'Bullying' Apple fights couple over pear logo
When Natalie Monson started her food blog 11 years ago, she didn't expect to end up embroiled in a fight with the world's most valuable company.
But the US small business owner is now battling Apple for the right to use a pear in the logo on her recipe app.
In a patent filing, Apple said the image was too similar to its own logo and would hurt its brand.
Ms Monson says the tech giant is simply "bullying" and she feels a "moral obligation" to fight back.
More than 43,000 people have already signed the petition she and her husband Russ, owners of the Super Healthy Kids website, created last week to try to pressure the company to back down.
Also At:
Apple wants this recipe app to stop using a pear in its logo
Apple object to Prepear logo trademark, 'terrifying' small business owners
Apple vs Prepear: Besides Pear, There are Atleast 10 Other Companies Using Fruit Logos, Will Apple Come After Them Too?
Apple objects to trademark registration application of a recipe app; Here's why
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:02PM (13 children)
If any not-super-wealthy claimant filed that suit, they would be laughed out of court, and punished with a fine on the way out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:24PM
The defendant should have offered a good faith eyesight test for complainants before the boys up the apples and pears [cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk] decided to proceed with this lawsuit.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:50PM (5 children)
I believe the argument is based on the points of:
- Fruit, clearly both are fruit
- A right leaning leaf, signaling all kinds of things - no doubt, same on both
- A healthy image for a health signaling product
- Monochrome simplicity
- Clean lines
In all, they may have a dozen "arguments" for the similarity of the trademarks and businesses they represent - and this is probably the closest thing to an infringing trademark Apple has seen apply to the USPTO for some time since their last domestic "defense action," so they can't let it go by without being seen to "actively defend" their own mark - to do so would be "abandonment," which then could become an argument for a more serious infringer.
I would like to think that behind the scenes, a year from now, the little pear company is either continuing to use their logo with a modest positive out of court settlement that adequately compensated them for being the token windmill this year for Apple's trademark lawyers to tilt at, or perhaps they have chosen to take a more significant "non-disclosable" out of court settlement to abandon their - frankly rather lame looking - pear logo as a clear sign of Apple's active defense of the Apple logo.
If Steve Jobs were still alive, I'd also suspect heartless grinding of the little people into the dirt because that's life and business, but I'm hopeful that less psychopathic leadership is at work today.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:56PM
Tim Cook is clearly deranged.
Pears are not Apples. Green is not Black.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:05PM (2 children)
The "intellectual property" here is astounding although Ugg (aged 8) scribbling on a cave wall circa 20,000 BC may have gotten there before formal language existed. Is the trademark office aware that people have always traded fruit using symbols of... fruit? I'm sure market store holders the world over were using pictures of Apples to sell fruit centuries before Steve Jobs was born. If Apple are claiming their trademark applies to the sale of fruit, the trademark must be immediately invalidated.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:46PM (1 child)
That is one of those things that are "fixed" in the Apple logo. They took the "bite" out of the right side, otherwise it would just be a generic looking apple and I don't think they would have ever gotten to trademark for that since there have been pictures of apples since forever and it would not have been distinguishable compared to just generic apple pictures. So their logo needed something to set it apart from the other apples so they took the bit out of the apple so to speak on the side. That is the logo, not just any old apple. The thing is there is not a part of the pear missing like that, no missing part or "bite" taken out of it. It's also not the same time type of ellipse form as the apple-logo is more of a squished ellipse from the top and bottom while the pear logo has been elongated and drawn out, which is sort of like the shape of a pear. Just like they don't look anything alike if you look at them growing on a tree.
That said it's still borked that they now somehow appear to believe that they hold the rights to all similar objects.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 12 2020, @03:02PM
To me, this pear looks rather more like a green eggplant, perhaps wearing a bibb or formal shirt front...
I'm thinking, as part of the out of court settlement, behind the scenes Apple may be offering PrePear some graphic design services.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 12 2020, @07:39PM
You missed "Round Cornesrs"
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Wednesday August 12 2020, @01:53PM (2 children)
IIUC, this is not a suit, this is a letter to the trademarks commission saying the logos are too similar. There is no judge or trial involved. The trademark commission just has to look at the logos and decide whether they are too similar.
And Apple is required to "defend their trademark", though the requirement in this case is highly dubious. They aren't very similar.
This isn't a case of Apple being obnoxious (though it is a case of some lawyers in their hire being obnoxious). It is, however, an example of how the system is rigged against small companies. The two companies aren't even in the same market, so there was absolutely no reason for Apple to file this complaint, but lawyers need to justify being on retainer (or salary). And the small company needs to divert attention to deal with this.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2020, @03:05AM (1 child)
They are required to defend their trademark, but the site has been in operation for over a decade. They didn't in all that time notice it? That alone ought to be sufficient to get them off the hook as Apple seems to have taken its sweet time sending the paperwork in. Really, Apple is just a bully and a monopolist and it's far past time that they were crushed for their antics.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 13 2020, @04:40AM
You're seeing them as too monolithic. I would strongly guess that Apple management wasn't even aware of this letter until after people started making noises about it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:10PM (2 children)
I hope the judge awards the defendant 1% of apple's revenue for time wasted, and to prevent similar cases.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 12 2020, @02:53PM (1 child)
Sadly, many judges who sit on benches in courtrooms all day every day do not see the legal process as a waste of time, but rather as an honor and a privilege, and anyone who is willing to invest the money and effort required to file a grievance in court is due their hearing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2020, @03:31AM
They are, but not all suits have merit and a suit over this logo has no merit. There's no way that the two logos are confusing in any way shape or form. This is just another Mike Rowe Soft situation. Except in that case there was genuine room for confusion.