I was working on a project called Scoper, which let you do video streaming. It had done fairly well at SXSW, and we had a decent amount of users. Just before we thought we were gonna be awarded a trademark for the name, we got a not so friendly letter from Twitter's counsel at Fenwick and West, telling us we were infringing on their "Periscope" brand, and listing some pretty clear demands. We never really thought of our app as a competitor to Periscope.
Our lawyer let us know that they had no strong grounds against us, but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford. We told Twitter we knew they had weak grounds and that the case would just drag on, and we would rather save both sides money, if they would just buy us out.
They gave us a super low amount of money to drop the trademark application, transfer the domain, all brand related stuff, and remove our app from the App Store. It was kinda depressing, but it could have been a worse outcome.
To be fair, this wasn't outrageous like this pear logo case, but it was just a feeling of being bullied and knowing you don't stand a chance.
I had a similar case that I helped a relative with. They had a similar word in their business name as a foreign (popular at the time) baking company. My reading in Australia implied they had no real case either, the standards for Trademark infringement are relatively tight and case by case (see https://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/2064/thats-crazy-john.as... for one case where the industry is the same and names are very similar but branding is not). The notice was apparently triggered by an application for a local Trademark which tripped their alarms.
But as with you, it wasn't worth the fight. We got a cheap legal aid person to draft a letter saying we thought they didn't have a case but we'd play along if they covered our fees for renaming the business and updating stationery/website/etc. In the end it worked out OK and the business was renamed. I think she made a slight profit if you don't factor in the stress.
I created a groupware platform Officezilla (have since sold the domain). Almost as soon as I registered the domain the GodZilla trademark holders lawyers sent me a letter. I sent them a letter letting them know I appreciate their concern and to take a hike, never heard from them again.
Toho Company, Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 654 F.2d 788, 790-94 is precedent. Courts have to follow it and lawyers know it. You don't even need a lawyer to send Twitter packing.
Curious what is the worst case outcome if one were to just put minimal effort into the legal process, basically just simply state your case and hope judge thinks other side is crazy?
For example, in breue's case he had enough money for lawyers, but pretend it was the same scenario only breue was an 18yo still living with his parents (who are not wealthy theoretically)
Does the judge just blindly believe everything Twitter says since they have lawyers?
Same thing happened last month with Amazon. AWS decided to roll out a new product called CodeGuru, that was a well established site on Windows development (codeguru.com). That's the end of the road for them.
> 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.
Bored, overinflated legal team reaching for anything to do to make themselves feel important. Similar to how UX teams need to redesign everything, including the logo, every few years, even though everything works perfectly and is easy to understand. How do I justify my existence and my job?
> 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.
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?)
I'm genuinely curious as to why Apple is doing this, from a business perspective.
I'm well aware that companies need to defend their trademarks legally, or risk losing them, so in most cases like this the company is just following the law.
But it always relies on a certain level of consumer confusion, e.g. that some demonstrable percent of consumers see the logo/name and genuinely assume it to be associated with the opposing company.
But "Pear" has zero confusion with "Apple", and the logo is likewise completely different.
Companies generally do their best to NOT pay their lawyers to do frivolous things, because there are more important things to be paying their lawyers to do, and companies aren't charities.
So since Apple has no legal necessity to go after Pear here in order to protect their trademark, and they clearly have no business interest in harming a meal planning app since Apple's not in that business...
...what gives? Why is Apple spending money on this? Apple's a business. What's the business incentive?
So it is a requirement that when you have a trademark, you must defend that mark. Oftentimes they contract a law firm specifically to monitor the trademark. If anything even hints at their mark, they file opposition. Filing opposition is cheap and easy.
How far they go from there depends on how strong their mark is and how strong they feel they have a case to successfully oppose you.
It costs very little to initiate an opposition just a little bit of time and $500. Many trademark filers drop the trademark at this first stage.
Let's say this startup subsequently adds a new line of services / products under another fruit name. Likewise Apple doesn't object because it has zero confusion with Apple. Perhaps they acquire BlackBerry now to add another fruit theme to their lineup. Now they want to add an Apple-themed subbrand as well, and when Apple objects, they have to fight it out because the company is just trying to complete its fruit branding and Apple didn't previously object while it was building out the fruit branding.
