Sounds like someone from management needs to head down to legal and tell them that maybe now might not be the best time in the world to make themselves look like a bunch of courtroom bullies as billions (with a b) of dollars are riding on their pending cases. (Public opinion notwithstanding)
The job of management is to tell legal that sometimes even though you can do something, you probably shouldn't. I'm sure in this case some sharp legal tack will start in with something about defending trademarks to keep them in force etc. This is where a manager takes some responsibility and decides that that's a acceptable risk in order to keep the company from looking like a cosmic dick.
Does the general public really care about a company bullying other companies legally? Are consumers really not going to buy a specific product because the company is suing an insignificant company? And if so, how much is impacting sales? I realize there probably is not enough substantial evidence to support a rational conclusion to this question. However, considering EVERY large company does this, I don't see how this is going to harm the bottom line.
Is it unethical? That's another question.
ps- I do agree with most people here that these legal arguments are getting quite asinine.
This is a trademark dispute - and there is one simple rule in International trademarks. If you stop defending your trademark every time, then you lose it.
No-one at apple seriously thinks a polish supermarket is going to trade on the apple brand. But because it's close enough, they must sue. Otherwise the polish laptop maker who releases pomme d'terre range will be able to get in.
If you don't beleve me, paint a red triangle outside your stall in Dar es salaam and see how fast the nabisco lawyers hit you.
It's life.
What is bad is there is not a word of damage control from Apple - with Jobs gone they no longer get the benefit of the doubt - and so IMO should explain every piece of evil / seeming evil they do very clearly. Just not in their DNA though.
"If you stop defending your trademark every time, then you lose it.."
But is suing really the only way to defend a trademark? If what you say is true, why don't we see a lot more of these? It can't be that hard to come up with similar "trade mark infringements" that nobody cares about? Or??
I can see why they don't - because it would likely make no difference at all.
As you say, the rules on trademark protection are crystal clear and understood by anyone who takes 30 seconds to read up on them.
Any journalists running this sort of story are either unprofessional enough not to do the necessary research (and would likely not bother connecting the story to a press release) or, more likely, understand exactly what's happening but are just click whoring (in which case they'll just ignore it).
In either case though I don't see a press release from Apple would do anything - a lazy journalist won't care and nor will one just looking for the sensationalist story.
Why didn't they dispute the trademark during the opposition period. Unless Polish law doesn't have opposiTion procedure, this doesn't sound like a defensive move.
No, that's correct. Apple obviously invented everything round, be it rounded icons or apples. And everything starting with a and having "pl" somewhere in it's name.
Actually, i think Apple should sue everyone selling real apples or eating apples and every company that uses the words application, apprentice, appointment but also everything containing jobs, steve and silverish designs.
But also they should be able to sue everyone for this but use LTE technology for free. Or the shitload of stuff others invented, like the smartphone or GSM.
Apple just given much more publicity to A.pl, than it could ever buy with its marketing budget :)
Also the case will take 5 years and nothing will come out of it. That's how Polish courts work, and that's why nobody sues over stupid details like this in Poland.
This reminds me of a few years ago when Apple tried to get Woolworths (a supermarket chain in Australia) to stop using their new logo (a "W" styled in the shape of an apple)[1].
Apple lost that one, and I suspect that they'll probably lose this one, too.
The update, that isn't in the title: It may actually be the logo. The logo has the leaf in exactly the same place, and the h is similar to the missing bite of the apple. The h being there looks fairly ugly, it does seem intentional to me.
Does that really looks like Apple logo... ofcourse not!!! I feel this is ridiculous. In future we won't be able teach our children "A" for "Apple" because of this trademarks and patents
The Polish website Telepolis is reporting that Apple demanded that the
Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Poland’s Patent Office)
cancel the trademark belonging to A.PL Internet SA. The first meeting
actually took place on August 29, but it was adjourned and deferred to
a later date.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Does the Polish patent office really deal with the award of trademarks?
What I find amusing is that Apple has almost certainly just raised the profile of a.pl and given them a boost.
In the UK online food delivery is very competitive and businesses like this come and go fairly frequently. As soon as supermarkets get involved in home delivery these companies all start struggling.
I think it is fairly obvious a.pl has nothing to do with Apple or their brand. If Apple had waiting there was a less than insignificant chance the company would run out steam anyway..
Personally, I think this is a storm in a teacup; Apple have to enforce their trademark, and be shown to be doing so in order to maintain their trademark rights.
That's the problem with a company heavily based on the charisma, creativity and the aura of a single person, no matter how great he or her was. When that person passes away the company loses confidence, and poor decisions ensue.
No. The problem is that apple hate is some kind of fashionable thing to do lately, so every piece and bit will be dragged out for display. I bet hundreds of companies are doing the same, but they are just not interesting.
Foxconn story was a good example of that.
I thought trademark issues were only relevant in the same sector.
I mean apple cannot forbid you to put the word "apple" or an apple logo if you are selling the fruit no ?
It is not about letter "a", but letters "A'pl", witch is different.
I could be as angry as the next guy from Apple patenting geometric shapes and natural gestures and tech that was already invented 20 years ago, but this is a typical case of trademark dispute, and Apple could be right here. A pl could sound like Apple and so Apple needs to protect their trademark, or they could loose it, as someone already stated.
I think Apple is very thuggish, but can we lose the link-baity and dramatic titles ("Apple sues Polish grocery store over the letter A")?
