It's especially surprising considering those congressmen should in theory have exactly 0 power over anything in the country where this lawsuit is taking place.
But honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
Well, they look like bunch of arrogant clueless idiots to whole world (I am seeing this story in various tabloids across Europe), if that was their mission then congrats to success.
It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally.
Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?
You are being slightly US centric there - while what you say may be true in the US - I don't think congressmen have much influence in the Swiss Courts.
Trademark, not copyright. The weird thing is the expectation that trademarking an apple could be done in a way that is broad enough to cover all apple-based logos across all industries. I'm not sure how accurate this portrayal is given that Apple does indeed not sell fruit and the logo in question is likely pre-existing and does not actually resemble anything Apple has likely tried to file.
Trade dress or so-called "design patents" are a different matter (see Apple suing over every smartphone copying its design of "a slate of glass with a camera cut-out and maybe a button" or German Telekom pretty much holding the exclusive rights to a specific shade of magenta in tech-adjacent products).
The "infringing party" has existed and used this logo since a good 50 years before Apple Inc was founded.
I kinda hope the Swiss Apple company turns this around and sues Apple for trademark infringement, since they can prove using it for longer, and according to Apples own argument, the fact that they're in completely different industries apparently doesn't matter.
Would be fun to see Tim Cook announce the new "Banana iPhone" as a result of this suit getting turned around
First their isn’t a lawsuit, just someone concerned about hypotheticals.
Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.
It's the logo for The Beatles' Apple Corps (whose trademarks now belong to Apple Inc as part of the settlement of the whole Apple v Apple thing about 15 years ago), so the fields it makes claims on[1] are mostly related to things like records and DVDs, so it seems odd if Apple Inc really are trying to use it to sue this association (are they actually suing?).
> Wired notes that Apple first tried to secure the fruit trademark in Switzerland in 2017, when it filed an application for a black-and-white depiction of a Granny Smith apple. Indeed, it applied for an image of a whole apple rather than its trademark apple with a bite.
This seems to me like a (intentional?) misunderstanding of trademark law as having a trademark for the grayscale picture of an apple would merely entail that grayscale picture of an apple, not all other apples, nor even necessarily another grayscale picture of a different apple from a different perspective.
What I read into it is that Apple filed for a generic apple trademark rather than either of the pre-existing logos it already owned the trademarks for in other markets.
Given the source's likely bias, I'm inclined to believe the article is written in bad faith and there is no realistic threat to the actual fruit company.
I'm not sure if Switzerland is under the EUIPO but I suspect European courts (not limited to the EU) are usually not very sympathetic to foreign companies trying to claim trademark on traditional brands https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551
Apple Computer Inc should always be used in advertising and on products. Shortening it to just Apple may confuse people wanting to buy apples. The Apple Store is misleading they don't sell fruit.
>US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it
I don't mean this as a criticism of your post and it's more of a launchpad for my own, but this always comes up as "the defense" of bad trademark enforcement actions and it really seems like papering over the problem rather than a worthy explanation of anything. "It's always been awful and bad" has rarely evinced much enthusiasm from anyone and I wonder if there's any chance of changing this rickety IP system.
>>trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it.
This myth, and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.
"Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression."
I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks.
Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide.
Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.
I mean, yeah, because they probably know what an iPad is and can infer what you meant. That just means the brand name is recognized, not that it’s generic. If you put a Coke on the table and asked the subject to pass the Pepsi (or vice versa) it would probably work too.
Well if another competitor starts using your protected term and you don’t protect it, it is more likely to become generic.
(Ie if Apple does not protect the word iPhone and then Google and Samsung use the term iPhone for 5 years unchallenged, it risks becoming a generic name for a smartphone)
Come to think of it, are there actually any anecdata or in the caselaw where companies that didn't litigate every potential infringement case sufficiently paid the hypothetical/mythical price of genericizatio. Or whatever the implied threat is...
It's actually a case of "news gonna clickbait". Afaik nothing really happened here other than a Swiss company voicing concerns about the possibility of Apple registering a trademark for more than just specific product categories.
Then Apple must be very afraid to lose it's trademark, I guess.
