It was weird that Disney settled that one, since deadmau5’s branding certainly would make branded products appear to be from Microsoft given that it looks like a cross between Mickey Mouse and the Xbox logo.
Now Apple Inc. is literally com-pear-ing Apples to Pears.
...
Going to need you to get your things and come with me.
But also as another commenter said I think/hope Deadmau5 v Disney comes up in arguments because I agree: this is seriously petty of Apple’s legal team but I’d love to read their actual complaint if anyone finds it (personal pet peeve of mine when outlets report on “someone is taking legal action against someone else” with nothing but a few quotes and statements from someone party to the action. Could we at least see the demand letter?)
There is no lawsuit, this is a trademark opposition. It's an administrative process through USPTO. It works through an administrative court that has some resemblance to a civil suit but the whole thing has a much more standardized procedure. Instead of a complaint letter, there is a notice of opposition that's usually pretty brief.
You're in luck -- the article embeds a copy of the entire (352-page) opposition filing. (Maybe it was added since you read it, as it appears to be an update.)
It depends whether or not they are sued in a state where SLAPP suits are legal. If Apple isn't forced to provide compelling evidence that they have an actual case up front, they can tie up their opposition in expensive legal battles long enough that it won't matter whether or not they win the case. Their opposition may be victorious legally, but made bankrupt in the process.
Of all the things the U.S. legal system got wrong, I think not following the English rule of attorneys' fees was one of the biggest mistakes. If plaintiffs had to pay for the defendant's legal fees, and vice versa, should the opposing party win their case, large corporations might think twice about making spurious legal claims.
I don’t know how it works in the UK but there must be some kind of caveat there right? Otherwise it would seem to me that large corporations would pay for expensive lawyers, forcing small people to settle lest they risk having to pay a hefty legal bill.
I like the English rules, but how does it work in practice? How do things like in house lawyers work? If I sue a big corp and lose, how do I pay for all their in house lawyers and experts? How do they keep me from backing out simply through the threat of running up the tab with a ton of experts and such?
How much of a chilling effect is there on people suing big corps? Is that less necessary because of better consumer protection?
Does it matter if Apple loses this? Worst case they are trading a tiny bit of reputation and money for being in the news as a company that is deadly and ridiculously serious about its brand image. #2 on Hacker News.
And so far all that’s been sent is a letter, this will never go before a court anyway.
Might not always be a worthwhile trade-off, but might very well be.
Who would see those two logos and think that they're from the same company? The only 2 similarities is that the logos are representations of fruit, and that they both have a little oval shaped leaf on them.
I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting Apple is not pursuing legal action against this company?
Or that they are using the fact that they are being sued to raise their own profile? The second is clear, but it's probably their best play - when life gives you lemons and all that. I don't see what that has to do with threatening emails though.
"I don't see what that has to do with threatening emails though"
Every time I've seen a story like this, it's accompanied by excerpts or screenshots of letters, emails, or court docs...or at least short quotes. I suppose in this case, the relevant text from Apple challenging the trademark is what you would expect to see.
Wouldn't it be more viable to change the logo temporarily instead of laying off staff, gain some more traction, then revamp the logo a year from now when you have more secure finances?
You should put the URL in the URL structure so it exposes it on the link like how Apple news and amp does.
Currently it looks like you're stripping that information and replacing it with an id.
You could even do something that I did about 7 years ago that people hated for a reason I still do not know and I abandoned, which is if a url is just an id then you create a stub from the document title and use that in your url structure instead. Then it communicates the purpose of the content in those cases as well. Here's the code https://github.com/kristopolous/linkgo.es
Anti-bullying law is seriously needed. Awarding the bullied who triumphs 10 - 100x their legal fee that attracts interest every day the bully refuses to pay by going to a higher court.
I'm all for the pear company succeeding. But what do you mean by bullying? And why does it deserve 10-100x penalty? I hazard to guess you're maybe applying emotional baggage about personal bullying to the corporate world.
