[Update: Official Opposition Papers added] Whatcha Got There? A Smoothie - Apple legally opposes Meal Prep Companies' Fruit Logo

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

https://www.image-line.com/flstudio/

 

or even fruitstand web design:

 

https://fruitstand.tech/

 

 

The fruit stand one has half of what looks like an apple on it.  Logo design is totally different though. As for the FL one it seems to be a persimmon?  So apparently they’re not going after fruit because of fruit, or even apples. Both appear to be drawn 3d instead of flat, and the FL one doesn’t have a leaf.  I could see them maybe going after the fruit stand one of the logo was just an apple, but it’s not.  Both are less similar than the prepear logo, even ignoring the pear computing lawsuit. 

[Rune]

....not even remotely close.

[SADS]

I almost don't believe it. Feels like a PR stunt for a small company to get some cheap/instant recognition.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, SADS said:

I almost don't believe it. Feels like a PR stunt for a small company to get some cheap/instant recognition.

Nope, apple actually are opposing their trademark legally:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice-of-Opposition-v-Super-Healthy-Kids-Inc

 

On grounds that apple offer an "identical service" or "highly related" service.

Apple are leveraging their health promotion stuff with the apple watch as the "healthy" part of their brand.

 

 

 

 

[RejZoR]

Lol, FruitStand is even less similar to Apple lol.

[Tech_Dreamer]

the court hearing is gonna be funny as hell.

 

Prepear lawyer : **Gives apple rep a real pear fruit** Could you please tell us & the judge what this is?

Apple reps : A pear.

Prepear lawyer :  **shows drawing of a pear** & this?

Apple Reps : A drawing of a pear.

Prepear lawyer : i rest my case your honor.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Lol, FruitStand is even less similar to Apple lol.

The point is they are tech related companies that have fruit logos and none of them are similar adding that it's a stretch to argue any of them dilute apples brand value due to blurring.

 

Apple has just as many services in common with either fl stiudio or fruitstand as they do prepear.   Which makes their claims scarily dangerous at worst and laughable at best.  Because either way this is not going to be beneficial for the consumer and will at best cost prepear a large financial burden or at worst kill their business.   It will have zero effect on apple though.  So I guess apple can rest easy at night knowing it's profits are safe.

[RejZoR]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The point is they are tech related companies that have fruit logos and none of them are similar adding that it's a stretch to argue any of them dilute apples brand value due to blurring.

 

Apple has just as many services in common with either fl stiudio or fruitstand as they do prepear.   Which makes their claims scarily dangerous at worst and laughable at best.  Because either way this is not going to be beneficial for the consumer and will at best cost prepear a large financial burden or at worst kill their business.   It will have zero effect on apple though.  So I guess apple can rest easy at night knowing it's profits are safe.

I mean, if they literally had a pear with exactly the same styling, same leaf placement, same bite mark, then sure, I'd understand it. But having pear with different style, different leaf shape and direction and no bite mark with hollow logo, then there is just no similarity. And one is working with food and another is gadget company. If anything, it's the food one that has logo related to their actual trade... And same goes for FruitStand. No similarity what so ever and they make what, webpages? It's tech but not related in any way. And neither is the logo. You can't just go after everyone that have an apple (a fruit) of any kind in the logo. That would be like arguing BMW is the only one that is allowed to have a propeller in their logo and Mitsubishi has to remove it because their logo resembles propeller too...

[spartaman64]

[Video Beagle]

22 hours ago, mr moose said:

I posted a link a few posts back explaining how it works and why this type of lawsuit is unnecessary.

You site one law firms opinion on the matter. Which is grand...but do you think that companies like Apple and Warners and Disney would do these kind of things with the bad PR it dredges up if they didn't have to?

 

Go call up Bob Iger and tell him Disney doesn't have to sue kinderdardens for painting Mickey Mouse on the wall. Given how much the company will save in paying trademark lawyers, I imagine they'll at least give you a free viewing of Mulan!

 

This is how trademarks work.. you file for your trademark, other holders put in opposition if there's an issue, judge rules, lawyers bill clients.

 

Stop feeling bad for these guys.. they hit the PR jackpot.. big bad Apple did a routine legal thing, and they got to tweet about it and get covered in all sorts of tech news...you can't buy publicity like that.

