| HN Mirror

Yes, the perks of its ownership like enforcing their trade mark in the trade they are engaged in. Specifically the sale of music and the licensing of that mark back to Apple Records. Again they aren't trademarking the concept of apples, or all pictures of apples, nor is the application for anything more than the categories under which that trademark was. Further more, the application is not really any different from any number of other trademarks for which the Swiss government has already registered for Apple, such as:

https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....

or perhaps most relevantly this one which is the other Apple Records mark that they own and was granted full protection for:

https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....

Realistically this article is pure rage bait mixed with some clever marketing by the Swiss fruit union. They're not seriously worried, they're getting free press by stirring up controversy over an absolute nothing. And you can tell because of this weasel word line:

>“We have a hard time understanding this, because it’s not like they’re trying to protect their bitten apple,” Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariéthoz says, referring to the company’s iconic logo.

They would understand if Apple were (and indeed already has as linked above) trademarking their Apple Computer logo, but they somehow don't understand why Apple is also trademarking the logo of Apple Records which they also own? Either everyone involved in this article from the fruit union reps all the way up to the editors are completely ignorant of Apple Records, their logo and the previous IP battles regarding that logo or they're playing dumb for the sake of making a story.