[numlock86]

> Other ridiculous examples:

Actually I can see the relevance here, especially for that first case.

But as others probably mentioned already, if you don't actively defend your trademark it becomes void and you actually lose it. They don't do it for profit, as this actually costs them money. They rather don't really have any other option than doing that. Well, run the risk of losing the trademark of course. However the case with the pear confuses me, too ...

[bkor]

Trademarks are per industry/category. So going after companies where the similarly is already questionable and further, the industry isn't the same is not needed. The second link is about some coffee shop and the case was lost. Meaning, good example where Apple shouldn't have started the case.

There's also a difference between defending your trademark and going after things were the overlap is vague at best (e.g. the pear thing).

[numlock86]

> Trademarks are per industry/category. So going after companies where the similarly is already questionable and further, the industry isn't the same is not needed.

Most of that is a myth, because people keep mixing it up with protected designs, names and the like. Trademarks are another league, though. Otherwise we'd have plenty of real estate businesses called Coca Cola and Apple with equally designed logos for example, and cases like Apple vs some Café would just disappear or not happen at all. Again, they don't do this for fun and giggles. It costs money and is necessary.