[grabeh]

The owner of a mark with a sufficient reputation can take action against dissimilar goods and services where they're riding on the goodwill of the mark of course so TMs are not completely limited to their classes.

Rolex could sue me if used their marks on a good which they weren't registered in if I was trying to take unfair advantage of their mark, tractors for example.

Whilst it's highly unlikely in this case that Apple would, I think it's inappropriate to seek protection of the term in the first place, at least from a PR perspective and from the risk of trade mark creep.

[wisty]

In Australia, McDonalds lost a case when they tried to stop McWilliams selling a "Big Mac" 2 litre bottle of wine, because no-one would mistake it for a hamburger. (http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.asp...)

[grabeh]

Thanks for that. Interesting! Looks like in Australia there has to be a likelihood of confusion even where a mark has reputation.

This is not the case in the EU, where the mere act of taking unfair advantage/causing detriment is sufficient for a TM owner to take action, even where there is no likelihood of confusion. Likewise, in the US, a TM owner would also have an action for TM dilution which does not require confusion.

[jacques_chester]

Granted, but I don't think "startup" is a sufficiently distinct brand to be taken advantage of.

But thankyou for the correction.

[grabeh]

I agree however looking forwards the brand could grow sufficiently large to gain this enhanced protection. I think even if this did happen Apple would be unlikely to enforce overly harshly but their stance on the App Store mark goes some way to show their approach to TM enforcement (though the discussion over the distinctiveness is another discussion!)