I'm skeptical that even "A.pl" around a giant "a" with leaves coming out of it is enough to infringe on Apple's trade mark, but it's a much closer call than merely the letter a.
Agreed. And it's not a "grocery store" it's an "online service" (dealing with the food industry). Granted, not Apple's core business, but a heck of a lot closer to their realm than a brick-and-mortar retail outfit.
Apple suffers here because their trademark is an English word. (Though A.pl probably isn't intended to be a homonym for "apple" in Polish.)
It's a trademark dispute. Apple doesn't have a choice, they have to defend their trademark or they will lose it. And they aren't disputing use of the letter 'A'. The article's been updated to show the Polish companies logo is an Apple, similar to Apple's own logo.
[+] [-] noonespecial|13 years ago|reply
The job of management is to tell legal that sometimes even though you can do something, you probably shouldn't. I'm sure in this case some sharp legal tack will start in with something about defending trademarks to keep them in force etc. This is where a manager takes some responsibility and decides that that's a acceptable risk in order to keep the company from looking like a cosmic dick.
[+] [-] lazugod|13 years ago|reply
I'm curious how many people protest that facet of law, given the many protests against patents.
[+] [-] mbesto|13 years ago|reply
Does the general public really care about a company bullying other companies legally? Are consumers really not going to buy a specific product because the company is suing an insignificant company? And if so, how much is impacting sales? I realize there probably is not enough substantial evidence to support a rational conclusion to this question. However, considering EVERY large company does this, I don't see how this is going to harm the bottom line.
Is it unethical? That's another question.
ps- I do agree with most people here that these legal arguments are getting quite asinine.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|13 years ago|reply
No-one at apple seriously thinks a polish supermarket is going to trade on the apple brand. But because it's close enough, they must sue. Otherwise the polish laptop maker who releases pomme d'terre range will be able to get in.
If you don't beleve me, paint a red triangle outside your stall in Dar es salaam and see how fast the nabisco lawyers hit you.
It's life.
What is bad is there is not a word of damage control from Apple - with Jobs gone they no longer get the benefit of the doubt - and so IMO should explain every piece of evil / seeming evil they do very clearly. Just not in their DNA though.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vectorbunny|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gizzlon|13 years ago|reply
But is suing really the only way to defend a trademark? If what you say is true, why don't we see a lot more of these? It can't be that hard to come up with similar "trade mark infringements" that nobody cares about? Or??
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|13 years ago|reply
As you say, the rules on trademark protection are crystal clear and understood by anyone who takes 30 seconds to read up on them.
Any journalists running this sort of story are either unprofessional enough not to do the necessary research (and would likely not bother connecting the story to a press release) or, more likely, understand exactly what's happening but are just click whoring (in which case they'll just ignore it).
In either case though I don't see a press release from Apple would do anything - a lazy journalist won't care and nor will one just looking for the sensationalist story.
[+] [-] zerostar07|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buster|13 years ago|reply
Actually, i think Apple should sue everyone selling real apples or eating apples and every company that uses the words application, apprentice, appointment but also everything containing jobs, steve and silverish designs.
But also they should be able to sue everyone for this but use LTE technology for free. Or the shitload of stuff others invented, like the smartphone or GSM.
[+] [-] ajuc|13 years ago|reply
Also the case will take 5 years and nothing will come out of it. That's how Polish courts work, and that's why nobody sues over stupid details like this in Poland.
[+] [-] Tichy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codeka|13 years ago|reply
Apple lost that one, and I suspect that they'll probably lose this one, too.
[1]: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/apple-claims-wooli...
[+] [-] hadem|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobylane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cvrajeesh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gigablah|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrich|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olive_|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chalst|13 years ago|reply
Postscript - Indeed it does: http://www.uprp.pl/znaki-towarowe-informacje-podstawowe/Lead... (there's a translation tool embedded in the page).
[+] [-] oneandoneis2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobsy|13 years ago|reply
In the UK online food delivery is very competitive and businesses like this come and go fairly frequently. As soon as supermarkets get involved in home delivery these companies all start struggling.
I think it is fairly obvious a.pl has nothing to do with Apple or their brand. If Apple had waiting there was a less than insignificant chance the company would run out steam anyway..
[+] [-] mootothemax|13 years ago|reply
http://fresh24.pl/Images/logo.png
Personally, I think this is a storm in a teacup; Apple have to enforce their trademark, and be shown to be doing so in order to maintain their trademark rights.
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vixen99|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikemoka|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fwr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rimantas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curtin|13 years ago|reply
2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8858333/Apple-ta...
In general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademark...
Anyone noticing a pattern here?
[+] [-] gbin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricardobeat|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliks|13 years ago|reply
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/4c/1a/be/z12458572X.jpg
[+] [-] ajuc|13 years ago|reply
Still not similiar enough, IMHO.
[+] [-] forgottenpaswrd|13 years ago|reply
I could be as angry as the next guy from Apple patenting geometric shapes and natural gestures and tech that was already invented 20 years ago, but this is a typical case of trademark dispute, and Apple could be right here. A pl could sound like Apple and so Apple needs to protect their trademark, or they could loose it, as someone already stated.
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
I'm skeptical that even "A.pl" around a giant "a" with leaves coming out of it is enough to infringe on Apple's trade mark, but it's a much closer call than merely the letter a.
[+] [-] basseq|13 years ago|reply
Apple suffers here because their trademark is an English word. (Though A.pl probably isn't intended to be a homonym for "apple" in Polish.)
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply