This is out of hand now: Apple attempts to trademark the LEAF If you thought Apple patenting the rectangle was a gratuitous abuse of intellectual property, you may be pained to hear that Apple has now applied to trademark a leaf. Specifically, Apple wants to protect the leaf on its company logo. Apple applied for to the European Trademark Registry on 3 December, with the help of London …
"... does the apple even have a leaf? " Yes, often enough to make it iconic.
If you pick an apple from a tree, instead of a supermarket shelf, you'll often see a small, 'pointed oval' shaped leaf attached to the stalk, close to the apple. This is so common and well known that it has been drawn and painted many times throughout history. Guess where Apple got the idea of an apple-type shape with an apple-leaf type thing close to it?
Guess where Apple got the idea of an apple-type shape with an apple-leaf type thing close to it?
Apple records?
http://www.applerecords.com/media/2af/0f07b116e923c/view.jpg
------------------
I just wish apple records had the money to take apple to the cleaners.... the original dispute between the two over the trademarked name was settled on the grounds that apple never enter the music industry using the apple name....
Now apple have more money than the Vatican, they can totally ignore the agreement because they know apple records could not afford the legal fees...
maybe someone should set up one of those crowd sourcing things to generate the funding for the legal fight for apple records...
We should all print up "Apple Records" stickers and put them all over the place... water down the public's computer company association with the word Apple.
I'm also upset that they've trademarked the term "startup" in many countries in the past few months in categories where it is already used extensively in a generic way. Who works in these Trademark offices? Doh!
"Patent" in Americanese is a nebulous term for anything resembling any form of registration. So you have to look into every mention of "patent" to determine what the hell they were trying to say/do. It would appear that in this case they're using "patent" to mean registration of a trade mark. No biggie.
Furthermore, it aint a leaf. It's an eye. Presumably their best effort so far for an emblem for their forthcoming iTV (tm)
@ Andy O'Rourke
Well, if I approach this from an Apple point of view then no, you dont. Naturally I am the first person to ever have a beer belly and if someone else has the temerity to develop one either now, in the future or even in the past, then I will be fully able to seek financial restitution through the courts.
Any beer belly with rounded edges would therefore be a breach of patent and/or registered trade mark.
All your beer bellies belong to us.
"I've never even seen this before to my recollection!"
Then you obviously have no idea of what a wood working "buscuit" is.
http://www.smarter.com/black-decker-dewalt-dw6800-no-0-size-joining-biscuits-/sd--pi-44090188--qq-joiner%2Bbiscuits.html?pdp=8&plt=grid
This crap by Apple has just simply gotten out of hand.
Actually, Nissan's safe. The automotive industry was not one of the industries listed in the application, and trademarks sharing names and designs can co-exist so long as they're in different industries. Case in point: in the USA, the name "Cracker Barrel" is trademarked to at least two separate companies. Thing is, one is the name for a line of cheese products while the other is the name of a restaurant chain: different industries.
If only that was true.... let's look at Apple's past history shall we on suing non-IT industries for daring to use an apple logo.
Apple sues a grocer:
http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/09/apple-sues-polish-grocer-over-trademark-rights-2469892.html
Apple sues a school:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Sues-Canadian-School-over-Apple-Shaped-Logo-95109.shtml
Apple sues a coffie shop:
http://gawker.com/5853402/apple-threatens-to-sue-tiny-german-cafe-whose-logo-is-an-apple
Apple sues Woolworths:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/apple-sues-woolworths-ove_n_309450.html
Apple sues an APPLE FARM:
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/09/21/apple-sues-york-orchard-patent-infringement/
Thanks InsaneGeek
Brighton says black vans have been circling his farm for weeks taking photos of every sign which contains the logo, and his iPhone mysteriously stopped working the day after the suit was filed.Apple is seeking $7 million in compenstory damages, plus $2 millon for the "emotional distress" the situation has caused its employees.
I don't understand why anybody would use any apple-like logo on anything, right now the mere mention of crApple or an iProduct creates the same level of revulsion in me that walking on dog shit does, and all I can think of is how I can get rid of it without touching it.
Steaming pile of poo icon please elReg.
"...the mere mention of crApple or an iProduct creates the same level of revulsion in me that walking on dog shit does..."