This is just a trademark dispute, asserted by one, refuted by another. It happens all the time. It could be the smaller company suing the larger one even. This isn't like a patent troll leech on society case.
I'm kind of fascinated to understand what must be in your mind or experience that you think such penalties for normal legal actions are warranted.
Large companies win without a fight because the legal costs are easily assumed by them, but are devastating to smaller businesses. Wealth usually wins by default because smaller companies can’t afford the fight. Surely that’s easy to understand?
If you think this is all “working as intended”... well... that’s unfortunate and I think the vast majority of people would disagree.
What exactly do you mean by that? What are you comparing?
I was just referring to the $10M penalty.
I agree that they should lose and that they should pay some kind of penalty.
I just think it shouldn’t be a lottery win for the people they filed against - they should definitely be made whole for the frivolous lawsuit - but not much more than that.
It’s worth pointing out too that the legal system clearly doesn’t consider the lawsuit frivolous.
Why is that, and why don’t we seem to care about it? Surely there are judges who have a responsibility to dismiss frivolous cases and prevent this kind of thing.
It’s not about what’s in his mind, it’s about what’s not in it, that is sophisticated legal knowledge or experience in healthy and normal legal disputes. Typically, these people want to push extreme or even infinite punishment for mundane things that personally annoy them or feed into some narrative they have.
Let's not fantasise that every legal action is normal. This one certainly isn't, it's frivolous, if not legally then definitely morally. I don't know how to draw a defensible legal line separating one from the other, but this particular case would certainly be on the wrong side of it.
Apple doesn't own all the rights to all fruit in trademarks. They know it, and they know they won't win, they're just using the courts to wage a war of attrition to get what they want. This bullshit should not be possible.
What OP was describing sounds like anti-SLAPP legislation, which many states have adopted. Essentially if you file a frivolous slander/libel suit with the sole intention of harassing the target, then the other party can file a countersuit, in which the judge can throw out the case and award damages to the defending party (triple damages in CA!). It's both restitution for time and reputation lost, as well as a deterrent against targeted legal harassment.
Just common sense laws about who pays the legal fees in cases where it is a small entity against the Goliath. Here in the Nederlands, the loser of the lawsuit pays for the legal fees of the winner. This makes sure that someone who files lawsuits that are doomed at the start will think twice about that because it will cost them a lot of money.
It could work the other way too? Where the small company loses they must now pay the fees of the larger company. Nobody can afford to defend themselves against the large company because they might have to pay the large companies fees
I don’t know how the Dutch handle it, but it’s likely similar to germany: The lawyer and court fees are set by the “value” of the lawsuit (Streitwert) which in this case would be the alleged damages. The court can set that value. There’s tables to derive the fees. Now, each party can voluntarily choose to pay more to their legal team, but the fee that the loosing party needs to pay is limited to the court mandated fees.
> Here in the Nederlands, the loser of the lawsuit pays for the legal fees of the winner.
In all cases I've seen first hand (in the Netherlands) the judge ordered all parties to pay their own costs. Loser pays is not a default because you almost never "win a 100%". You win for something like 70% (or maybe 90% if your lucky). So unless the case was really frivolous you will still have to pay for it yourself.
I personally know 2 people who sued the Dutch state (a somewhat similarly Goliath) and won. Both still needed to pay their own legal fees and such. It is possible to start a new case to get your legal fees from the opposing side. However if you have just concluded 5 years of court against a Goliath-style adversary your probably not really motivated for "a second round".
Also having to pay afterwards is no deterrent for a party like Apple who has unlimited money. You will have to pay lawyers and such up front for a case that can potentially drag on for years and years.
That’s not really how it works in the Netherlands, I’m afraid. Yes, the losing party usually has to pay the legal fees, but these fees are determined using a point-based system and do not really reflect the actual costs.
But, I do have to say, IP-related cases are an exception, and more is covered there (still not necessarily the actual costs). But that is not specific to the Netherlands but mandated by an EU directive (2004/48/EG).