[Video Beagle]

15 hours ago, SADS said:

I almost don't believe it. Feels like a PR stunt for a small company to get some cheap/instant recognition.

Better than even odds you are correct.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

You site one law firms opinion on the matter. Which is grand...but do you think that companies like Apple and Warners and Disney would do these kind of things with the bad PR it dredges up if they didn't have to?

 

Go call up Bob Iger and tell him Disney doesn't have to sue kinderdardens for painting Mickey Mouse on the wall. Given how much the company will save in paying trademark lawyers, I imagine they'll at least give you a free viewing of Mulan!

 

This is how trademarks work.. you file for your trademark, other holders put in opposition if there's an issue, judge rules, lawyers bill clients.

 

Stop feeling bad for these guys.. they hit the PR jackpot.. big bad Apple did a routine legal thing, and they got to tweet about it and get covered in all sorts of tech news...you can't buy publicity like that.

perhaps you can point to some examples of them being wrong.  When a law firms advice is you don't have to sue then you can pretty much take it as gospel. 

 

I will always feel sorry for a small business that gets sued into oblivion by an arsehole large company for no good reason. 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

perhaps you can point to some examples of them being wrong.  When a law firms advice is you don't have to sue then you can pretty much take it as gospel. 

 

I will always feel sorry for a small business that gets sued into oblivion by an arsehole large company for no good reason. 

 

 

I got 1 idea that has nothing to do with alternate opinions.  Apple and Disney both have legal departments.  Staff lawyers.  Not a lawyer that works for a company contracted by Disney or whatever but lawyers who literally work for Disney.  It might make things cheaper thus changing cost/benefit.  Doesn’t help morally at all, as what that would mean is companies large enough to do that effectively have a higher legal standing than anyone else and that isn’t supposed to be how the law works.  It might explain how there is a difference though.

 

13 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I mean, if they literally had a pear with exactly the same styling, same leaf placement, same bite mark, then sure, I'd understand it. But having pear with different style, different leaf shape and direction and no bite mark with hollow logo, then there is just no similarity. And one is working with food and another is gadget company. If anything, it's the food one that has logo related to their actual trade... And same goes for FruitStand. No similarity what so ever and they make what, webpages? It's tech but not related in any way. And neither is the logo. You can't just go after everyone that have an apple (a fruit) of any kind in the logo. That would be like arguing BMW is the only one that is allowed to have a propeller in their logo and Mitsubishi has to remove it because their logo resembles propeller too...

Doesn’t matter.  One of Pear computing’s early logos looked almost exactly like this.  They got a ruling on it.  Simplified to a problem already solved. Or precedent.  However you want to look at it. 

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I got 1 idea that has nothing to do with alternate opinions.  Apple and Disney both have legal departments.  Staff lawyers.  Not a lawyer that works for a company contracted by Disney or whatever but lawyers who literally work for Disney.  It might make things cheaper thus changing cost/benefit.  Doesn’t help morally at all, as what that would mean is companies large enough to do that effectively have a higher legal standing than anyone else and that isn’t supposed to be how the law works.  It might explain how there is a difference though.

 

 

As I said earlier,  Apples legal department might be bored or need to justify their existence, because even if they lose they can still argue that it is important to maintain a vigilant opposition to any and all "threats".  There are a few people in this thread that have bought into that argument already and I think company lawyers want people to believe that is the case as it leads to easier justification for nuisance lawsuits.   

 

Having your own legal team does greatly reduce the cost of litigation, it means your outgoing do not go up when you engage or defend a case.  But for these small companies their outgoings when they are sued or need to sue can greatly exceed their means very quickly.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As I said earlier,  Apples legal department might be bored or need to justify their existence, because even if they lose they can still argue that it is important to maintain a vigilant opposition to any and all "threats".  There are a few people in this thread that have bought into that argument already and I think company lawyers want people to believe that is the case as it leads to easier justification for nuisance lawsuits.   

 

Having your own legal team does greatly reduce the cost of litigation, it means your outgoing do not go up when you engage or defend a case.  But for these small companies their outgoings when they are sued or need to sue can greatly exceed their means very quickly.

 

 

Which doesn’t affect anything.  The effect remains predictable.

[mr moose]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

Which doesn’t affect anything.  The effect remains predictable.

Unfortunately the outcome is predictable, as I also linked to the apple corps case where in the end they lost too,  doesn't mean it is right and something we should accept.