An investigation in 2022 by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit that researches Big Tech, found that between 2019 and 2021, Apple filed more trademark oppositions—attempts to enforce its IP over other companies—than Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google combined. Those companies also have trademarked common terms such as “Windows” or “Prime.”
Because the first step is to get exclusive apple trademark for everything, then force everyone out.
The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?
Just using Google Translate, it seems like they want the image of a true-to-life apple to be a trademark, but still only for "Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers". Nowhere in the appeal does it sound like they're trying to extend it to more classes of goods like actual fruit.
Lord forbid the fruit company and its employees make an extra buck when the customers get confused and buy a bunch of fruit instead of an iPhone. "So, how do I start the metaverse on this..."
I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?
Effectively, Apple infringe on the trademark of the apple producers to give the feeling that the electronic devices they provide are healthy and good for you.
This is one of those typical cases of legal departments that have run out of work and are looking for legitimacy for their own existence. Many lawyers are able to expand their own economic sphere without generating any added value for the general public.
I Will get confused if I was going to see the exact Apple logo on a fruit box though. What about a music record with the same logo before Apple was in the music industry?
I think any kind of confusion is what raise the question of if it should be ok or not. But here the logos don’t even match…
My understanding is that the more generic a trademark is (cough) apple (cough) the more it is tied to a specific industry. This is just a case of bored lawyers at apple. What really sucks is that for apple this is nothing, the lawyers are already payed for who cares if they overstep their authority a bit. but for a small company hit with a bogus trademark dispute this is a major traumatic expensive event.
That's not true. For better or for worse, trademark protection specifically extends to beyond mere customer confusion to the murky areas of "tarnishment" and "blurring" in the case of "famous" trademarks.
There is a clause in trademark law (both Swiss and US) which allows owners of "famous" trademarks to pursue infringement even when the marks in question do not overlap in commerce areas. Apple's trademark certainly meets the "famous" standard.
I imagine the reason for these clauses is, say, to prevent someone from making a Nike Swoosh Refrigerator with the purpose of selling units by drawing from Nike's luster.
…what? I just cannot comprehend what Apple’s strategy is. Can somebody with more business intuition please explain to me what Apple’s endgame might be with all these litigations?
Much fewer people hear and get offended about the lawsuit vs their benefit from having all the related names/trademark/domain, so it's simply the benefit of obtaining the name/trademark/domain.
Has anyone been able to find any original sources on this? I'm curious to see the scope of the actual trademark. All the reporting looks like a game of "chinese whispers".
the scope on that (the line 511 classification) looks like it's the same as Apple Corps would have used, it's not even being registered in the scope of computing. which is even odder.
So they're trying to register the mark previously owned by Apple Corps, within the scope of the original mark. I'm not sure where the actual conflict is then, unless Fruits Suisse are also in the music industry.
some years ago they wanted to force ownership of domain a.pl with is used by some Polish grocery store because when reader in English it sounds like apple
The title is quite deceptive. Reading the Wired article, Apple seems to be pursuing a trademark in Switzerland on a depiction of an apple (without bite mark, and in black-and-white). The Swiss authorities granted this but only on limited product categories. Apple filed an appeal about this, which is ongoing.
Now, the Fruit Union is fear-mongering / spreading the message that, if this appeal is granted, they would be forced to change their logo. However, it seems there is no direct threat from Apple to the Fruit Union. Also, it seems unlikely Apple's appeal will actually be granted, as there is "a legal principle that declares generic pictures of common goods to be in the public domain".
Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.
It's the logo for Apple Corps, The Beatles' company. The final settlement for the trademark dispute between the two Apples saw Apple Corps's trademarks transferred to Apple [Computer] Inc and licenced back to Apple Corps Ltd.
I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration if needed.
Then someone not understanding trademark law and that registering a trademark for a Granny Smith apple as a logo for a record label doesn't mean you're trying to claim all apples for every use.
That shows the absurdity of trademark infringement and confusion if a company deliberately licenses their trademark to an independent company. I'm surprised they can be said to be using a mark if all they are doing is licensing it to someone else. IMHO it should be used in a court as a self-admission that there are no confusion concerns and it's just legally wrapped asset fuckery.
