Re:Apple could force a 111-year-old fruit company to change ...
by SeanLuke on Wednesday June 21, 2023 @11:11AM
(#36419500)
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.
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.
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.