This is a (removedswearwords here) company that creates high tech gadgets under the brand (logo & name) of a fruit going after small totally unrelated businesses using that word _in the original meaning_, as - erm - reference to the fruit. You know, the one that existed before any of these companies were even started.
Bonus points for logos that are not even _close_ to the Apple logo (I could probably draw a badly damaged circle and would be nearly as close/similar). And one of the examples listed (the German thing) doesn't use the name 'Apple' (which might have some kind of protection, stupid or not) but the German 'Apfel' instead.
Maybe one needs to have deeper insights into trademark laws or general business practices, but for me this is the definition of bullshit.
IF we're missing something here I might need to apologize and revise my point, but even if you're calling your local restaurant 'somethingwithapple' and have gazillions of Apple gadgets inside (waiters with an iPhone/iPod POS system, cash registers with iMacs or whatever): There should be no way for Apple to ask for anything here. Apple (the word), as far as I am concerned, is public domain, old and has only a single proven meaning: Falls from trees, tastes good with chocolate or honey.
The idea isn't ridiculous. You could even start a company called Apple Computers Inc if you could effectively make the case that consumers are not confusing you with the big Apple.
If your theory holds true, then why was Apple Corp able to win $500 million from Apple Inc? Do you really think there was anyone confusing the owners of the Beatle's Record Holdings?
Well, that was a settlement, so the strict answer is "Because they convinced them it was easier that way." But while I wasn't confused, I'm sure they were able to make a case that some people were, or the suits wouldn't have gone on that long-- if nothing else, because why bother?
Right now it would be easier to change the name of the fruit itself than change the way the money goes. Let's just call apples something else. And grow cubical ones. With no round corners, as Apple has patents on round corners.
This will also defend the farmers that grow apple trees, so they can still sell their products without telling everyone "No, I'm sorry, I don't sell phones, I sell apples. You know, the fruits. No, not silver, red fruits. No touchscreen."
This is a (removedswearwords here) company that creates high tech gadgets under the brand (logo & name) of a fruit going after small totally unrelated businesses using that word _in the original meaning_, as - erm - reference to the fruit. You know, the one that existed before any of these companies were even started.
Bonus points for logos that are not even _close_ to the Apple logo (I could probably draw a badly damaged circle and would be nearly as close/similar). And one of the examples listed (the German thing) doesn't use the name 'Apple' (which might have some kind of protection, stupid or not) but the German 'Apfel' instead.
Maybe one needs to have deeper insights into trademark laws or general business practices, but for me this is the definition of bullshit.
IF we're missing something here I might need to apologize and revise my point, but even if you're calling your local restaurant 'somethingwithapple' and have gazillions of Apple gadgets inside (waiters with an iPhone/iPod POS system, cash registers with iMacs or whatever): There should be no way for Apple to ask for anything here. Apple (the word), as far as I am concerned, is public domain, old and has only a single proven meaning: Falls from trees, tastes good with chocolate or honey.