iPhone lawyers literally compare Apples with Pears in trademark war In the never-ending effort by Apple to think higher of itself, the computer giant has opposed a trademark featuring the silhouette of a pear. Pear Technology, which produces digital mapping software and services, applied for the pear logo in 2014 and was almost immediately challenged by Apple, which claimed it was confusingly …
@Dan 55
Absolutely right. If Apricot can do it then Pear should be able to too. But the precedent doesn't stop there:
Acorn
Raspberry (Pi)
Blackberry
Tangerine (remember them? They made the Oric)
I'm sure that there must be others - I just can't remember them all.
My guess though is that this doesn't come from the top. It's just some dickhead in the legal department who's trying to justify his sad existence. Lawyers. Right up there with PR and telephone sanitisers.
Apricot, yeah,we had a bunch of Apricot file servers back in the day, they had built in UPS and a little keyfob thingy that remotely operated a sliding door over the floppy drive. TBH I think the Apricot logo was more similar to the Apple logo back then, as Apple were still doing the coloured stripes thing.
I was attendeding a computing course at Herriott Watt around then. It was the week that V aired in the UK, and I missed it all. Anyway, yes, there were several Apricots in the University and we got a tour of the factory. Superb machines, I remember thinking. Was sad to see them go.
Apple Records predated Apple Computers.
Apple Computers made a deal with Apple Records to NEVER get involved in music. Apple Computers later changed that deal. Unclear how much they paid to Apple Records.
The more I see Apple, the moreI think, what a bunch of fucking cunts.
There were three separate lawsuits, with Apple Corp. taking Apple Computer Inc. to task over the use of 'Apple' and an Apple logo in conjunction with music.
Apple Corp. won the first two, and received modest damages and a more explicit license deal, but the third one in 2003-2006 centered around the use of Apple and the Apple logo on the iTunes store, which was clearly about music.
In this case, the judge ruled in favor of Apple Computer, taking a very (IMHO) lose interpretation of the maybe poorly worded section on content delivery and physical media (to me, it looks like the judge did not think that the electronic delivery of digital music conflicted with the previous agreement, which he interpreted as the delivery of music on physical media - clearly the case that digital music delivery was a disruptive techology).
Although Apple Corp. said they would appeal, it was likely they didn't have the financial resources, and eventually Apple Computer. offered a settlement, and part of the settlement transferred the ownership of the Apple logo to Apple Computer, with a perpetual license to allow Apple Corp. to continue using their logo. I think it also included an agreement to allow Beatles music to be delivered through the iTunes store, something that Apple Corp. had explicitly blocked previously, presumably because of the ongoing disagreement.
So there is now nothing Apple Corp. can do to anybody w.r.t the logo, as Apple Computer Inc. own it outright.
It's amazing how much can be achieved by the application of money.
The MacIntosh Apple predates them both a bit too, seeing as it was first named in 1811.
Or was it? There's a conspiracy theory going round that even it's name was, ahem, "corrected" after Jobs and his new fangled computer outfit had their reverse engineering fun: The MacIntosh Apple.
Morels are much more discerning than that. They are very particular about who they rub shoulders with. A neighbor has been trying to cultivate them for almost 50 years, and claims he's no closer now than when he was when he started. In his words "It has become a quest".
Ah, but Apple Corps (the Beatles record label) took Apple Computers to court as early as 1978.
Apple Computers settled and part of the settlement was that they agreed to stay OUT of the music business.
Apple Corps took them to court again over iTunes - which most of us would agree was a clear violation of the agreement to stay out of the music business - and a UK High Court judge gave the decision to Apple Computer.
I have NEVER EVER bought anything made by Apple Computer and never will. They are the evil empire.
I worked for an Apricot dealer. At the time their PCs were far better than IBM and most of the clones. Trouble is they weren't then IBM compatible. The later compatible ones were still ahead of the game but too expensive compared to the competition and their customer service was poor.
I had an Apricot Xi with a 10MB hard drive. That was enough for DOS, a GUI, dBase II, Supercalc, WordStart, a VT100 emulator (and its source code), a C-compiler, a C interpreter(!!), Pascal compiler, BASIC and MS-BASIC compiler. There was also around 3MB free for documents
This post has been deleted by its author
I _ordered_ an Oric,..... it was severely delayed, so I ended up cancelling and getting an Acorn Electron instead.
Oric basic had a few neat features, like the 'wait' command, I recall they had one set up in WH Smith, so, like all mischievous teenagers, I instructed it to 'wait' long enough for me to get out of the door, then loop around the predefined sounds. The BASIC equivalent of setting all the cooking timers in 'Spoils' (if you remember that shop).
