- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- switzerland@feddit.ch
Apple wants to claim depictions of actual apples.
You must log in or register to comment.
Would be funny if they can successfully counter-sue apple to stop using their logo
I mean, that’s the way trademark laws in theory should work. Who got there first gets the logo. And the other side gets Jobs’ mummified dick with some salt.
It isn’t even their logo, they are trying to copyright images of apples.
“We have a hard time understanding this, because it’s not like they’re trying to protect their bitten apple,” Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariéthoz was quoted as saying by the outlet. “Their objective here is really to own the rights to an actual apple, which, for us, is something that is really almost universal… that should be free for everyone to use.”
They tried years ago to copyright the use of the letter ‘i’ and failed.
I think they tried to trademark it, like intel tried to trademark the number 86.
They would’ve had to fight Toyota lol
That might have been it. It was a long time ago.
me come from a dymensyon where they succeded. Yt ys really trecky to wryte nowadays, at least ef you’re not owner of an i©phone™.
This reminds me of the Big Mac decision. I can’t remember where but there was a burger place that had a Big Mac burger but the name was not a copy of the McDonalds one, it was iirc because the owner’s name was Mac. Anyway, they lost the case and therefore lost copyright protection on Big Mac, so Hungry Jacks/Burger King started renaming all their burgers to something something big Mac, just to mess with them. Maybe Apple will bite of more than they can chew and end up losing protection for the Apple logo or similar things.
McDonald’s is notorious for suing any food-related company with a name starting with Mc or Mac, for trademark infringement. McDonald’s lost to McNally’s, a steakhouse in California, but I have to assume they’ve won enough to persist the policy.
Although in the 2010s it was observed that copyright lawyers on retainer to movie studios and record companies were over-eager to report infringement to media platforms even when it was obviously unintentional and not useful for piracy (e.g. dancing baby videos.) And Disney has a long wretched tradition of suing daycare places for wall murals long before the internet.
So this might be a matter of retained legal teams keeping themselves busy with overvigilence, since overenforcement makes such companies look like abusive dicks who deserve to be pirated (or worse, deserve to be not pirated).
Can companies just fuck off with this. Monster energy does the same thing. Also fuck Apple.
We’re talking about Apple here. Apple is the company that tried to enforce a patent on a rectangle inside if another rectangle with rounded corners.
This just in, Apple sues the estate of 2000+ year old man for his depiction of an apple in Genesis, the popular and riveting first book in the collaborative effort written 2 millennia ago: The Bible.
I reached out to Apple’s PR representative, I’ll let you know if they get back to me.
Actually Moses was VERY prudent, and strategically didn’t use the exact word ‘apple’ only ‘fruit’ and ‘of the tree’ - because he knew apple would be a litigious bitch
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Apple’s PR representative stated:
If all apples are fruit, and all fruit are of a tree, then surely all fruit of a tree are apples. The world needs to understand that every fruit is our intellectual property now. We’ve earned that place with our iconic innovation. We’re currently in talks with Fruit of the Loom, and our team is confident that they will rebrand as ‘Of the Loom’. It’s a fresh, modern take for their products that will be mutually beneficial to both parties.
I reached out to Fruit of the Loom’s PR representative, nothing yet.
There’s some truth to this. Apple did used to mean basically any fruit. That’s where we get “pineapple” in English. The Dutch call oranges “Chinese apples” and the French call potatoes “ground apples”. Any new fruit or vegetable that came along was basically just some kind of apple. So I think Apple might have a case here.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English27•11 months ago
Leave it to “Android Authority” to throw a shit fit over a nothing story. Apple lost this application in 2017, and will almost certainly lose this appeal filed in April. Yes, it’s silly, but this article makes it sound like Apple is committing some sort of unspeakable crime, which it isn’t.
Calm down, everyone.
The crime that these corporations are committing is robbing the public of it’s own iconography, or trying to anyway.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English4•11 months ago
hahahahahaha, hilarious.
first of all, this isn’t a crime. second, nothing has happened yet-- and, even if the Swiss government rules in favor of Apple, they would be the ones to blame for allowing it. All Apple did was ask. Finally, that other company’s logo does not belong to the public-- it belongs to that other company. Where’s your outrage towards them?
hahahahahaha, hilarious.