Surely a blog post from Android Authority, a site dedicated to Apple's biggest competitor for mobile ecosystems, wouldn't sensationalize an article for the purposes of clicks.
If they were using the 1977 logo, including the color scheme, it would be impossible to argue, that the similarity can lead to confusion of them and the point of the article would be moot.
Well one is a fruit company and apples are fruits and it did it first, and the other is a tech company that came after it and is saying the logos are similar, in an ideal world a judge would say ok I believe you now you change it.
But hey, Apple is a 2 trillion dollar company, wars have been started for a lot less, so the discussion isn't even worth having unless you also believe in Santa.
Although your method works out fine in this case, IMO the fact that one company literally sells apples should give them extra claim the using an apple as a logo.
Basically, if it's possible to consider that fruit company is infringing on Apple, then it is equally possible that Apple is the one infringing on the older company.
In fact, by filing the suit, Apple is implicitly admitting that they are infringing, since they would not have filed if they didn't believe the logos could be confused, and since the other company is older...
Trademark law requires you to defend your trademark, otherwise you risk loosing it, therefore by law, to ensure you remain owners of the trademark, you MUST pursue any possible infringements.
When it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from.
I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. They were exported across the British Empire and to America, and were very popular.
The chair trade in Wycombe started in a particularly cold winter, when it was too cold for the farmhands to work outdoors. The farmhands were taught how to make the round parts of the chairs by the town wheelwright (who otherwise made wheels for the carts made by the town cartwright). In recognition of this, a wheel design was cut into the backs of the chairs as a decorative device. This design became the distinguishing mark of a chair made in Wycombe.
A chair factory opened in Birmingham, but found that their chairs didn't sell as well... until they started adding the wheel design into their chairs. Business was good for the Birmingham factory, until some of the Wycombe lads paid them a visit. Strong words were had, but the Birmingham factory continued making chairs with wheel designs for a few weeks, until the factory mysteriously burned down in the middle of the night.
The wheel design functioned as an early trademark: it clearly and unambiguously attested the provenance of the item. Trademarks are a consumer protection mechanism: it is the buyer who needs to know the provenance of the item in the absence of a trustworthy seller.
To the man on the Clapham omnibus[0], the presence or absence of the wheel design was the only attestation to the chair's origin: this trademark was a necessary innovation. However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him.
As any laws, regulations and private agreements: they provide an up-front framework for conduct so that people do not get creative in the heat of the moment.
To all the downvoters - do you seriously believe, that once damage from climate change starts to bite, and millipns of people are displaced, there won't be any social disorder?
According to the economist Hernando de Soto Polar, not just trademarks but all property is like that unless you have a formal ownership system which is defended by the legal system. If people can't rely on the legal system to defend their property, as sometimes happens in third world countries, they have to spend significant effort cultivating their neighbours - if your neighbours think you are a worthless arsehole, you might find that someone else has moved onto your farm and your no-one will do anything about it. But if your neighbours like you, they will fight alongside you for your rights over it.
> However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him.
Wait, that's completely false ! Provenance comes from the Latin "pro" (from) and "venire" (come), so that's where an item comes from, while Providence (capital P) is "the care and control of God or of a force that is not human in origin" according to Cambridge dictionary.
Apologies I didn't mean to suggest I was sharing the actual etymologies, it was only intended as an mnemonic for the commenter above! Thanks for sharing the actual roots though, no pun intended ;)
More explanation:
Provenance comes from the Latin "pro" (from) and "venire" (come), so that's where an item comes from, while Providence (capital P) is "the care and control of God or of a force that is not human in origin" (Cambridge dictionary).
...and then "3rd-world" 19th century Germany came along, and with its cheap workforce and by ignoring British trademarks and copyrights flooded the market with cheaper copies of superior quality, and that's how "Made in Germany" was born ;)
International IP laws come from the time of Dickens, when people were copying his books in the states because he couldn't enforce ownership from over here.
America didn't really play ball until the situation started affecting their own economy (Americans being copied by people in other countries, or other Americans, enough to affect the national bottom line).