I remember how aggressively Apple prosecuted anybody when companies tried to import clones into the US. I also remember the enormous royalties companies had to pay to sell apple compatible (//e, gs and early mac) hardware. The repressive tactics apple used back in those days are, in my opinion, one of the most significant reasons apple has had problems with mass product saturation in areas other than early education, mp3 or the cell phone markets.
See this? (Holds up my wallet.)
I'm voting with it. (Puts wallet back in pocket.)
I'll never buy an Apple product if this is how you treat people. You were at least a contender in my list of potential computer vendors for my next one, but given how you like to trample us little folks under your jack booted heels, I'll go find someone else to handle my computer needs.
Signed, a random person that just watched Apple flush itself down the toilet.
(My wallet & I will be walking away now.)
Well done you. Here, have some Guardian points to make you feel all morally superior.
Doesn't matter you'd be better off actually VOTING for someone to change the system itself.
With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law.
If Apple was the one writing these laws, you'd have a point. As they don't, you seem very misguided at best, because there isn't an alternative that wouldn't do what Apple does, because their shareholders and the law demands that they do so.
I bet you're the type of person that screams at shop assistants because you dislike their company policy.
If Apple was the one writing these laws, you'd have a point. As they don't, you seem very misguided at best,
The law has little bearing on the outcome in all high value legal cases. That's why top footballers get off speeding tickets that you wouldn't, why influential figures get away with wife beating that would have you in jail, why megacorps dodge taxes that SMEs and contractors can't, and why the chances of winning a legal battle against a bank are very, very low indeed.
In this case, a tiddly company has again been trampled by the handsomely paid army of lawyers fielded by Apple. If you really think that is "how the law is written", then you really aren't paying much attention to the world.
"
Well done you. Here, have some Guardian points to make you feel all morally superior.
Doesn't matter you'd be better off actually VOTING for someone to change the system itself.
"
Well, if I lived in the US, then maybe I could.
Instead, all I can do is "WTF-facepalm" like the rest of us.
@William3
"With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law."
This is not defending a Trademark If it were a Apple, or even a Pear with a chunk taken out of it, I could understand. but it bears no resemblance whatsoever.
This is bully boy tactics and little else.
"With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law."
Defending is one thing, looking for fights is something entirely different. Not only do the eponymous fruits look different, they're not even members of the same botanical genus. Apple do seem to have chosen the appropriate genus, however; botanically apples are Malus and Apple's behaviour certainly seems malicious.
"With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law." yes defend them when there is confusion. If cant teal the difference between a pear and apple logo you are fucked. This is a map company and does not compete in the same market. Following your logic if I had a plumbing supply store called Apple, Apple would have to sue me or lose the rights that is not the case. if that was so then you would see apple sue applebee's which has an apple logo.
Now if I were to start a computer company called apple V anda apple logo similar to apple computers I would expect to get sued.
You're rapidly becoming the new EasyGroup (who in the past have tried suing curry restaurants, pizza places and gyms)
"You're rapidly becoming the new EasyGroup (who in the past have tried suing curry restaurants, pizza places and gyms)"
Nor forgetting the Olympic federation who go around suing any business with the word "olympic" in their name or use 3-6 rings in their logo anywhere near an Olympic venue, usually with the connivance of the government who pass special laws just for that during an Olympic year in the host city.
The Olympic Cafe in London, for example. I doubt the Olympia Exhibition Centre was affected though.
"You're rapidly becoming the new EasyGroup (who in the past have tried suing curry restaurants, pizza places and gyms)"
To be fair to EasyGroup (and bear in mind I am certainly no fan of them or of Apple) in at least one of those cases the business was blatantly taking the piss, with a logo in pretty much the exact same colour and font as EasyGroup's. I live near there and I remember thinking at the time that they were asking for trouble.
>With trademarks, companies have to defend them, as that is the law.
So we can expect Apple to take Disney to court about its use of a highly stylised apple with a bite taken out of it in Sleeping Beauty? Or should Disney be taking Apple to court for unpaid product/trademark placement royalties...
While I support you, sadly I feel you're a drop in the ocean. There's enough Apple Corp "fans" ( I use word in it's strictest sense! ) out there that will happily die for the company.
I love to collect books about computing history and there a few on Apple's fans. When you see pictures of people's bodies with multiple Apple logos and Mr Jobs tattooed on them, you start understand why these people have earned their reputation as some of the most ardent fanatics in the world. You think pre-teenage girls are fanatic about boy-bands, at least the girls grow up and grow out of it, Apple fans are just plain nuts for life!
"Apple fans are just plain nuts for life!"
Hang on, nuts are a fruit as well; you're just making the situation worse!
This post has been deleted by its author
>but shouldn't we be reserving our ire for the EUIPO which let them get away with this bollocks?
