeal (download): https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2...

Just using Google Translate, it seems like they want the image of a true-to-life apple to be a trademark, but still only for "Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers". Nowhere in the appeal does it sound like they're trying to extend it to more classes of goods like actual fruit.

Lord forbid the fruit company and its employees make an extra buck when the customers get confused and buy a bunch of fruit instead of an iPhone. "So, how do I start the metaverse on this..."

I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?

Effectively, Apple infringe on the trademark of the apple producers to give the feeling that the electronic devices they provide are healthy and good for you.

who knows, Apple (the computing company) might be considering selling apple (the fruit) as they reach market saturation in computers!

they should branch into selling vinyl windows and really throw the world off

Would be extra cool if "vinyl" is a new name for a design concept that shall replace skeumorphism.

the calculator app has never felt so warm, just like the artist intended

This is one of those typical cases of legal departments that have run out of work and are looking for legitimacy for their own existence. Many lawyers are able to expand their own economic sphere without generating any added value for the general public.

When it comes to the US, the money speaks, not the logic..

I Will get confused if I was going to see the exact Apple logo on a fruit box though. What about a music record with the same logo before Apple was in the music industry?

I think any kind of confusion is what raise the question of if it should be ok or not. But here the logos don’t even match…

My understanding is that the more generic a trademark is (cough) apple (cough) the more it is tied to a specific industry. This is just a case of bored lawyers at apple. What really sucks is that for apple this is nothing, the lawyers are already payed for who cares if they overstep their authority a bit. but for a small company hit with a bogus trademark dispute this is a major traumatic expensive event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_...

That's not true. For better or for worse, trademark protection specifically extends to beyond mere customer confusion to the murky areas of "tarnishment" and "blurring" in the case of "famous" trademarks.

There is a clause in trademark law (both Swiss and US) which allows owners of "famous" trademarks to pursue infringement even when the marks in question do not overlap in commerce areas. Apple's trademark certainly meets the "famous" standard.

In Swiss law, see Article 15:

https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en

In US law, see section (c) 1 of:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

I imagine the reason for these clauses is, say, to prevent someone from making a Nike Swoosh Refrigerator with the purpose of selling units by drawing from Nike's luster.