That's how it works in theory. I'm going on a limb here and will assume that you've never fielded or defended a lawsuit in NL. I have. Several. Yes, in theory the loser pays. But in practice the loser will rarely be ordered to pay all of your costs. The court will make some highly theoretical computation about what your lawyers have cost you, which will be a very small fraction of what they really cost you.
This theoretical amount you can then retrieve from the loser. You'll still be out the bulk of your legal fees.
I think what the commenter is suggesting is that there’s an asymmetric cost for the parties involved. In this case, the legal costs for Apple is negligible. There’s a whole legal department whose sole job is to find and engage in cases like this. For the pear company, the cost to defend necessarily means the owners (likely) have to stop what they’re doing to work on a defence case. Apple can keep chugging along while Pear Co likely needs to drop everything and focus on this.
Only where it's applicable. A meal planner company that has a logo that looks little like an apple logo doesn't really fall into this. If it was a phone shop then sure, but this is well outside of the needs-to-because-law scope and into the bullying scope.
The issue isn't that our IP laws aren't complicated enough and need to be appended until they work, it's that we have IP laws in the first place. It's a wrong abstraction, there's no scarcity in information.
IP laws don't address scarcity, they address[ed] fair recompense and motivation to support the public good.
We do not want people to keep secret their World changing ideas but instead release them for the betterment of society.
7 years as sole seller of your own creations, and leave to apply for 7 more years - IIRC - were the terms under Queen Anne's Statute protecting creative works (approximating copyright). Then works are freely available to all, and deposit requirements meant preservation and access was afforded.
The alternative is that corporate entities get all the money and creators get all the costs and the pubic domain gets nothing.
There's a lot wrong IMO with Western IP laws (I don't know about others) but the concept of them is not wrong.
There's specifically no protection for information in patent and copyright laws (database rights, eh, maybe ...).
It would be nice if they had some way to send them cash. I have no interest in their application, but this action is frivolous and without merit, and Apple should lose outright if it ever makes it to a court.
> Another European Apple II clone was the Pearcom Pear II, which was larger as the original as it sported not eight but fourteen expansion slots. It also had a numerical keypad. Pearcom initially used a pear shaped rainbow logo, but stopped after Apple threatened to take legal action.
In that case, the situation was much clearer, though. The product was a clone of an Apple computer, so no question they are in the same market. Also, Pearcom's pear logo had a rainbow color scheme like the Apple logo did.
I remember Pear and to be honest, at the time, in The northern UK and with merchandising practices then, it was a little difficult to know whether to not it was actually a new Apple computer or not.... I was only browsing, but I do recall it appearing very much to be marketed beside Apples as another of the same....
> It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money.
This also applies to criminal cases filed by government lawyers, who file many more lawsuits, with far harsher results than Apple. If this lawsuit is problematic (and I would agree that it is), government prosecutions are much worse.
Isn't it expected that the government is acting in society's interest though? Whether or not that is the case in reality, bringing up the fact that the government has greater resources than citizens like this feels like it's missing the point, and that the actual problem is in how the government is deciding what cases to prosecute.
It is a problem. The defendant's right to counsel should be the right to counsel that is, at least in theory, equipped with the same tools as the prosecutor. When there are huge power disparities, governments become mobs. See: Aaron Swartz.
There are always huge disparities; a large number (possibly a majority) of people prosecuted by the government are driven to bankrupcy, regardless of the outcome.
If the government can afford a crime lab, expert witnesses and a team of prosecutors then why not the equal amount for public defense? Then they can do a cost-benefit analysis whether it's really worth to indict someone even though they have to pay for their defense. It's essentially the problem of only optimizing to keep false negatives low but ignoring false positives.
This should be mandated for all litigation - both sides must split any funds used in the case equally, otherwise by definition it isn't a fair trial. This is one of many many ways the American justice system is completely corrupt (not singling out US, this is just where I live and what I know)
How on earth could you easily enforce that though? Easy to quietly pay some private investigator or specialist to do some expensive or hard work in evidence gathering or analysis, and then pretend it was easier and cheaper to do than it really was. I agree that on principle it should be a rule though, so yes, absolutely agree.