 

The thing that annoys me most about these threads is that people actually argue in favor of companies like apple bullying innocent people.   In this situation the logos look nothing alike, they do not operate in the same market (apple do not provide a menu/recipe making app  to promote healthy kids), yet for some reason people believe apple will lose their logo and trademarks if they don't sue.  That is a load of bollocks.

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Unfortunately the outcome is predictable, as I also linked to the apple corps case where in the end they lost too,  doesn't mean it is right and something we should accept.

 

The thing that annoys me most about these threads is that people actually argue in favor of companies like apple bullying innocent people.   In this situation the logos look nothing alike, they do not operate in the same market (apple do not provide a menu/recipe making app  to promote healthy kids), yet for some reason people believe apple will lose their logo and trademarks if they don't sue.  That is a load of bollocks.

Re: doesn’t mean it’s right

So?  It was never my intent to say it did.  In this particular situation because of previous legal stuff it will be I think.  Even if the thing might not meet criteria under random circumstance due to the pear computing stuff it does.  I am not convinced Apple was not basically forced to reply in this case because of previous history, and I think a decent search by a professional company would have turned all this up before such a logo was even picked.  It was imho a dumb choice.  There is even evidence That there are numerous ways to incorporate fruits into logos for software companies that don’t cause this problem.   
There is criticism of the way corporate law works in general and there is anti-Apple fanboiism. I’m not fond of the way corporate law is structured, but but most of the replies made about this had nothing to do with that.  There were also numerous flaws that didn’t show up till later.  Like the fact that the company in question is not primarily a “food company”.  They’re a software manufacturer. 

 

Re: thread annoyance

iirc you started this thread.  You’re annoyed that it was shown to have flaws?  I can see that being a normal response.  This is what happens  though.
UPDATE:

turns out i was incorrect .  The thread was not started by @mr moose

Edited August 11, 2020 by Bombastinator
Learn me to check stuff when I can. Derp.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: doesn’t mean it’s right

So?  It was never my intent to say it did.  In this particular situation because of previous legal stuff it will be I think.  Even if the thing might not meet criteria under random circumstance due to the pear computing stuff it does.  I am not convinced Apple was not basically forced to reply in this case because of previous history, and I think a decent search by a professional company would have turned all this up before such a logo was even picked.  It was imho a dumb choice.  There is even evidence That there are numerous ways to incorporate fruits into logos for software companies that don’t cause this problem.   
There is criticism of the way corporate law works in general and there is anti-Apple fanboiism. I’m not fond of the way corporate law is structured, but but most of the replies made about this had nothing to do with that.  There were also numerous flaws that didn’t show up till later.  Like the fact that the company in question is not primarily a “food company”.  They’re a software manufacturer. 

it doesn't matter that they are a software company, their product does not compete with any of apples products, neither conventionally or by any blurring of service lines.

 

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: thread annoyance

iirc you started this thread.  You’re annoyed that it was shown to have flaws?  I can see that being a normal response.  This is what happens  though.

I didn't start this thread, i simply pointed out the law wasn't as people believed it to be.  i.e there is no legal obligation for apple to sue.  

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

it doesn't matter that they are a software company, their product does not compete with any of apples products, neither conventionally or by any blurring of service lines.

 

I didn't start this thread, i simply pointed out the law wasn't as people believed it to be.  i.e there is no legal obligation for apple to sue.  

Re it doesn’t matter:

not impossible, but a blurry line.  The Apple stance about the watch app is the weakest part of that case.  Doesn’t affect whether of not Apple might be compelled to respond though.  It’s the similarity to the pear computing logo.

 

re didn’t Star the thread:

And you didn’t.  It apparently was @rcmaehl. I did not recall correctly.  Easy to look.  I should have. I must retract that statement.

 

Going another route while I think the issue with excessive power of corporate law is valid I’m not sure it is in this specific case, again because of the pear computing stuff.  In any case it was a thing that was predictable and could have been easily sidestepped if it was known of ahead of time which it should have been.  I don’t know if it was the owner trying to save a few bucks by not hiring a company to do a logo search, (in which case it would be them on the hook not her) or pure hubris.  Either way a poor choice. An accident of history perhaps but not a good test case I suspect. 