Yes, it's a stretch but likely by registering its objecting to the trademark application (with the USPTO granting this trademark anyway), Apple can ensure that down the road there is no risk of the company (or any other company) being able to justify entering Apple's trademark turf.
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.
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.)
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.
I never understood when Americans threaten people with court expenses in TV series or real life. I was under the impression that no matter the case, if you are unable to afford representation, a state lawyer is appointed and does a barely passing job. Wouldn't a barely passing job be enough for a judge to throw a case like this away?
I've actually been in court and it has never been an expensive experience.
I suppose from one comment I read that patent law is different, and you have to actively defend your patent, but I see this theme in many different types of cases; for instance someone starting directing a documentary about something someone didn't like attention drawn to. How can this possibly be expensive to defend.
In other words, if I sell apples (or pears for what we know), I can't register my name with the actual product in it (which is a common word and a product of nature) or a big, fat bully will just destroy my business like an angry child.
What can I say, great company and great system too.
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.
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.
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 can understand why big companies do it, they want to protect their brand and make sure they are the only ones who are associated with any words remotely close. As a business, it makes sense. But then again, for the rest of us, it's really weird that one company want to own a fruit, and another a house animal.
Could it be that trademark system, when establish, simply did not see this coming? What's a good solution, from a legal perspective, something that gives companies a way to defend their brand, but within "reasonable" powers, where simply gobbling all words in the space is probably no longer reasonable?
Lol, I guess fruits are banned in the tech world until further notice, unless you are part of a team inside Apple.
The U.S. needs to implement the judical system like in Europe, where the loser pays all the legal fees.
In the EU, you have literally examples of persons who single handedly took their own country to court all the way to the Strasbourg.
How long until Apple kicks them off the App Store?
Hey Tim, try to remember what you said at the hearing.
Also, there isn’t much leadership when you allow the company lawyers to bully small developers. Doesn’t really seem like you’re in control of the ship.
[+] [-] breue|5 years ago|reply
https://breue.com/twitter https://breue.com/86851616.pdf
I was working on a project called Scoper, which let you do video streaming. It had done fairly well at SXSW, and we had a decent amount of users. Just before we thought we were gonna be awarded a trademark for the name, we got a not so friendly letter from Twitter's counsel at Fenwick and West, telling us we were infringing on their "Periscope" brand, and listing some pretty clear demands. We never really thought of our app as a competitor to Periscope.
Our lawyer let us know that they had no strong grounds against us, but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford. We told Twitter we knew they had weak grounds and that the case would just drag on, and we would rather save both sides money, if they would just buy us out.
They gave us a super low amount of money to drop the trademark application, transfer the domain, all brand related stuff, and remove our app from the App Store. It was kinda depressing, but it could have been a worse outcome.
To be fair, this wasn't outrageous like this pear logo case, but it was just a feeling of being bullied and knowing you don't stand a chance.
[+] [-] JSavageOne|5 years ago|reply
This is a clear failure of our justice system.
[+] [-] hnick|5 years ago|reply
But as with you, it wasn't worth the fight. We got a cheap legal aid person to draft a letter saying we thought they didn't have a case but we'd play along if they covered our fees for renaming the business and updating stationery/website/etc. In the end it worked out OK and the business was renamed. I think she made a slight profit if you don't factor in the stress.
[+] [-] gscott|5 years ago|reply
http://bgbg.blogspot.com/2002/08/zillegalities.html
I created a groupware platform Officezilla (have since sold the domain). Almost as soon as I registered the domain the GodZilla trademark holders lawyers sent me a letter. I sent them a letter letting them know I appreciate their concern and to take a hike, never heard from them again.
Toho Company, Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 654 F.2d 788, 790-94 is precedent. Courts have to follow it and lawyers know it. You don't even need a lawyer to send Twitter packing.
[+] [-] lostlogin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisan|5 years ago|reply
For example, in breue's case he had enough money for lawyers, but pretend it was the same scenario only breue was an 18yo still living with his parents (who are not wealthy theoretically)
Does the judge just blindly believe everything Twitter says since they have lawyers?
[+] [-] user5994461|5 years ago|reply
https://thehftguy.com/2020/08/03/amazon-blatantly-taking-ove...