An upvote and Reg Literary Merit award to you, sir, for the most effective and truthful use of the words "Apple", "iProduct" and "dog shit" in one sentence. Well done!
Note that the last one about the Apple Farm is a parody. Though I think that in itself makes a point, it's sad that it's so hard to tell the actual real life events from parody (I only suspected it was parody from the over-the-top ridicule in the quotes - the basic gist of the story came across entirely believable, given the recent events with rounded rectangles...)
There are more apple leaves in nature than there are in Apple's marketing department. Presumably this application is simply to open the way for more litigation against whatever divine being was arrogant enough to "copy" Apple's design - though in real life, apple-tree leaves don't look much like the logo.
His or her representative on Earth - obviously. Follows competition to be recognised as the true representative by a Californian court.
Apple v The Pope. I wouldn't try that one. Stalin: "How many divisions has the Pope"? But the Catholic Church still looks healthier than the Soviet Union, despite everything.
Well there is the old joke about the Pope passing to Heaven and being shown around.
After being shown to his palace in Heaven, he looked out the window, and saw another palace whose magnificence dwarfed his and all the other Popes.
"Surely that must be the palace of the Almighty Himself!", he cried.
"No," said Saint Peter,"a lawyer lives there."
The Pope was dumfounded. "Surely we Popes, that have dedicated our lives to God, deserve better than a mere lawyer!"
Saint Peter responded,"We have many Popes here, but there dwells the only lawyer in Heaven!"
If Apple sues, I hope he's a talented one as well.
But if the R in a circle is short for REGISTERed trade mark, shouldn't that symbol have a little R in a circle next to it too...
and then shouldn't that little symbol have an R.....
Will the Register crash the internet with a stack-overflow with all those recursive ®s ?
... mine's the one with the rather large core-dump in the pocket.
Think of TM as a warning that the word/phrase/whathaveyou is being used as a trademark.
We defended a product name of ours that a US company was trying to register in the EU for a similar product by pointing out that ours had been in use in the UK for about 10 years and giving examples from trade publications.
The other company was a reputable one, they presumably hadn't bothered doing any research beyond a check of the registered trademarks. Having a TM on our product wouldn't have made any difference in this case but if ours had been the registered trademark their application would have stopped dead at the first filing.
"Anybody else sick and tired of these self-important pre-snipes against anyone who has the nerve to not like your comment?"
Truthfully I don't care much for the red arrows or the green ones. If you all agreed with me then the world would be doomed, and if you all disagreed with me then the world would be screwed. Either way it's a steaming turd!
...they could be about to launch a new product or service, which they don't want to use the apple logo as its trade mark for, and therefore need to register a different trademark. Just as let's say any car-maker would trademark the model name of their brand new car.
Furthermore, I consider that "design patents" should be renamed.
It's a bloody trademark. You can trademark anything you damned well want providing no-one is using a similar mark in any of the trade categories you are claiming. McDonalds have trademarked an M for the love of mike, and Blaupunkt have a blue circle. Prior art isn't important, just similar registered trademarks.
But this isn't a trademark, this is part of a design. If anything is to be registered it is the design in its entirety which Apple already have done. Once you start breaking designs down into each simple shape it just makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Using your examples McDonalds do just use the M as a trademark in their advertising in a specific colour and font, Blaupunkt do not have a blue circle trademarked they have a blue circle followed by the company name in a specific font which they use and that is the trademark - the whole thing. Unless Apple are about to change their branding to the leaf then this is invalid.
It IS indeed a Trademark, as the article notes, but you are right the entire design has to be considered. But companies can do have multiple trademarks for the various brands and distinctive characters/designs they use.
That said, trademark applications HAVE been rejected in the past if they're found to be too broad. Example: Thrifty Rental Car Co. attempted to apply for a Service Mark (a type of Trademark used in service industries--the UPS logo is a Service Mark) that simply described their vehicles and places of business as "being blue". It was rejected as too broad; they appealed the decision, but the rejection was upheld.
Wrong, the OP was correct. IAAL and the fact is that this a TRADEMARK application. Prior art and design rights do not come into it.
You can (subject to some exceptions) trademark anything you like (even the colour Orange, or in theory the smell of cut grass), and the aim of the regime is to show origin of goods i.e. that goods with this logo on it originate from Apple. OK, we're all familiar with the bitten apple, but they may simply in future intend to use this 'leaf-like' mark on their products. If they don;t use it, then they lose it. However, the application is (or at least should be) for a limited range of goods, with which this TM will/should be associated.