Definitely we should be worried (regardless of Remain/Leave)!
Going through the linked EUIPO document the logic and language being used by the EUIPO is troubling. Basically, if I trademark a stylised IC chip, using the points raised by the EUIPO I should be able to get rulings against practically any other trademark that uses a stylisted IC chip.
But going back to ire with the EUIPO, this case needs to be brought to the attention of the Brexit supporting UK media, as unlike the "straight banana" daftness, this is off the scale daftness and really needs to be exposed.
However, care is needed, as the Pear Technology in the EUIPO case is Pear Technologies (China) Ltd, and not Pear Technology Services (UK) Ltd.
Register a trademark with a banana and two kiwis. That should do the trick.
Ah, that'll be the logo for 'Fruit Computers', and the iFruit Phone in the Grand Theft Auto series then.
The name Pear Technologies "must be assessed against the background of the fact that the word, where understood, merely reinforces the same concept as the one attributed to the sign's figurative element, thus creating a semantic unit."And that's not even Apple's lawyer talking – that is the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) which actually ruled for Apple and against Pear Technologies.
I'm disappointed with the EU. There ought to be a corruption or incompetence investigation about this and the people that made the ruling personally fined.
As well as Apricot, Cherry is or was a tech company. There have been many "fruity" tech companies.
Blackberry, Cherry, Pineapple, Apricot, Tomato (motherboards) and others.
How the hell can anyone confuse a pear silhouette with no bite, with Apple's stolen from the Beatle's Apple Corp (using an apple core logo) apple with a bite. I'm surprised Apple hasn't sued the LGBTQ folk too as the logo used to have coloured stripes (though curiously in the "wrong" order".
Ahh,it because apples usual customers are high worth morons who really do have trouble telling the difference between an Apple and a pear...
Apple has a huge legal dept,they have to keep them busy when their not in court arguing that one flat glass fronted oblong with rounded corners is different from all other glass fronted oblongs with rounded corners in courts,so they take on things like this..
I prefer my first argument,Apple buyers are gullible idiots,jobs was a thieving lieing bastard,his company has the same personality faults..
Apple will die before I do,so I will have seen them born,steal billions and then I will watch them collapse,and I will laugh at the suckers holding stock when it tanks..
"Ahh,it because apples usual customers are high worth morons who really do have trouble telling the difference between an Apple and a pear..."
Yes, the sort of people who buy expensive pre-bagged.pre-chopped fruit to go in their very expensive smoothie maker and have probably never seen an actual real complete un-chopped fruit in their short (so far) lives.
Or the sort of people that think chips come from McDonalds or the supermarket freezer aisle and don't what a potato is.
Perhaps they should try a cactus picture next time, the prickly pear should do nicely and suggest that apple's terminally stupid lawyers and the various courts of injustice see an optician, e.g Specsavers.
I would just love to make an insecticide against the apple worms, some may remember that the apple was originally a fruit. I do remember and enjoy them every day, I find them much more tasty than the crock of shit electronics lot.
>I use the silhouette of someone taking it from behind so to speak as the logo.
Based on this case, you would lose to a claim from whoever has the rights to the Rabbit Injection logo etc. on the basis that a person taking it from behind is too similar and thus confusing with a Rabbit taking it from behind as both are mammals...
In the days of the Apple II there was a company known as Pearcom which marketed the Pear II computer (an Apple II compatible with extra expansion slots and a numeric keyboard). They briefly used a rainbow striped Pear as a logo but gave that up when Apple made threatening noises. That logo obviously a direct ripoff, but this case is farcical.
"which I've never seen"
Having a teenage niece, I have had the dubious pleasure of seeing that one some years ago (she will probably kill me now for revealing that she used to watch it). I would have thought the producers Nickelodeon and Schneider's Bakery might have a better case to sue than Apple.
Part of this is also the need to actually defend your trademarks. As cited by several people above with the precedent of Raspberry and Blackberry, etc, it's clear that not trying to enforce your trademarks makes enforcing them later more difficult.
I suspect Apple didn't really expect to win and didn't care if it did - it just defended its trademark in order to keep its strength and to set a strong precedent for the future.
And, if you're an Apple lawyer* then it behooves you to defend that trademark to the very best of your ability.
Not that this isn't somewhat thuggish behaviour, just that it's not legally unwarranted.
* - I am reminded of Disaster Area 'research accountants'?
..what Apple thinks of the overall intelligence level of their target customers, who apparently can't tell one fruit or even one physical object from the other. I hope they start a disappointed shoppers foundation to offer counseling and support to people discouraged after grocery store visits. "Damn, I bought the wrong thing again!"