China is in a similar state: international IP isn't enforced, and the government just pays lip service to the idea, while it is a net benefit for their country's economy for copying to be rife. This will flip when the issue becomes a net detriment to their bottom line.
The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
> International IP laws come from the time of Dickens, when people were copying his books in the states because he couldn't enforce ownership from over here.
Copyright is a different game to trademarks. Copyright has its origins in the Statute of Anne (also known as the Copyright Act 1710), and was designed specifically to protect the investment of publishers and printers in royalties to authors: copyright protects neither producers nor consumers, but rather distributors, whereas trademarks protect consumers.
The idea of extraterritorial and multi-jurisdictional copyright is, as you say, a more recent innovation; the American film industry is based in Hollywood because California refused to enforce Edison's claim on all films made with his cameras.
> The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
All of international politics works like this. Western politicians and diplomats are naturally supportive of the 'rules-based order' we keep hearing about: we wrote the rules in our favour after the Second World War.
Right? All the comments here are mocking Apple for trying to own all depictions of a fruit, or make it seem like the other company had been happily using the logo for a century, but no, Apple is just trying to say they can’t use the logo they switched to in 2011 which was clearly based on the Apple logo.
Yes. Now would you be willing to answer my question? I'm trying to figure out whether we disagree over a matter of where precisely to draw a line, or if the very idea of the line is antithetical.
It assumes a lot of conditions will be met including Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely), them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely), and winning litigation (unlikely).
Not sure why I'm being downvoted, but here's my reasoning:
"Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely)"
Trademark tend to be narrowly scoped to the products and services being marketed by the company.
"them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely)"
They have more to lose (reputation) than to gain.
"winning litigation (unlikely)"
There's no likelihood of confusion. Dictionary words can be trademarked, but generally not for the goods and services they describe. Fruit company has used the mark before Apple even existed. Trademark rights are based on first use, regardless of filing.
186 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 280 ms ] threadBut honestly, Apple has bitten a bitter fruit on this one; there's no way they'll win this.
It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally.
Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?
Lawyer point still stands of course.
Trade dress or so-called "design patents" are a different matter (see Apple suing over every smartphone copying its design of "a slate of glass with a camera cut-out and maybe a button" or German Telekom pretty much holding the exclusive rights to a specific shade of magenta in tech-adjacent products).
I kinda hope the Swiss Apple company turns this around and sues Apple for trademark infringement, since they can prove using it for longer, and according to Apples own argument, the fact that they're in completely different industries apparently doesn't matter.
Would be fun to see Tim Cook announce the new "Banana iPhone" as a result of this suit getting turned around
Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.
If the logo exists longer than Apple does, isn't Apple the one commiting infringement?
Isn't this an open and shut case?
[1] https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM....
> Wired notes that Apple first tried to secure the fruit trademark in Switzerland in 2017, when it filed an application for a black-and-white depiction of a Granny Smith apple. Indeed, it applied for an image of a whole apple rather than its trademark apple with a bite.
This seems to me like a (intentional?) misunderstanding of trademark law as having a trademark for the grayscale picture of an apple would merely entail that grayscale picture of an apple, not all other apples, nor even necessarily another grayscale picture of a different apple from a different perspective.
What I read into it is that Apple filed for a generic apple trademark rather than either of the pre-existing logos it already owned the trademarks for in other markets.
Given the source's likely bias, I'm inclined to believe the article is written in bad faith and there is no realistic threat to the actual fruit company.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_property
WARNING, a download link: https://www.bvger.ch/dam/bvger/de/dokumente/2023/04/B-4493-2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pod_(amp_modeler)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_b...
While money is wasted on proceedings.
Good case for a libel countersuit?
A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a similar logo for selling fruit.
¯\\\_ (ツ)_/¯
Probably a case of "lawyers gonna lawyer," because US trademark law demands that one vigorously defend their trademark, lest they lose it.
SMH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
https://casetext.com/case/fitbug-ltd-v-fitbit-inc-2
Or fans of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison & Starr who definitely had "Apple" as their corporate name first.
