[tripzilch]

This is ridiculous. It'll never stick in Europe, either. To make a trademark claim you need to be operating in the same sort of market, and you really need to prove that this restaurant is profiting from the popularity of Apple's brand by people confusing their logo/brand with that of Apple.

The latter is a real requirement in trademark law. It might be worded slightly different in the specifics, cause it's been a few years since I learned about it.

Another requirement for maintaining your trademark, is that you spend reasonable effort to protect it. That is, you can't trademark some word or logo and do nothing with it, and then when some other company happens to use it, grows big, you can't suddenly jump out of the shadows and say HAHA! I TRADEMARKED THAT (yes, that is indeed quite the opposite from what those software patent trolls are doing, patent law is quite different from trademark law, even though they both fall under IP laws).

In some strange and twisted sense, Apple's lawyers might have gotten the idea that this is how they should be protecting the Apple brand. Except Apple is not in the restaurant business, nor does the general public associate their brand with restaurants in any sense, so that's that.

[antihero]

> . To make a trademark claim you need to be operating in the same sort of market, and you really need to prove that this restaurant is profiting from the popularity of Apple's brand by people confusing their logo/brand with that of Apple.

The restaurant will probably go bankrupt from legal fees before this can be thrown out in their favour?

[eru]

Slightly off-topic: Suppose they do go bankrupt, but somehow get some money to fight on (or sell the premises to get enough money to fight on) and win. Can they get compensation for the interruption of business?

[westicle]

I don't know anything about the law of Luxembourg, but in many jurisdictions prosectuing an unmeritorious lawsuit will result in the court ordering you to pay the legal costs of the other party.

Generally that won't fully compensate for the cost and hassle, but it does act as a deterrant for bringing frivolous lawsuits. Unless your legal department has a 9-figure budget I guess.

[eru]

Aren't there also jurisdictions were the losers pays the winner's costs by default?

[westicle]

Possibly.

In most common law countries costs awards are discretionary (ie - the judge decides), but the general rule is loser pays.

Luckily in most jurisdictions, the party bringing the vexatious proceedings also ends up being the loser. Therefore innocent parties have some protection from being unilaterally screwed by getting caught up in the courts.

[eru]

Yes, but the innocent parties have to win the suit in order to be awarded anything. If you have someone with a lot of money to sue you in order to annoy you, they usually try not to win, but just to extend the length of the process until your money runs out.

[pook1e]

Exactly. I'm not sure why Apple is going after small cafes now to protect it's trademark. This isn't the first time it has happened, either (as someone has pointed out below). I really don't see them gaining anything by winning this case, or losing anything by letting it go.

Interested to see how these turn out.

[pflats]

I'm not sure how much this'd be important, but Apple (iTunes, really) has a presence in Starbucks stores. The lawyers might consider that enough to perk up their radar.

[miahi]

There is no Starbucks in Luxembourg, so it's not even a local presence.

[peyton]

Knowing little about trademark law, I'm wondering if you considered trademark dilution [1]. It appears to contradict most of what you've said, e.g. must operate in the same market and prove the offender is profiting.

The rules may be different for famous marks, and Apple's actions could make perfect sense.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

[narcissus]

From the Wikipedia article: "Such trademarks would include instantly recognizable brand names, such as Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Kool-Aid, or Sony, and unique terms that were invented (such as Exxon) rather than surnames (such as Ford or Zamboni) or ordinary words in language."

So in this case, at least, I would think that 'Apple' is an 'ordinary word'.