If I want to market car parts, and Apple is not doing that, then I could use that (or a similar logo) without (too many) problems, unless I was of course trying to exploit Apple's trademarks for my own advantage by taking advantage of their brand, misleading the public and/or diluting their brand.
Again, this has nothing to with patents or designs (or burning down forests).
I do agree, however, that the US PATENT Office grants patents that it shouldn't (and that companies try to file patents when they shouldn't ad absurdum) - but then shout at the politicians making the rules that let them do it.
Audio tape... Sony were going to package their first audio cassettes in yellow, but changed their mind out of respect for Kodak, who had been packaging their consumables in yellow for some time- Sony saw Kodak as being pioneering in their consistent use of one colour to distinguish their brand. Sony went with red.
National Geographic use a Yellow Frame, Bass a Red Equilateral triangle.
>Stephen Fry and his minions would all rush out and buy it, saying how wonderful and innovative it was, and how it changed their lives.
And if Douglas Adams were still alive, he's be with them. Hell, once was a time people would lie in bed and worry about the Mongol Hordes, Communists, The Scottish,The French, Catholics or Spanish Armadas... but Stephen Fry's Minions? Seek counselling.
But what could this be a trademarked logo for?
1. A device that, effectively in terms of fashion, turns brown and withers in Autumn/Fall and needs renewing every year? (like the iPhone, the one before that and the one before that etc...)
2. A thin surface created from wood pulp upon which marks can be made using deposit leaving instruments?(note to my patent and trademark lawyers, register iPen, iPencil, iCrayon etc asap... what I'm too late?)
3. A new concept of a trait inherited or adopted from ancestor or mentor, especially with regards to old books?
4. A fanboi credit card by Apple - so they get interest as well as the rest of the fanboi's money.
(why the icon? you had to be there in 1984...)
Close, but not the same. Adidas' 'leaves' are slightly longer, even if they weren't divided by three parallel lines. Apple's application isn't for any 'filled space defined by two arcs with different foci', just this specific one.
I haven't heard of any complaints of Adidas using 'three parallel lines' as a trademark, which is even easier to define using words.
Google also trademarked the "g", but didn't see it making the news.
Source: http://www.inovia.com/products/directory/trademarks-number-85675928/g-trademark-owned-by-google-inc
Bass does not have a trademark on a red triangle. The name forms part of the context. Hence the name "Bass red triangle" http://www.burton-on-trent.org.uk/category/miscellany/bass-logo
National Geographic do not have a trademark on an orange rectangle. There is other context.
The Nike tick is clearly very stylised and therefore distinctive. It is not a simple geometric shape.
Blaupunkt, as previously noted here, does not have a trademark on a blue circle. There is other context.
HSBC does not have a trademark on a single triangle. Their grouping of a set of triangles is distinctive.
Next time try checking before down voting.
Exactly. There is no big deal. This article is click bait to bring out the flaming anti-Apple crowd. It has been highly successful in generating 120+ comments, most of which indicate that the commentard hadn't read the article and/or doesn't know what a trademark is, and/or why it is different to a patent or design patent.
This article may have set a new record in moronic postings by people whose intellect and/or state of mind is seriously questionable.
The register has generated their "clicks" and ad revenue for ads I have never seen nor will see has been suitably generated.
The weird thing is this leaf is asymmetrical around the SW/NE axis, while the leaf on the Apple logo on my phone is symmetrical around both axes.
And why trademark the leaf alone, when it's not currently a trademark? This suggests a rebranding, or an alternate branding. I think someone's missed the story here.
Kodak Yellow, BP spent millions about 15 years ago changing their colour of green from 'vivid' to 'natural'. Colours- there are millions to choose from.
Much like geometric shapes. This leaf shape is created by two arcs, whose respective foci are a distance from each other that can be expressed with respect to the radius of the two arcs, and the angle of the axis on which these two arcs lie. Change one of those numbers and you have a different shape.
I was in a post office collecting a parcel and after boredom-reading a poster even to the small print underneath, saw there was a trademark notice on that specific colour of red registered to the royal mail..
...THE COLOUR RED
(icon possibly infringes)
In Germany they have Deutsche Post yellow.