Government prosecutors tend to have a very limited interest in any one case. Generally speaking if they put up any kind of fight it’s the defense that’s willing to outspend the prosecution due to the incentives involved.
That said, the overwhelming majority of defendants chose not to defend themselves.
You do have the right to a court appointed attorney for criminal cases, though, right?
I’m not arguing that that is sufficient at all, I’m just ignorant of the basics. My understanding is for criminal cases, you can opt for a free public defender, but not for civil cases. Or am I incorrect?
I do not believe that there is a right to a public defender, though they are often available. There is no corresponding right in civil cases, and the government files many of those as well.
Sixth Amendment provides right to counsel for criminal prosecutions. It's the rare positive right - if you do not have lawyer, or cannot afford one, the state will provide one. (Generally an overworked, underpaid one...)
Random anecdote - I sat as a juror on a felony trial where the defendant was represented by a public defender. Before it started I pictured a bumbling public defender with bags under their eyes from lack of sleep.
I was surprised when the public defender ran circles around the prosecutor. It was actually the prosecutor who I had some sympathy for. She seemed overworked and unprepared.
Albeit it was a big case for the city, so I assume the public defenders office decided it was a case worth winning, but damn, that changed my opinion of public defenders.
I always wondered if Apple employees embodied the same cold outlook on the world as Steve and Tim. Except for Bob Mansfield, the entire management team seems to have that cold force about them..
I doubt they intend to actually succeed but are just making sure to set down that they’re protecting their trademark So a company doesn’t start with one fruit branded trademark and then expand into more fruits before expanding into an Apple trademark to complete the set.
This is a consequence of the “use it or lose it” trademark system.
Is there really a plausible world in which Apple, the world's most valuable company and one of it's most recognizable brands, might be determined by a court to have neglected to affirmatively defend its ubiquitous trademarks merely by failing to persecute a tiny company with a significantly different but also fruit-themed brand?
For what it's worth, back in the day Acorn Computers had an acorn as logo and manufactured both computers and their own RiscOS Operating System, and their name was chosen with the intended purpose of appearing before Apple Computers in a phonebook.
I don't recall of any lawsuits from Apple; probably because back then that would have been painful for them as well.
It's easy to bully others when one expects no retaliation.
For some history, Acorn Computers (among other things) designed the Acorn RISC Machine processor or ARM for use in their personal computers. This is the forerunner of the ARM processor used in almost every phone today.
I know it's popular to hate on big tech here on HN, but I'm willing to bet there's more going on here. There's literally dozens of companies with fruit logos on the Apple Store: pineapples, bananas, lemons, and many more.
Either this is a PR stunt or there's more at play.
because they didn't apply for trademark. judging from this thread, apple seems to have a company monitoring fruit trademark applications all over the world (example cases in germany, poland)
Well I was contacted before my plaintiff filed an extension for opposition. I am sure there is automation that flags it to the lawyers as these kind of filings are published in a monthly gazette. I find it very unlikely that the opposition filing itself is automated.
You pay USPTO $400 or $500 for each opposition filing and you have to be available for calls as there is an entire process around opposition that is scheduled by the USPTO.
Since, unlike copyright law or patent law, trademark law is the one that does require plaintiffs to actively defend their mark or risk losing protection, there's always a bit of a gray area where two marks may not look terribly similar, but one can reasonably justify taking action.
This instance, however, falls far outside that area.
Apple is experienced in bullying small businesses outside of their industry [1]. They sued a cafe because of its name "Apfelkind" (apple child) and its usage of an apple in their logo. Luckily Apple lost that case.
actually, the article says apple didn't lose but withdrew, for now: "Since an official judgment was never passed, however, Apple retains the legal right to renew its infringement appeal."
Imagine what it must feel like to be Apple legal counsel. Just going around searching for businesses that have nothing to do with Apple that you can capitalistically bully out of existence.