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

This ruling probably won't hold up in court. See A&H Sportswear v. victoria's secret

 

This case was disputing whether the swimsuit "miracle suit" swimsuit logo A&H had could be confused with victoria's secret had the "miracle Bra" product. A&H sued victoria's secret because both trademarks were seen to be similar. 

 

The case ended up being dismissed because "reverse confusion is not a distinct basis for a claim under the Lanham act". In other words, Victoria's Secret won (defendent) and A&H lost the case (plaintiff).

 

 

Now it should be noted Victoria's secret clarified their "miracle bra" had nothing to do with the "miracle suit" in the item description, but I think this is a close enough case to use this as precedent in court.

 

If I was an attorney hired by prepear, I would cite this very case in front of the districy attorney. Even better, this case was between two companies who both sold womens clothing. Prepear and Apple both sell very different products. 

 

Apples Lawyers know this will not hold up in court. They need to be doing this for a different reason. Maybe they're doing it purely for the "chilling effect" this will have on future companies wishing to use fruit in or as their logo.

The entirety of my argument is that there was a previous company with a nearly identical logo called pear computing that Apple did win against many years ago.  There were several logo attempts by pear computing that diverged further and further from the Apple logo.  There was an early one though that was for all intents and purposes identical. Might this also affect precedent?

[Heliian]

A great example in Canada is Moosehead Brewing.  They've successfully bound moose and beer together and you can't use the word moose in your beer.  However, if it's not beer then they can't.  Moose tracks Ice cream and moose droppings come to mind, not to mention many other moose themed products here in Canada. 

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

The entirety of my argument is that there was a previous company with a nearly identical logo called pear computing that Apple did win against many years ago.  There were several logo attempts by pear computing that diverged further and further from the Apple logo.  There was an early one though that was for all intents and purposes identical. Might this also affect precedent?

I really don't think using a different companies logo in a different field carries any weight in a legal dispute that does not involve that company.  Even though these large companies win (mostly out of court settlement because the small guy can't keep up),  there is still a lot of hurdles apple is going to have to jump if they want an court ruling.

8 minutes ago, Heliian said:

A great example in Canada is Moosehead Brewing.  They've successfully bound moose and beer together and you can't use the word moose in your beer.  However, if it's not beer then they can't.  Moose tracks Ice cream and moose droppings come to mind, not to mention many other moose themed products here in Canada. 

I agree with this comment for obvious reasons.  I am not associated with beer in many ways.

[Roswell]

I think if people actually checked this app out they would feel a lot less sympathetic towards them. They basically turned meal recipes and shopping lists into a F2P game riddled with micro transactions.

 

Want to access your shopping list or recipes? $60 for a year please! Want to view a recipe and ingredients AFTER YOU HAVE PAID $60?! That will be another $15 please!

 

Apparently if you want to view their “free” content, you need to go through endless scroller ad pages (wtf, why is this still a thing?) for minutes on end. They also block you from accessing ingredient lists for a recipe more than 3 times unless you cough up more money... This app is crazy predatory.

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I really don't think using a different companies logo in a different field carries any weight in a legal dispute that does not involve that company.  Even though these large companies win (mostly out of court settlement because the small guy can't keep up),  there is still a lot of hurdles apple is going to have to jump if they want an court ruling.

I agree with this comment for obvious reasons.  I am not associated with beer in many ways.

Does come down to the question of if it constitutes precedent, if it applies, and are they sufficiently related.   Neither my opinion or yours will affect that one.  The point that they are making an argument of application through their Apple Watch fitness software makes it breakable on that alone.  It sounded like @CircleTech might be able to weigh in on one of them anyway.  As to whether a court finds it does it doesn’t, We may find out.  We may not.

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

I think if people actually checked this app out they would feel a lot less sympathetic towards them. They basically turned meal recipes and shopping lists into a F2P game riddled with micro transactions.

 

Want to access your shopping list or recipes? $60 for a year please! Want to view a recipe and ingredients AFTER YOU HAVE PAID $60?! That will be another $15 please!

 

Apparently if you want to view their “free” content, you need to go through endless scroller ad pages (wtf, why is this still a thing?) for minutes on end. They also block you from accessing ingredient lists for a recipe more than 3 times unless you cough up more money... This app is crazy predatory.

Why should fair treatment under the law be dictated by how a person wants to make their product?  Last i checked none of those things are illegal or anti consumer. you are not forced to use it.