A bloke I know who paints planes for a living said they had to redo a fleet, 'cos the German company that owned them had chosen a yellow that was thought to be too close to that and their lawyers failed to convince the German courts otherwise.
A very expensive mistake.......
Just because something works one way, it doesn't mean it should.
People have put up with gear sticks in cars for many years, they are very common, and they are still a very stupid idea (a stick you can waggle while going along that makes the gearbox break...no really).
The same with trademark law. If it has now deteriorated to allowing this sort of thing, it needs changing.
If by "deteriorated" you mean "allows people to register trademarks" then it's been this "broken" for quite some time...
There are many examples of marks that have been registered that are simple shapes. The point is that these shapes, after much use, become an identifying feature in their own right and become a symbol that people recognise and (if you're lucky) trust. The way you protect these marks is to register them, thus preventing other people from abusing the recognition and value you have built up by using the mark on their own products.
This really isn't that sinister. If anything, you'd have to be asking why they've registered this mark now. Could it be that there is a new product line on the way?
Amazingly, I do know that; in fact, I've registered trade marks myself and been through the entire process several times. The point at issue is how generic they are and how broad is the scope of application claimed. It seems that American companies increasingly file for trademarks and then try to increase their scope to everything - remember when Intel trademarked "Pentium" and then sued an HR company called "Gentium"? - though how you were supposed to confuse someone who sacks people with a 486 microprocessor I really do not know.
You say
"The point is that these shapes, after much use, become an identifying feature in their own right and become a symbol that people recognise and (if you're lucky) trust"
But in this case someone is trying to trademark something that is not recognised, ahead of any such identification. I do not think many people would identify the stylised leaf with the top of the Apple logo.
I'm not sure it's much of an argument to say "Just because this more complex thing can be trademarked, therefore this very simple thing can be too". We're not talking about the combination of a particular style of a letter, together with an additional geometric shape, we're talking about a single simple shape formed by two curves.
If there's no line, then can anything be trademarked, even say a single line?
Yes you can trademark a line. You can trademark a colour. All that means is, if no one else objects, you get that trademark for the areas you specified. It doesn't stop anyone else from ever using it. Otherwise apple would be the only company with apple in its name. What it does mean is apple is the only electronics company that is called apple.
The amount of stupid in the comments is exceptionally high today.
So. . .ummm. . . . does the apple tree in my garden infringe on this then. . . because it has leaves on it (usually).
It's a pity really but it seems Apple are going the same way today as they went all those years ago when they all but dropped off the face of the earth because of the huge consumer backlash against their draconian ways. Lets just hope that when the rubber band twangs back again this time it properly wipes them out.
The iPhone was great as was the iPad but its no longer the greatest, other than perhaps looking a little better than the competition. I've bought my last as I suspect many others have now there is a decent choice on the market.
So, all luck to them trademarking a leaf but it just goes to show just how arrogant they have once again become.
J
Your tree will only be infringing if it starts to manufacture and sell electronic goods (or jewellery or some other stuff) and brands them with a leaf design like the one in the trademark application...
You do realise that Nike have trademarked a tick, the post office (along with many other companies) have trademarked a colour and some fashion label has a trademark of a crocodile? You do realise that a trademark is not a patent?
Geeze, as someone else pointed out - the level of stupid around here is rising.
> it should be sued for it's total market value just for trying to patent a PLANT PART
Have you any idea how many billions of shapes the flora of this planet generate?
Toronto Maple Leafs, an ice hockey team. Their logo? You guessed it!
Yet you call a fair chunk of of our fellow humans 'idiots'. That is not a healthy perspective. And 'pure evil'? Read some history, there is far worse stuff there- rape, pillage, murder, oppression, slavery, torture, mutilation, genocide... just for starters. And sadly, it's not confined to history. If you have a serious point (giving you credit) about worker's conditions in China, I would suggest you look at the supply chain of the raw materials that go into all our decadent electronic gadgets- from any manufacturer. Nothing new here: diamonds, gold, tea, tobacco, cotton, oil, rum, sugar...
Would that be akin to a computer firm called apple, assuring another called apple that is in the music business, that the former would never enter the music industry.
Personally I have no problem with apple registering the leaf, but how long before they claim that footwear is jewelery?
