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
Apple Records would like to have a word.
America didn't really play ball until the situation started affecting their own economy (Americans being copied by people in other countries, or other Americans, enough to affect the national bottom line).
China is in a similar state: international IP isn't enforced, and the government just pays lip service to the idea, while it is a net benefit for their country's economy for copying to be rife. This will flip when the issue becomes a net detriment to their bottom line.
The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
Copyright is a different game to trademarks. Copyright has its origins in the Statute of Anne (also known as the Copyright Act 1710), and was designed specifically to protect the investment of publishers and printers in royalties to authors: copyright protects neither producers nor consumers, but rather distributors, whereas trademarks protect consumers.
The idea of extraterritorial and multi-jurisdictional copyright is, as you say, a more recent innovation; the American film industry is based in Hollywood because California refused to enforce Edison's claim on all films made with his cameras.
> The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
All of international politics works like this. Western politicians and diplomats are naturally supportive of the 'rules-based order' we keep hearing about: we wrote the rules in our favour after the Second World War.
In this case, it seems the word you are looking for is "provenance."
A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a similar logo for selling fruit.
¯\\\_ (ツ)_/¯
Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," because US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it.
SMH
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 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.
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...
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.
I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_...
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…
Trade dress or so-called "design patents" are a different matter (see Apple suing over every smartphone copying its design of "a slate of glass with a camera cut-out and maybe a button" or German Telekom pretty much holding the exclusive rights to a specific shade of magenta in tech-adjacent products).
I kinda hope the Swiss Apple company turns this around and sues Apple for trademark infringement, since they can prove using it for longer, and according to Apples own argument, the fact that they're in completely different industries apparently doesn't matter.
Would be fun to see Tim Cook announce the new "Banana iPhone" as a result of this suit getting turned around
[1] https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....
If the logo exists longer than Apple does, isn't Apple the one commiting infringement?
Isn't this an open and shut case?
But honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
Lawyer point still stands of course.
WARNING, a download link: https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2...
I think you misspelled "with a bigger legal budget".
But hey, Apple is a 2 trillion dollar company, wars have been started for a lot less, so the discussion isn't even worth having unless you also believe in Santa.
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.
On the other hand… Apple is now a behemoth that does fitness programs, have their TV service, now enter into banking.
What if there is a TV program about apples? What if the fruit union ventures into financing? But yeah that’s all a different problem than “Apple is forcing a fruit company to change its logo”
Google Translate:
The appellant is the holder of the international registration IR 1'028'240 [Apple] (fig.) based in the USA, which is claimed for Class 9 goods. The goods include im Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers.
The registration involves the following figurative mark:
(real apple)
The complainant applied for the protection of the disputed sign to be extended in Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Institute for Intellectual Property dismissed the request from September 2, 2022 partially withdrawn. As justification, the institute stated that the figurative mark belong to the commons. The disputed sign shows a true-to-life image of an apple and will be understood as an indication of the thematic content of part of the disputed goods. The sign thus lacks the necessary distinctiveness. Against this raised the Complainant Complaint to the Federal Administrative Court. She essentially complains not every thematic reference for the entry is a hindrance. The distinctiveness of A trademark only occurs when there is a sufficiently specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services lost. This reference is absent in the present case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
As far as I can tell, the apple in the trademark application looks exactly the same (except for the color) as the green apple in the Apple Records logo.
I also want to trust the Swiss courts, much more than I'd trust the American courts, to no accept any Apple claim against the Swiss company.
Also in the US we have first use, which is similar to how prior art works in patents. If Apple started selling apples, they’d be the ones at risk of losing a lawsuit.
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".
Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.
I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration if needed.
Then someone not understanding trademark law and that registering a trademark for a Granny Smith apple as a logo for a record label doesn't mean you're trying to claim all apples for every use.
The article is written to be ragebait, and judging by the comments here, it’s been successful.
Surely a blog post from Android Authority, a site dedicated to Apple's biggest competitor for mobile ecosystems, wouldn't sensationalize an article for the purposes of clicks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_(amp_modeler)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_b...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...
DOMAIN NAME: apple.pl
registrant type: organization
nameservers: a.ns.apple.com.
b.ns.apple.com.
c.ns.apple.com.
d.ns.apple.com.
created: 1998.08.26 13:00:00
last modified: 2023.01.13 18:06:41
renewal date: 2023.08.25 14:00:00
option created: 2023.04.05 15:47:12
option expiration date: 2026.04.05 15:47:12https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-co...
Welcome to government by MegaCorporation.
Reminds me of GOP/Dem politics.
My side has a good reason for doing it, but when they do it, its bad.
So they're trying to register the mark previously owned by Apple Corps, within the scope of the original mark. I'm not sure where the actual conflict is then, unless Fruits Suisse are also in the music industry.
While money is wasted on proceedings.
Good case for a libel countersuit?
The old Swiss Fruit logo looked more like a tomato.
No consumer will confuse these two and they don't even compete in the same product ranges. I totally agree with the regulator decision.
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
"Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely)"
Trademark tend to be narrowly scoped to the products and services being marketed by the company.
"them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely)"
They have more to lose (reputation) than to gain.
"winning litigation (unlikely)"
There's no likelihood of confusion. Dictionary words can be trademarked, but generally not for the goods and services they describe. Fruit company has used the mark before Apple even existed. Trademark rights are based on first use, regardless of filing.
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.
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.
Pick something unique.
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.
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...
Journalists gonna journalist.