Maybe I should either become a lawyer or own a liquor store. In both cases, either profits regardless of the situation. Win or lose, lawyers get paid, and people drink to celebrate or drown their sorrows, regardless of their personal economic situation. In fact, this article makes me want a beer already, and it's not even 6AM where I am..
We registered our trademark at EU level last year. Cost around £1,000 and thats for all EU countries. Utter bargain I think and a wonderful example of what the EU can do properly. Did it all online and it "just worked".
Its about £400 for a UK only one (from memory).
There are also lots of different types of trademarks. We did not do a logo as we didn't have a logo to do.
The only downside are the scammers who then send you a bill for the same amount as the EU trademark registration for inclusion in 'their online catalogue'. The invoices are very convincing, but sadly for them, my IP legal chappie warned me this would happen. I sent the letters back with a collection of hardcore gay porn another friend had lent me. Oddly enough, never got a reply.
No idea whats going to happen to my trademark after those tossers in the govt actually get us kicked out of the EU. A fantastic example of what the EU can do well, all lost through to those twats, Boffo the the fucking Clown, Ian Dead from the neck up (and down) Smith and Michael 'knife anyone in the back for a shilling' Gove.
Gah.
Apple lawyers - Like regular lawyers, they just don't bother to shave off the pointy beard or hide the horns
Still I don't need any more incentives to avoid their products now - the products themselves are unappealing enough
I've got a 2013 Macbook Air - which at the time compared quite favourably in spec, quality and price with the equivalent Windows ultrabook-type laptops.
Now in 2017 Apple are selling a (more expensive), but more or less unchanged model (apart from a newer processor). Its still got the same RAM, storage and low res screen.
However that's still the most appealing laptop they sell, as all the others are more expensive and lose all the usefulness of things like SD card slots, regular USB ports and magsafe chargers.
The iPhone has no headphone port
The Mac Pro is hugely expensive, under-powered and unexpandable.
Bad Apple.
Personally, I've always been confused when seeing the Apple logo, unsure whether I'm looking at an iPad, a Beatles compilation album or a vibrator from an Ann Summers shop.
So I for one welcome this altruistic attempt by Applelaw to clarify the confusing mess that trademarks have become.
Nickolodeon shows that my little ones watch like iCarly and Victorious use Pear products with a pear logo in place of the Apple on macbooks, ipads, iphone replacements.
iCarly was also sued by Apple for using the Magic i http://www.esarcasm.com/23846/apple-lawsuit-icarly/
Nickelodeon networks has featured computers and phones with a pear logo on their kids shows for over a decade. E.g. iCarly (2007-2012.) Some of the items, such as laptops, have internally illuminated pear logos. I'm not aware of complaints from Apple about those.
I got back from the shops earlier with a bag of apples and was about to eat one while checking The Register. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be pears! I marched straight back to the shop and demanded satisfaction. It turns out that they didn't know either. I sense there is a greater scam at large and without the fastidious lawyers of Apple we'd never know.
Dear lawyers,
I know you get paid a ridiculous amount of money and know all sorts of obscure verbage in the hopes of confusing those less knowledgeable but it just makes me want to shout at you to speak plain English. I hate you. In the article there is a migraine inducing quote that seems to be saying, "If a person sees this pear shaped logo it'll make them think of Apple". That's perhaps true but it doesn't make any normal person's mind also deduct that they are the same. That's even ignoring that THEY ARE A MAPPING COMPANY.
Can it be Friday already? Please?!
The name Pear Technologies "must be assessed against the background of the fact that the word, where understood, merely reinforces the same concept as the one attributed to the sign's figurative element, thus creating a semantic unit."
And that's not even Apple's lawyer talking – that is the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) which actually ruled for Apple and against Pear Technologies.
*** The concept is that of a distinct fruit called a pear, not an apple, as evidenced by the name PEAR Technologies. Apple missed their opportunity to challenge the company name, so legally why can't they have the fruit corresponding to their name, which has NOT been challenged? Even the lawyer admits that the word and logo go together!!!!! ***
Well, Pear deserved to lose this time. The logo is clearly ripoff of apple logo. The 2nd logo is so blatant ripoff, since everyone (and their mother) knows that apple has claim on rounded rectangles, so using a fruit and rounded rectangles together is already combinatory infringement of apple's trademark. If that doesn't get lawyers screaming for your money, nothing will. The first logo is actually better than the 2nd one, but both of them combined, gives clear indication that they wanted to ride in apple's popularity and cash in the money..
Whilst spending a lot of time in Exeter a few years ago I noticed a fair few taxis named Apple Taxis, apple logo and all. Somehow they haven't been sued into oblivion; perhaps they're older then Apple Inc., or simply escaped notice (which seems doubtful).
http://appletaxisexeter.co.uk/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
