When it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from.
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.
> 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.
International IP laws come from the time of Dickens, when people were copying his books in the states because he couldn't enforce ownership from over here.
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).
> International IP laws come from the time of Dickens, when people were copying his books in the states because he couldn't enforce ownership from over here.
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.
...and then "3rd-world" 19th century Germany came along, and with its cheap workforce and by ignoring British trademarks and copyrights flooded the market with cheaper copies of superior quality, and that's how "Made in Germany" was born ;)
More explanation:
Provenance comes from the Latin "pro" (from) and "venire" (come), so that's where an item comes from, while Providence (capital P) is "the care and control of God or of a force that is not human in origin" (Cambridge dictionary).
Wait, that's completely false ! Provenance comes from the Latin "pro" (from) and "venire" (come), so that's where an item comes from, while Providence (capital P) is "the care and control of God or of a force that is not human in origin" according to Cambridge dictionary.
Apologies I didn't mean to suggest I was sharing the actual etymologies, it was only intended as an mnemonic for the commenter above! Thanks for sharing the actual roots though, no pun intended ;)
According to the economist Hernando de Soto Polar, not just trademarks but all property is like that unless you have a formal ownership system which is defended by the legal system. If people can't rely on the legal system to defend their property, as sometimes happens in third world countries, they have to spend significant effort cultivating their neighbours - if your neighbours think you are a worthless arsehole, you might find that someone else has moved onto your farm and your no-one will do anything about it. But if your neighbours like you, they will fight alongside you for your rights over it.
As any laws, regulations and private agreements: they provide an up-front framework for conduct so that people do not get creative in the heat of the moment.
To all the downvoters - do you seriously believe, that once damage from climate change starts to bite, and millipns of people are displaced, there won't be any social disorder?
This title is clickbait. If you read the article, it’s pretty clear that Apple has taken no action against the fruit company and there’s no reason to think they will, or that they’d even be able to if granted the trademarks requested. It also seems as if they’re trying to retain rights to use the whole apple for specific products.
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 one hand yeah this makes sense and is editorialised.
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”
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.
There should be a penalty for such bogus trademark claims, best as % of the global revenue. Then, maybe, they would learn that a corporation cannot bully others only because it has unlimited legal resources.
> 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.
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.
American courts definitely would not. Apple itself got away with being named after Apple Corps (the Beatles’ licensing arm) until they got into music.
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.
>>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it.
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."
I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks.
Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide.
Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.
Well if another competitor starts using your protected term and you don’t protect it, it is more likely to become generic.
(Ie if Apple does not protect the word iPhone and then Google and Samsung use the term iPhone for 5 years unchallenged, it risks becoming a generic name for a smartphone)
I mean, yeah, because they probably know what an iPad is and can infer what you meant. That just means the brand name is recognized, not that it’s generic. If you put a Coke on the table and asked the subject to pass the Pepsi (or vice versa) it would probably work too.
Come to think of it, are there actually any anecdata or in the caselaw where companies that didn't litigate every potential infringement case sufficiently paid the hypothetical/mythical price of genericizatio. Or whatever the implied threat is...
Apple Computer Inc should always be used in advertising and on products. Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples. The Apple Store is misleading they don't sell fruit.
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.
Then Apple must be very afraid to lose it's trademark, I guess.
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.”
>US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it
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.
Because the first step is to get exclusive apple trademark for everything, then force everyone out.
The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?
Just using Google Translate, it seems like they want the image of a true-to-life apple to be a trademark, but still only for "Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers". Nowhere in the appeal does it sound like they're trying to extend it to more classes of goods like actual fruit.
This is one of those typical cases of legal departments that have run out of work and are looking for legitimacy for their own existence. Many lawyers are able to expand their own economic sphere without generating any added value for the general public.
Lord forbid the fruit company and its employees make an extra buck when the customers get confused and buy a bunch of fruit instead of an iPhone. "So, how do I start the metaverse on this..."
I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?
Effectively, Apple infringe on the trademark of the apple producers to give the feeling that the electronic devices they provide are healthy and good for you.
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.
My understanding is that the more generic a trademark is (cough) apple (cough) the more it is tied to a specific industry. This is just a case of bored lawyers at apple. What really sucks is that for apple this is nothing, the lawyers are already payed for who cares if they overstep their authority a bit. but for a small company hit with a bogus trademark dispute this is a major traumatic expensive event.
I Will get confused if I was going to see the exact Apple logo on a fruit box though. What about a music record with the same logo before Apple was in the music industry?
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…
If they were using the 1977 logo, including the color scheme, it would be impossible to argue, that the similarity can lead to confusion of them and the point of the article would be moot.
Although your method works out fine in this case, IMO the fact that one company literally sells apples should give them extra claim the using an apple as a logo.
Well one is a fruit company and apples are fruits and it did it first, and the other is a tech company that came after it and is saying the logos are similar, in an ideal world a judge would say ok I believe you now you change it.
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.
The title is quite deceptive. Reading the Wired article, Apple seems to be pursuing a trademark in Switzerland on a depiction of an apple (without bite mark, and in black-and-white). The Swiss authorities granted this but only on limited product categories. Apple filed an appeal about this, which is ongoing.
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.