It would have to feel like you have no compassion or empathy in your body whatsoever.
There's a deep irony here, given that the literal genesis of the company's trademark is in their victory over another, much larger "Apple" in a different industry:
(tl;dr: Apple Corps sued Apple and settled, with Apple promising not to enter the music business under the Apple brand. Then Apple entered the music business in a big way a few decades later, Corps sued again, and lost.)
353 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 263 ms ] threadMaybe the offending characteristic of this is the leaf. But really is Apple Inc. seriously complaining that a Pear is similar to an Apple?
Unfortunately, they will still win this legal fight anyway.
...
Going to need you to get your things and come with me.
But also as another commenter said I think/hope Deadmau5 v Disney comes up in arguments because I agree: this is seriously petty of Apple’s legal team but I’d love to read their actual complaint if anyone finds it (personal pet peeve of mine when outlets report on “someone is taking legal action against someone else” with nothing but a few quotes and statements from someone party to the action. Could we at least see the demand letter?)
Edit: found the prosecution history here https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87315348&caseType=SERIAL_...
Of all the things the U.S. legal system got wrong, I think not following the English rule of attorneys' fees was one of the biggest mistakes. If plaintiffs had to pay for the defendant's legal fees, and vice versa, should the opposing party win their case, large corporations might think twice about making spurious legal claims.
How much of a chilling effect is there on people suing big corps? Is that less necessary because of better consumer protection?
And so far all that’s been sent is a letter, this will never go before a court anyway.
Might not always be a worthwhile trade-off, but might very well be.
This came to mind since neither the story or petition has a screenshot of a threatening email or letter from Apple.
Edit: Appears Apple is opposing it. Found this by trawling around myself: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91254886&pty=OPP
You can start there and find links to download the legal letters from Apple.
Or that they are using the fact that they are being sued to raise their own profile? The second is clear, but it's probably their best play - when life gives you lemons and all that. I don't see what that has to do with threatening emails though.
Every time I've seen a story like this, it's accompanied by excerpts or screenshots of letters, emails, or court docs...or at least short quotes. I suppose in this case, the relevant text from Apple challenging the trademark is what you would expect to see.
Edit: Okay, I found the dispute by trawling records myself. Appears apple is disputing it: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91254886&pty=OPP
You can follow the links to find various documents from Apple.
Currently it looks like you're stripping that information and replacing it with an id.
You could even do something that I did about 7 years ago that people hated for a reason I still do not know and I abandoned, which is if a url is just an id then you create a stub from the document title and use that in your url structure instead. Then it communicates the purpose of the content in those cases as well. Here's the code https://github.com/kristopolous/linkgo.es
This is just a trademark dispute, asserted by one, refuted by another. It happens all the time. It could be the smaller company suing the larger one even. This isn't like a patent troll leech on society case.
I'm kind of fascinated to understand what must be in your mind or experience that you think such penalties for normal legal actions are warranted.
*edited to correct as trademark dispute
If you think this is all “working as intended”... well... that’s unfortunate and I think the vast majority of people would disagree.
Apple needs to lose, and they need to pay $10-50M for torturing these poor, resourceless people.
This is so asymmetrically unfair it hurts.
I was just referring to the $10M penalty.
I agree that they should lose and that they should pay some kind of penalty.
I just think it shouldn’t be a lottery win for the people they filed against - they should definitely be made whole for the frivolous lawsuit - but not much more than that.
It’s worth pointing out too that the legal system clearly doesn’t consider the lawsuit frivolous.
Why is that, and why don’t we seem to care about it? Surely there are judges who have a responsibility to dismiss frivolous cases and prevent this kind of thing.
Maybe a pear is too closely related.
A different set of laws, policies, and procedures are in play here.
> I'm kind of fascinated to understand what must be in your mind or experience that you think such penalties for normal legal actions are warranted.