[+] [-] pier25|5 years ago|reply
Can someone explain how does that work?
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|5 years ago|reply
s/but would/but that he would/
FTFY
[+] [-] ponker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|5 years ago|reply
I'd have taken the money, and then not done anything.
[+] [-] moneywoes|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianmonk|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] CosmicShadow|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitL|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schappim|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] nickff|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ummonk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|5 years ago|reply
Maybe 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.
[+] [-] dvtrn|5 years ago|reply
...
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?)
[+] [-] pgo|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cheschire|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnick|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rapnie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crazygringo|5 years ago|reply
I'm well aware that companies need to defend their trademarks legally, or risk losing them, so in most cases like this the company is just following the law.
But it always relies on a certain level of consumer confusion, e.g. that some demonstrable percent of consumers see the logo/name and genuinely assume it to be associated with the opposing company.
But "Pear" has zero confusion with "Apple", and the logo is likewise completely different.
Companies generally do their best to NOT pay their lawyers to do frivolous things, because there are more important things to be paying their lawyers to do, and companies aren't charities.
So since Apple has no legal necessity to go after Pear here in order to protect their trademark, and they clearly have no business interest in harming a meal planning app since Apple's not in that business...
...what gives? Why is Apple spending money on this? Apple's a business. What's the business incentive?
[+] [-] crote|5 years ago|reply
Apple is opposing a company in the food industry using a logo resembling a piece of fruit. It can't get any crazier than this.
[+] [-] kxrm|5 years ago|reply
How far they go from there depends on how strong their mark is and how strong they feel they have a case to successfully oppose you.
It costs very little to initiate an opposition just a little bit of time and $500. Many trademark filers drop the trademark at this first stage.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|5 years ago|reply
Could you source this. It's a common belief that seems false.
You pay your fees to keep a trademark.
Genericisation is also a risk and that needs some defence.
They're not even using the Apple trademark, so the "defence is required" argument (even if true) doesn't appear relevant.
[+] [-] ummonk|5 years ago|reply
Yes, it's a stretch but likely by registering its objecting to the trademark application (with the USPTO granting this trademark anyway), Apple can ensure that down the road there is no risk of the company (or any other company) being able to justify entering Apple's trademark turf.
[+] [-] foepys|5 years ago|reply
1: https://dw.com/en/german-café-owner-takes-on-apple-and-wins/...
[+] [-] newacct583|5 years ago|reply
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.)
[+] [-] mindfulhack|5 years ago|reply
It would have to feel like you have no compassion or empathy in your body whatsoever.
Tim Cook directs these people.
[+] [-] ErikAugust|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sassypotato|5 years ago|reply
I've actually been in court and it has never been an expensive experience.
I suppose from one comment I read that patent law is different, and you have to actively defend your patent, but I see this theme in many different types of cases; for instance someone starting directing a documentary about something someone didn't like attention drawn to. How can this possibly be expensive to defend.
[+] [-] warpech|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.pcworld.com/article/262202/apple_vs_a_pl_tech_co...
[+] [-] cutemonster|5 years ago|reply
(Anywhere where I can read about the outcome? The article doesn't seem to mention)
[+] [-] uoylj|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dariosalvi78|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squarefoot|5 years ago|reply
It's easy to bully others when one expects no retaliation.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|5 years ago|reply
This instance, however, falls far outside that area.
[+] [-] jdhn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirillzubovsky|5 years ago|reply
I can understand why big companies do it, they want to protect their brand and make sure they are the only ones who are associated with any words remotely close. As a business, it makes sense. But then again, for the rest of us, it's really weird that one company want to own a fruit, and another a house animal.
Could it be that trademark system, when establish, simply did not see this coming? What's a good solution, from a legal perspective, something that gives companies a way to defend their brand, but within "reasonable" powers, where simply gobbling all words in the space is probably no longer reasonable?
[+] [-] michelb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] supergirl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warmcat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newbie578|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edko|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iJohnDoe|5 years ago|reply
Hey Tim, try to remember what you said at the hearing.
Also, there isn’t much leadership when you allow the company lawyers to bully small developers. Doesn’t really seem like you’re in control of the ship.