It's the logo for Apple Corps, The Beatles' company. The final settlement for the trademark dispute between the two Apples saw Apple Corps's trademarks transferred to Apple [Computer] Inc and licenced back to Apple Corps Ltd.
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.
That shows the absurdity of trademark infringement and confusion if a company deliberately licenses their trademark to an independent company. I'm surprised they can be said to be using a mark if all they are doing is licensing it to someone else. IMHO it should be used in a court as a self-admission that there are no confusion concerns and it's just legally wrapped asset fuckery.
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.
When people say something like "Apple wants", they seem to personify a company. In the end, there are some lawyers and middle managers that push for something to happen. These are not the CEO, but rather the corporate bureaucrats that exist for the sole purpose of expanding the reach of their master.
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.
I'm not sure if Switzerland is under the EUIPO but I suspect European courts (not limited to the EU) are usually not very sympathetic to foreign companies trying to claim trademark on traditional brands https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551
Trademark, not copyright. The weird thing is the expectation that trademarking an apple could be done in a way that is broad enough to cover all apple-based logos across all industries. I'm not sure how accurate this portrayal is given that Apple does indeed not sell fruit and the logo in question is likely pre-existing and does not actually resemble anything Apple has likely tried to file.
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).
The "infringing party" has existed and used this logo since a good 50 years before Apple Inc was founded.
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
First their isn’t a lawsuit, just someone concerned about hypotheticals.
Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.
It's the logo for The Beatles' Apple Corps (whose trademarks now belong to Apple Inc as part of the settlement of the whole Apple v Apple thing about 15 years ago), so the fields it makes claims on[1] are mostly related to things like records and DVDs, so it seems odd if Apple Inc really are trying to use it to sue this association (are they actually suing?).
> Wired notes that Apple first tried to secure the fruit trademark in Switzerland in 2017, when it filed an application for a black-and-white depiction of a Granny Smith apple. Indeed, it applied for an image of a whole apple rather than its trademark apple with a bite.
This seems to me like a (intentional?) misunderstanding of trademark law as having a trademark for the grayscale picture of an apple would merely entail that grayscale picture of an apple, not all other apples, nor even necessarily another grayscale picture of a different apple from a different perspective.
What I read into it is that Apple filed for a generic apple trademark rather than either of the pre-existing logos it already owned the trademarks for in other markets.
Given the source's likely bias, I'm inclined to believe the article is written in bad faith and there is no realistic threat to the actual fruit company.
It's especially surprising considering those congressmen should in theory have exactly 0 power over anything in the country where this lawsuit is taking place.
But honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
Well, they look like bunch of arrogant clueless idiots to whole world (I am seeing this story in various tabloids across Europe), if that was their mission then congrats to success.
It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally.
Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?
You are being slightly US centric there - while what you say may be true in the US - I don't think congressmen have much influence in the Swiss Courts.
…what? I just cannot comprehend what Apple’s strategy is. Can somebody with more business intuition please explain to me what Apple’s endgame might be with all these litigations?
Much fewer people hear and get offended about the lawsuit vs their benefit from having all the related names/trademark/domain, so it's simply the benefit of obtaining the name/trademark/domain.
some years ago they wanted to force ownership of domain a.pl with is used by some Polish grocery store because when reader in English it sounds like apple
Right? All the comments here are mocking Apple for trying to own all depictions of a fruit, or make it seem like the other company had been happily using the logo for a century, but no, Apple is just trying to say they can’t use the logo they switched to in 2011 which was clearly based on the Apple logo.
Yes. Now would you be willing to answer my question? I'm trying to figure out whether we disagree over a matter of where precisely to draw a line, or if the very idea of the line is antithetical.
Has anyone been able to find any original sources on this? I'm curious to see the scope of the actual trademark. All the reporting looks like a game of "chinese whispers".
the scope on that (the line 511 classification) looks like it's the same as Apple Corps would have used, it's not even being registered in the scope of computing. which is even odder.
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.
This reminds me of Nissan motors chasing the man of the same name that was harassed by them for 25 years to buy/steal the nissan.com domain after car vendor finally figured out what the Internet was good for. Nissan Motors first tried to low-ball him, and then sued, repeatedly for the next couple decades to simply "take" the domain, but he won over and over - it was his freakin' NAME, and fairly got it first.
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.
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.
Apple will lose this one for sure. There is no way a European court will decide for an American 800lb gorilla company bullying a swiss company that has been around for over a century. Good for them that they can't be bought as easily as American courts.
I’m not sure it’s completely necessary or warranted but I get it. It’s not just that they want to “copyright the whole apple”, the logo is an apple with a plus sign in place of where, roughly, the bite mark would go.
Trademark law requires you to defend your trademark, otherwise you risk loosing it, therefore by law, to ensure you remain owners of the trademark, you MUST pursue any possible infringements.
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...
This new 2011 Swiss Fruit logo is obviously influenced by Apple's 1977 design. How could it not be? There's a clear likeness and good luck finding a graphics designer in 2011 who hasn't seen the Apple logo before.
The old Swiss Fruit logo looked more like a tomato.
I don't think it is beyond general stylist language of the time. The only thing it really has in common is the outline at the bottom which is what makes it clearly an apple.
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).
Not sure why I'm being downvoted, but here's my reasoning:
"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.