Please don't cross-examine. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Apple doesn't own all the rights to all fruit in trademarks. They know it, and they know they won't win, they're just using the courts to wage a war of attrition to get what they want. This bullshit should not be possible.
Typos are mistakes.
In all cases I've seen first hand (in the Netherlands) the judge ordered all parties to pay their own costs. Loser pays is not a default because you almost never "win a 100%". You win for something like 70% (or maybe 90% if your lucky). So unless the case was really frivolous you will still have to pay for it yourself.
I personally know 2 people who sued the Dutch state (a somewhat similarly Goliath) and won. Both still needed to pay their own legal fees and such. It is possible to start a new case to get your legal fees from the opposing side. However if you have just concluded 5 years of court against a Goliath-style adversary your probably not really motivated for "a second round".
Also having to pay afterwards is no deterrent for a party like Apple who has unlimited money. You will have to pay lawyers and such up front for a case that can potentially drag on for years and years.
But, I do have to say, IP-related cases are an exception, and more is covered there (still not necessarily the actual costs). But that is not specific to the Netherlands but mandated by an EU directive (2004/48/EG).
This theoretical amount you can then retrieve from the loser. You'll still be out the bulk of your legal fees.
We do not want people to keep secret their World changing ideas but instead release them for the betterment of society.
7 years as sole seller of your own creations, and leave to apply for 7 more years - IIRC - were the terms under Queen Anne's Statute protecting creative works (approximating copyright). Then works are freely available to all, and deposit requirements meant preservation and access was afforded.
The alternative is that corporate entities get all the money and creators get all the costs and the pubic domain gets nothing.
There's a lot wrong IMO with Western IP laws (I don't know about others) but the concept of them is not wrong.
There's specifically no protection for information in patent and copyright laws (database rights, eh, maybe ...).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series#Clones :
> Another European Apple II clone was the Pearcom Pear II, which was larger as the original as it sported not eight but fourteen expansion slots. It also had a numerical keypad. Pearcom initially used a pear shaped rainbow logo, but stopped after Apple threatened to take legal action.
Here's one of their ads:
https://www.apple2history.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/pea...
In that case, the situation was much clearer, though. The product was a clone of an Apple computer, so no question they are in the same market. Also, Pearcom's pear logo had a rainbow color scheme like the Apple logo did.
It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money.
Perhaps courts should impose spending caps similarly to some sports leagues.
This also applies to criminal cases filed by government lawyers, who file many more lawsuits, with far harsher results than Apple. If this lawsuit is problematic (and I would agree that it is), government prosecutions are much worse.
That said, the overwhelming majority of defendants chose not to defend themselves.
I’m not arguing that that is sufficient at all, I’m just ignorant of the basics. My understanding is for criminal cases, you can opt for a free public defender, but not for civil cases. Or am I incorrect?
I was surprised when the public defender ran circles around the prosecutor. It was actually the prosecutor who I had some sympathy for. She seemed overworked and unprepared.
Albeit it was a big case for the city, so I assume the public defenders office decided it was a case worth winning, but damn, that changed my opinion of public defenders.
Not claiming all public defenders are that good. Just that I was surprised.
"I only work on infrastructure. I have no control over this. I just want to do my job."
This is a consequence of the “use it or lose it” trademark system.
It's easy to bully others when one expects no retaliation.
Either this is a PR stunt or there's more at play.
Apple has been very busy fighting any fruit logos. [1]
[1] https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Apple%20Inc.%20%20
You pay USPTO $400 or $500 for each opposition filing and you have to be available for calls as there is an entire process around opposition that is scheduled by the USPTO.
(this is from Bloom County)
This instance, however, falls far outside that area.
1: https://dw.com/en/german-café-owner-takes-on-apple-and-wins/...
It would have to feel like you have no compassion or empathy in your body whatsoever.
Tim Cook directs these people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
(tl;dr: Apple Corps sued Apple and settled, with Apple promising not to enter the music business under the Apple brand. Then Apple entered the music business in a big way a few decades later, Corps sued again, and lost.)