Here's what we as netizens who are absolutely fecked off with Apple and their absolute bone-crushing arrogance have to do... we all create and register an apple based trademark and then let their legal team squander billions trying to stop them all... that should keep them busy for a while I would have thought... Man V Food, Man v Apple more like and Man will win.
Someone should ask Samsung or Microsoft to trade mark the use of the letters TM and R when placed at the end of a word or logo in a smaller point size than the preceding lettering. We could then all grab bags of popcorn and watch the mayhem ensue..as an encore Samsung should then patent the use of the word 'innovate' when used in the context of copying something previously invented.
Dear Douchebags at Apple,
When did you get the right to trademark or patent every design that comprises the outline of an Apple????
I notice that you have a VERY specific logo that has a single bite out of the right side smack dab in the middle and a "leaf" on the left side.
First, a school is not a computer manufacturer, nor is a grocery store, a small cafe, or family apple orchard.
Next, your logo does not look exactly like any of these "contested " logo's,
Third, if the use of the similar logo was in a competing industry, you may have had a point but since none of these are competeing industries there could never be any damages to Apple from "confusion".
However, there ARE huge damages to the people you are suing and each of them should contact each other so they can share legal fees and file a harassment lawsuit against Apple.
Perhaps Apple Records woiuld like to revisit their logo concerns at this time just to add fuel.
Why don't we all chip in at Kickstart to help fund their legal campaign.
Honestly, why don't you mentally deficient attention whores at Apple just grow up and learn that you are only convincing intelligent people who "Might" be their customers; that purchasing anything that Apple makes, only funds more stupid greedy lawyers.
This is the new innovation - forget technology or research, Apple aren't interested in that anymore, the way forward is to sue sue sue.. This is just paving the way for the big 2 patents that they have always sought.. Once they own the 'straight line' and the 'curved line' they can sue anybody who has ever printed or drawn anything. This will change everything!
I have seen literally thousands of pieces of jewellery in the past shaped as leaves; I am sure that just about any jewellery shop rf stand that you care to pick will have multiple examples. Does Apple seriously think people are going to stop such items if this goes through (or that it will prevail in court if it tries to enforce such a trademark)?
It seems a lot of people are doing exactly what's expected of them when the word "Apple" is mentioned in this article (if it can be called that). Immediate up vote for those saying Apple are taking the piss trying to patent a leaf (with the usual rounded corners mention thrown in for good measure). Immediate downvote for those trying to explain this is not a patent, but a trademark.
Here's a few more trademarks I found
Firefox logo
M - MacDonalds
Roaring Lion - MGM
K - Kellogs
Leaping cat - Puma
The "peeled open" X = XBox
Tick - Nike
Why is the Apple leaf different from the Nike tick?
Have a quick google at trademark images to see the variety of designs, from single images to images plus company. That is if you have time to look instead of posting shit.
Whatever next? The Register trademarking a vulture's head?
The Apple leaf is significantly different from the Nike 'swoosh' (it's not referred to as a 'tick' because it's not a tick). The Nike logo is actually a graphical representation of the wings of the goddess Nike as depicted in some classical carvings (such as those found at the ancient city of Ephesus which now lies in modern day Turkey). It is the whole logo and has been since Nike dropped the word Nike from the logo in 1995 and re-registered it in its current form.
The apple 'leaf' is only a component of the existing Apple logo which is already a registered trademark, but on its own is not particularly individually distinctive as a trademark (unless Apple are planning a major rebrand). A quick Google image search for 'leaf logos' returns a mass of similar-looking logos with some even incorporating a more-or-less identical shape as that which Apple seeks to register such is its commonality of shape.
Patently none of these are looking to rip off Apple in any way, but given Apple's past form there's little doubt they may pursue anyone using anything vaguely similar to this shape in any existing business - competing or not.
the apple logo itself is trade marked, and the leaf is part of that icon, so it makes sense to include it.
But this outpouring of bile and nonsense is weird. why is apple not allowed to protect it's logo and it's constituent shapes? or it's products and properties?
If Google had sued someone for using the letter G in a suggestive manner to imply a link with google, would the same animal howlings be heard from registeristas or is that reserved for apple?
Fandroid-tards have nothing else better to do than become vultures when the word "Apple" appears in an article. Clear sense of insecurity there. It's all tit for tat anyway. Any Apple user just gets along with tech and fandroid-tards want to be anti-tech to be cool. Very illogical.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
