When it comes to discussing intellectual property laws, it's important to remember where they came from.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>[0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus</a>
This title is clickbait. If you read the article, it’s pretty clear that Apple has taken no action against the fruit company and there’s no reason to think they will, or that they’d even be able to if granted the trademarks requested. It also seems as if they’re trying to retain rights to use the whole apple for specific products.<p>From the source:<p>“ Apple's attempts to secure the trademark in Switzerland go as far back as 2017, when the Cupertino, California–based giant submitted an application to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) requesting the IP rights for a realistic, black-and-white depiction of an apple variety known as the Granny Smith—the generic green apple. The request covered an extensive list of potential uses—mostly on electronic, digital, and audiovisual consumer goods and hardware. Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods—like apples—to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal.”<p>So what’s really happening: Apple is trying to prevent others from using apples, including ones that don’t look particularly like Apple’s apple (2d, monochrome, bite out of it) from being used to compete with them. You couldn’t start “granny smith’s headphones and use an apple as your logo.<p>You can debate if this is good or bad but any mention of the fruit company is meritless sensationalism.
Trademark protection should only apply where it prevents customer confusion.<p>A consumer electronics company has no business in preventing anyone from using a similar logo for selling <i>fruit</i>.
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.<p>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".
When people say something like "Apple wants", they seem to personify a company. In the end, there are some lawyers and middle managers that push for something to happen. These are not the CEO, but rather the corporate bureaucrats that exist for the sole purpose of expanding the reach of their master.<p>The bureaucrats only stop when public opinion/regulators force the executives to step in and issue a directive to stop the nonsense.<p>If any Apple executive is listening, please stop the nonsense, it's only hurting your brand.
Deeply ironic considering Apple Computer's fraught trademark history with Apple Records.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer</a>
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 <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551</a>
You are going at war with Poland, Sir.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_production" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_apple_pro...</a>
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
There's more info here, including an image of the pre 2011 logo:<p><a href="https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-control-every-image-of-an-apple-says-swiss-fruit-firm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/06/19/apple-wants-to-co...</a>
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".
This reminds me of Nissan motors chasing the man of the same name that was harassed by them for 25 years to buy/steal the nissan.com domain after car vendor finally figured out what the Internet was good for. Nissan Motors first tried to low-ball him, and then sued, repeatedly for the next couple decades to simply "take" the domain, but he won over and over - it was his freakin' NAME, and fairly got it first.<p>Tough luck Nissan motors, at least the Japanese court stood up for the man and his rights. The owner finally died after covid in 2020, and the domain still sits parked.<p><a href="https://www.thedrive.com/news/35179/the-man-who-fought-nissan-over-a-website-and-won-has-died-of-covid-19" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.thedrive.com/news/35179/the-man-who-fought-nissa...</a><p>Something tells me if this were Apple in the US, he's have been steamrolled like a piece of dung left in the road and domain taken as these poor bastards daring to use a fruit borne from the beginning of time before Apple Inc will now get.
Apple will lose this one for sure. There is no way a European court will decide for an American 800lb gorilla company bullying a swiss company that has been around for over a century. Good for them that they can't be bought as easily as American courts.
I’m not sure it’s completely necessary or warranted but I get it. It’s not just that they want to “copyright the whole apple”, the logo is an apple with a plus sign in place of where, roughly, the bite mark would go.
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.
I flagged this ridiculous article and title.<p>Apple is applying for a trademark. That’s it.<p>Apple is not forcing anyone to do anything. I doubt Apple knows or cares about the old fruit company.
An insightful comment from the last time this was posted: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36391803">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36391803</a><p>Basically, if it's possible to consider that fruit company is infringing on Apple, then it is equally possible that <i>Apple</i> is the one infringing on the older company.<p>In fact, by filing the suit, Apple is implicitly admitting that they <i>are</i> infringing, since they would not have filed if they didn't believe the logos could be confused, and since the other company is older...
This new 2011 Swiss Fruit logo is obviously influenced by Apple's 1977 design. How could it not be? There's a clear likeness and good luck finding a graphics designer in 2011 who hasn't seen the Apple logo before.<p>The old Swiss Fruit logo looked more like a tomato.
The key word here is “could”.<p>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).<p>TL;DR click bait