I don't mean this as a criticism of your post and it's more of a launchpad for my own, but this always comes up as "the defense" of bad trademark enforcement actions and it really seems like papering over the problem rather than a worthy explanation of anything. "It's always been awful and bad" has rarely evinced much enthusiasm from anyone and I wonder if there's any chance of changing this rickety IP system.
This myth, and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.
"Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression."
-- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici...
There are definitely examples where brandnames have moved into common usage and then lose their trademark.
Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide.
Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.
(Ie if Apple does not protect the word iPhone and then Google and Samsung use the term iPhone for 5 years unchallenged, it risks becoming a generic name for a smartphone)
Genericization is only for newly invented words/phrases, it’s apple that is actively stealing common words and makes trademarks out of them
IIRC, this one used to be true but was overturned.
It's actually a case of "news gonna clickbait". Afaik nothing really happened here other than a Swiss company voicing concerns about the possibility of Apple registering a trademark for more than just specific product categories.
An investigation in 2022 by the Tech Transparency Project, a nonprofit that researches Big Tech, found that between 2019 and 2021, Apple filed more trademark oppositions—attempts to enforce its IP over other companies—than Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google combined. Those companies also have trademarked common terms such as “Windows” or “Prime.”
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle...
The article say Apple was granted the apple trademark for phones and other electronics, but Apple is fighting to get everything. Why would they fight if not to bully everyone?
Just using Google Translate, it seems like they want the image of a true-to-life apple to be a trademark, but still only for "Essential sound, video and film recordings and corresponding data carriers". Nowhere in the appeal does it sound like they're trying to extend it to more classes of goods like actual fruit.
I understand the whole thing about positive association with a successful company, but come on. How insecure can you be?
I think any kind of confusion is what raise the question of if it should be ok or not. But here the logos don’t even match…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Limits_and_defenses_...
There is a clause in trademark law (both Swiss and US) which allows owners of "famous" trademarks to pursue infringement even when the marks in question do not overlap in commerce areas. Apple's trademark certainly meets the "famous" standard.
In Swiss law, see Article 15:
https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/274_274_274/en
In US law, see section (c) 1 of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
I imagine the reason for these clauses is, say, to prevent someone from making a Nike Swoosh Refrigerator with the purpose of selling units by drawing from Nike's luster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...
Journalists gonna journalist.
So they're trying to register the mark previously owned by Apple Corps, within the scope of the original mark. I'm not sure where the actual conflict is then, unless Fruits Suisse are also in the music industry.
Now, the Fruit Union is fear-mongering / spreading the message that, if this appeal is granted, they would be forced to change their logo. However, it seems there is no direct threat from Apple to the Fruit Union. Also, it seems unlikely Apple's appeal will actually be granted, as there is "a legal principle that declares generic pictures of common goods to be in the public domain".
Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.
The article is written to be ragebait, and judging by the comments here, it’s been successful.
I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration if needed.
Then someone not understanding trademark law and that registering a trademark for a Granny Smith apple as a logo for a record label doesn't mean you're trying to claim all apples for every use.
That shows the absurdity of trademark infringement and confusion if a company deliberately licenses their trademark to an independent company. I'm surprised they can be said to be using a mark if all they are doing is licensing it to someone else. IMHO it should be used in a court as a self-admission that there are no confusion concerns and it's just legally wrapped asset fuckery.
Surely a blog post from Android Authority, a site dedicated to Apple's biggest competitor for mobile ecosystems, wouldn't sensationalize an article for the purposes of clicks.
If they were using the 1977 logo, including the color scheme, it would be impossible to argue, that the similarity can lead to confusion of them and the point of the article would be moot.
I think you misspelled "with a bigger legal budget".
But hey, Apple is a 2 trillion dollar company, wars have been started for a lot less, so the discussion isn't even worth having unless you also believe in Santa.
first they have to pay compensation for all theyears of misleading customers
Basically, if it's possible to consider that fruit company is infringing on Apple, then it is equally possible that Apple is the one infringing on the older company.
In fact, by filing the suit, Apple is implicitly admitting that they are infringing, since they would not have filed if they didn't believe the logos could be confused, and since the other company is older...
Welcome to government by MegaCorporation.
Reminds me of GOP/Dem politics.
My side has a good reason for doing it, but when they do it, its bad.
I live in High Wycombe, a market town in the South East of England. In the nineteenth century, Wycombe was known as the centre of chair manufacturing. The chairs were initially transported by barge down the Wye and Thames Rivers to Windsor, where they were sold, and consequently became known as Windsor chairs. They were exported across the British Empire and to America, and were very popular.
The chair trade in Wycombe started in a particularly cold winter, when it was too cold for the farmhands to work outdoors. The farmhands were taught how to make the round parts of the chairs by the town wheelwright (who otherwise made wheels for the carts made by the town cartwright). In recognition of this, a wheel design was cut into the backs of the chairs as a decorative device. This design became the distinguishing mark of a chair made in Wycombe.
A chair factory opened in Birmingham, but found that their chairs didn't sell as well... until they started adding the wheel design into their chairs. Business was good for the Birmingham factory, until some of the Wycombe lads paid them a visit. Strong words were had, but the Birmingham factory continued making chairs with wheel designs for a few weeks, until the factory mysteriously burned down in the middle of the night.
The wheel design functioned as an early trademark: it clearly and unambiguously attested the provenance of the item. Trademarks are a consumer protection mechanism: it is the buyer who needs to know the provenance of the item in the absence of a trustworthy seller.
To the man on the Clapham omnibus[0], the presence or absence of the wheel design was the only attestation to the chair's origin: this trademark was a necessary innovation. However, if the gentleman from Clapham is unable to distinguish between an apple grown in Switzerland and a piece of computing machinery manufactured in China according to a design from California, one wonders whether a trademark would be of any help to him.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus
Before trademarks: How dare you produce fake watches that look like mine! I'm so mad... I could crochet an entire BLANKET!
Apple Records would like to have a word.
You know, like iTunes...
(I actually loved that sound and used it on my Performa Mac lots)
I mean, it’s an Apple.
In this case, it seems the word you are looking for is "provenance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
America didn't really play ball until the situation started affecting their own economy (Americans being copied by people in other countries, or other Americans, enough to affect the national bottom line).
China is in a similar state: international IP isn't enforced, and the government just pays lip service to the idea, while it is a net benefit for their country's economy for copying to be rife. This will flip when the issue becomes a net detriment to their bottom line.
The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
Copyright is a different game to trademarks. Copyright has its origins in the Statute of Anne (also known as the Copyright Act 1710), and was designed specifically to protect the investment of publishers and printers in royalties to authors: copyright protects neither producers nor consumers, but rather distributors, whereas trademarks protect consumers.
The idea of extraterritorial and multi-jurisdictional copyright is, as you say, a more recent innovation; the American film industry is based in Hollywood because California refused to enforce Edison's claim on all films made with his cameras.
> The same game has been played any number of times at smaller scales too, though in the smaller cases the big boys tend to force the “being a net detriment” with sanctions and other indirect influences (or simply by buying out the smaller concerns).
All of international politics works like this. Western politicians and diplomats are naturally supportive of the 'rules-based order' we keep hearing about: we wrote the rules in our favour after the Second World War.
Pick something unique.
Apple is applying for a trademark. That’s it.
Apple is not forcing anyone to do anything. I doubt Apple knows or cares about the old fruit company.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-co...
Uh, the design is clearly based on an apple, which they sell
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/54990-111552-001-pr...
to this new one:
https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/54990-111553-000-le...
it seems to me that they were clearly using the Apple logo as their inspiration.
It assumes a lot of conditions will be met including Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely), them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely), and winning litigation (unlikely).
TL;DR click bait
"Apple being granted the additional rights they seek (unlikely)"
Trademark tend to be narrowly scoped to the products and services being marketed by the company.
"them then wanting to enforce their mark against this fruit company (unlikely)"
They have more to lose (reputation) than to gain.
"winning litigation (unlikely)"
There's no likelihood of confusion. Dictionary words can be trademarked, but generally not for the goods and services they describe. Fruit company has used the mark before Apple even existed. Trademark rights are based on first use, regardless of filing.