It’s fine that you disagree, but can you at least try to not be condescending.
This seems like a big ask in this case :/
Honestly, reading this person’s replies is repulsive. What a total jerk. Imagine suffering through a social event like a dinner party with someone like that. Condescending is an understatement.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English1•11 months ago
this isn’t some opinion over which there is a “disagreement”. it’s a matter of fact, and what was said was false. when someone makes a statement so ridiculously false, I cannot help but to laugh. Lies do not deserve respect.
what I find curious is that you would criticize me for calling out the falsehood rather than the person making it.
I don’t think the commenter meant that Apple was literally committing an actual crime backed by a law lol
I did not criticize you for calling something out. I criticized you going after the person by being condescending, it’s bad form in a discussion. Similar to pointing out spelling mistakes.
Apple is forcing another company and the tax payers to waste time and money because they think they own the entire world. They should be barred from using the courts for any intellectual property matter because they keep abusing it.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English5•11 months ago
Apple is doing no such thing. What they are doing is pursuing their rights under Swiss law, and if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Swiss government for writing their IP laws the way they have and with the Swiss courts for not dismissing their appeal out-of-hand.
It’s peak entitlement to call something “abuse” simply because of your grudge against apple for doing something you happen not to like.
Important not from that article:
It’s not the first time we’ve seen big tech companies attempt to trademark common terms or goods. However, a study by the Tech Transparency Project found that Apple filed more trademark oppositions over a three-year period than Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook combined.
If you think trademarking of common terms is a bad thing at all, apple seems to be the worst among big tech firms.
P.S. this “Android Authority” article put apple in the correct light in my opinion after reading it, and I use a lot of Apple products.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English2•11 months ago
this whole argument is preposterous on its face to blame apple for anything when the problem is the laws which allow it. where’s the outrage for the swiss apple company with their trademarked apple logo? nowhere.
you hate apple, and that’s the source of the outrage and why you blame them rather than the courts and legislatures for their crappy IP laws.
By this logic, if there’s a law somewhere that unintentionally allows them to crush orphans, they aren’t malicious to do so.
Apple and other corporations lobby for this kind of crappy IP law, so they can sue people.
Apple expanded into this market recently and are pretending to be the incumbent apple themed brand in that space in the whole world.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English2•11 months ago
By this logic, if there’s a law somewhere that unintentionally allows them to crush orphans, they aren’t malicious to do so.
That’s not logic, that’s a logical fallacy:
A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.”
or in this case, comparing a copyright claim to mass child murder… also…
Apple and other corporations lobby for this kind of crappy IP law, so they can sue people.
prove that Apple lobbied the Swiss government for this law or for a favorable outcome. I’m pretty confident that you can’t, and that you’re making up this claim because you can’t make an argument without fabricating claims
Apple expanded into this market recently…
Apple products have been available for purchase in Switzerland for decades.
…and are pretending to be the incumbent apple themed brand in that space in the whole world.
i don’t think you know what the word “incumbent” means, but you not liking apple or the fact that they’re prolific or popular is not tantamount to a crime. it’s pretty entitled to claim that your personal opinion should have any bearing on the legality of another person’s or company’s actions.
Apple lobbies for laws that benefit them all the time. Note that this is a general statement, and not about their activity in Switzerland, just like my previous statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/
https://mobilesyrup.com/2022/03/16/apple-google-lobby-group-backs-weak-us-privacy-laws/
Apple watches have not been available for decades.
I’m trying to convey that Apple is an exploitative company. If this offends you, that’s weird, is your laptop the lynchpin in your personality?
I’m sorry for triggering you I’ll try to be more sensitive of your needs.
I’m sorry for triggering you I’ll try to be more sensitive of your needs.
Dude fuck off with that shit. Have an intelligent conversation or get the hell out of here.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English0•11 months ago
Except none of that is in Switzerland. Thanks for proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are making things up as justification for your hurt feelings.
I guess I am making things up, I thought this was a watchmaker.
Found Tim Apple!
Found the low effort Reddit comment
Except if it’s trying, then it is trying to commit a crime. If they lost, they lost. But, they’re back to try and steal it again.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English0•11 months ago
You obviously don’t understand the definition of the word “crime“. Causing you personal offense isn’t a “crime,” lol.
It shows the intent of the company and the lack of morals. They are assholes. It’s that simple.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English1•11 months ago
so, when rational argument fails you, you just devolve to swearing and name-calling…
In my mind, it’s criminal to attack this company. I’m not a lawyer of course, but if they failed once and, are trying again, it shows how aggressive they are. I feel the other company should be able to sue Apple for their aggression and obvious false claim. When something is as clearly false as apple’s claim, then it really does fall into bullying, and again, in my mind, criminal activity. A serial corporate aggressor should be labelled criminal and I guess it’s up to the other company to see if they feel it’s worth suing to prove Apple are criminal or not, and I suspect with the sheer size of Apple, it probably won’t happen. Oh, and I have no problem calling them out for how their behaving. They’re bullying this company, they’re groundless in their false claims, and yes, they are assholes for it. Calling a company out for this kind of behaviour is pretty normal. Look at reddit right now.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English0•11 months ago
i suggest you familiarize yourself with the definition of “crime”, and note that causing you personal offense is not part of that definition. And, since you have admitted that you’re not a lawyer, I find it pretty galling that you nonetheless process to make unfounded legal claims as if you were.
I’d suggest you take a course in socialising and people skills. Your responses to everyone on this topic are out of hand.
I’m not sure if you have a condition, and if you do I’m sorry to hear. I very much recommend social interaction training. Currently, you’re just coming across as an ass to everyone in this thread.
The article tries to push the narrative that Apple is going after small family farms too, I doubt Apple even knows the farm exists. Not to mention under Swiss and basically every other trademark law they aren’t even allowed to trademark apples in general, it only grants its owner exclusive rights within a specific class of goods or services.
The article is total ragebait.
Apple is a litigation company disguised as hardware sales. Steve “thermonuclear war” Jobs saw to this.
If the article is accurate and Apple is trying to secure IP rights over, “images of apples,” surely no sane judge would rule in favour of such a wide ranging and foolish claim. I’m sure there are plenty of businesses who will be able to claim prior art over a picture of a damn apple.
Incidentally I’m trademarking the sun and then going after the entire country of Japan. I hope you aren’t too attached to that flag.
A few years ago I tried to register a domain name which included the word “purple”. I was told I couldn’t because HP had trademarked the word “purple” so it was off the list of registerable words. I pointed out that my domain was in no way related to their purple laptops and I was told tough, no-one could for any reason register any domain which included the word “purple” because HP now owned the dictionary word “purple”.
I’m still annoyed about it to this day.
Bullshit. They just don’t want to deal with the lawsuit even though HP would be 100% in the wrong. But we don’t have a justice system, just a legal system. If you got enough money you can make nearly anything the law.
They registered this particular image https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.1028240&DES=1, the rest of the story is conjecturing what might happen if TM is granted in .ch - I’m no expert, but it sounds unlikely to affect the fruit union.
Is it time to abolish trademarks yet?
I hope they’ll win, so everyone will understand how stupid and propriety our era is and there is nothing we can do about it, just stupid along with it.
Just to be clear, Apple isn’t asking the Swiss apple growers to change their logo. And it definitely isn’t forcing them.
I assmue some journalist saw Apple making a very boring Swiss trademark application and decided to call up a local company with an apple in its logo to see what they thought about it. There’s zero chance the company will have to re-brand.
The US apple industry uses an apple logo without any problem: https://usapple.org/
They tried to sue Australian grocery-duopolly Woolworths for their apple/ pumpkin type W logo
wollies applied for a blanket trademark - which would allow them to sell laptops with that logo on it, which would be kind of hilarious
Amazing
OK this happens in Switzerland, yeah, I don’t think they have any chance. If it would have been in the US, maybe but in Europe, it’s a lot harder if you want to bully another company.
Time to get my “Made for iPhone Granny Smith Apples”.
Finally!
In future corporations will sue farmers to force them to genetically modify their products, because they’re “stealing the brand”.