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

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

it looked pretty “shouldy” to me.   Just because you don’t believe it’s a “should” thing doesn’t mean it isn’t one.  I can’t remember if you actually used the word “should” or not. Synonyms perhaps. 
 

 

When I used the term "should" or synonyms of it, I meant in the way that the law is pretty clear but not absolute because if you have more money you can push harder, so they "should" not have to face litigation, however they likely will because worst case scenario and apple know prepear will run out of money first.

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You’re going for that Apple Watch link. I don’t know anything about Apple Watch software or what constitutes a similarity requirement.  If I was the prePear lawyer it’s one of the things I would want to know.  It smells to me like a weak link.  Doesn’t mean Apple didn’t have to at least try to bring the suit though.  Pear computing thing again. 

I pointed to that because apple specifically used it in their opposition to the trademark as being their "big" investment into brand value in health products.  It is literally one of the products they are pitting against this app as being "identical" or "highly relational".   This is the confusing thing to me, it seems to have everyone scratching their heads saying there is no similarity other than the word healthy.  Apple have a product that measure and reports heart rate,  apple makes apps centered around their smart watch that they hope the medical establishment will start using,  prepear has a food menu and recipe app.

 

I fear the outcome of this is not going to be justice served,  (even if people think prepear deserve the karma).

 

 

[Bombastinator]

Re: should

yes exactly.  And you did it again. 
 

re: watch thing.

“One of” there are more?  
 

Dieticians work in hospitals.  Go be fat as a hospital inpatient and they show up like booties with rubber grips on the bottom. If the app does dietician stuff they may have an angle. 

[Video Beagle]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.

They're getting fair treatment. They filed a trademark. Apple has issued an opposition to it. They answer the points of the opposition. A judge decides if their answers are valid.   This is how the process works, for big companies and for little ones.

 

This isn't a lawsuit. It's pro forma bureaucratic wrangling. It's filling out forms.

Lawsuits happen where there's a violation.

[Video Beagle]

3 hours ago, AndreiArgeanu said:

they're not suing Nickelodeon for literally making iphone, macbook and MacOS copies in iCarly, with a very similar logo of a pear.

Uhm...you know the pear stuff in Nickelodeon shows aren't real, right?  There were no products made..no phones, no computers...it was fiction. THAT's a MAJOR FACTOR.

 

Also, they weren't used in trade...as in TRADEMARK. As in selling stuff because of it.

 

Here's an easy example to clarify this. Both Marvel and DC have characters named "Captain Marvel". That's fine. 

However, Marvel owns the Trademark on the name, so only Marvel can use it as a title of a comic or a movie. Thus the DC Captain Marvel gets comics and movies using the name Shazam. (They eventually just changed the characters name to make it easier on the general public, but they haven't been overly conistent with that).

 

The pear stuff in tv _could_ be seen as violating Apple's copyrights, but that gets iffy between real things and fictional, copyrights, unlike trademarks, don't have to be defended, and copyright has parody exemptions (exemptions is the wrong word, but it's 4:30am and I can't think of the right one, but close enough for this thread) that would cover it.

 

IF the nick shows had their apple-esque stuff start killing people, though, you can bet some lawyers would have perked up.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Video Beagle said:

They're getting fair treatment. They filed a trademark. Apple has issued an opposition to it. They answer the points of the opposition. A judge decides if their answers are valid.   This is how the process works, for big companies and for little ones.

 

This isn't a lawsuit. It's pro forma bureaucratic wrangling. It's filling out forms.

Lawsuits happen where there's a violation.

There are two discussion happening at once in this thread, one pertains to apples current actions, the other pertains to the concept of apples ability to take this further should they want to.  Besides that, you are arguing that the outcome will be fair and equitable because the process is.  That is not always the case.

 

But the last sentence of yours,  "lawsuits happen when there's a violation", is only half the story.  sometimes lawsuits happen when there is a violation, sometimes lawsuits happen when no violation occurred,  sometimes they happen because a company thinks they can use the IP system to force a market advantage that they couldn't get through fair trade.   Saying "lawsuits happen when there's a violation" is kinda moot, because it insinuates if there is no lawsuit unless there is a violation. 

 

 

[Video Beagle]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Saying "lawsuits happen when there's a violation" is kinda moot, because it insinuates if there is no lawsuit unless there is a violation. 

I begin to think you're being deliberitly obtuse due to your well recorded dislike of Apple.

 

When a lawsuit is filed, they are claiming a violation. Whether real or imagined, that's the claim.  A lawsuit is a claim of wrong doing. A trial determines if there was such a wrong doing.

 

This is not a claim. This is not a lawsuit. This is an opposition. THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS. You file for a trademark, there's a period of time oppositions can be filed, then it goes to the next step.

 

Now, and this part is only my speculation, this is a pro forma opposition.  When companies are playing hardball with this stuff, they file for extensions to the opposition period.

 

It's good you want to "stick up for the little guy", but right now, the little guy is complaining they're being mistreated, when they're being treated perfectly fair.

[Blademaster91]

What a frivolous lawsuit, Prepear's trademark of a pear looks completely different than an apple,and being a food company they have nothing to with Apple.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

I begin to think you're being deliberitly obtuse due to your well recorded dislike of Apple.

no, I am trying to be specific,  what I think of apple is irrelevant.

 

Quote

When a lawsuit is filed, they are claiming a violation. Whether real or imagined, that's the claim.  A lawsuit is a claim of wrong doing. A trial determines if there was such a wrong doing.

You said "when lawsuits happen there's a violation" not "when lawsuits happen there is a claim of a violation".  There is a very distinct difference between "a violation" and "a claim of a violation"  yours was an absolute claim it happened, the other is an accusation it happened.

 

Quote

This is not a claim. This is not a lawsuit. This is an opposition. THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS. You file for a trademark, there's a period of time oppositions can be filed, then it goes to the next step.

We know that, I already explained there are two discussion happening in this thread, one is about the opposing of the the trademark and the other is regarding lawsuits of this nature from large corporations.

 

 

[Windows7ge]

If that's not the spitting definition of petty I don't know what is.

 

I understand trademarks but Apple doesn't have the right to fruit as a whole. I never heard them going after Fruit of the Loom the underwear manufacturer. Hey, they use an Apple right in the middle of their logo. Jeez.

 

But TBH this doesn't surprise me. Apple pulls one extreme stunt after another it's always something with them.

[startrek03]

Completely aside the fact, that prepear doesn't compete with Apple in any way, the design of the logo is not only pretty different, but it's also a different fruit. Hilarious.

[startrek03]

On 8/12/2020 at 6:12 AM, Windows7ge said:

If that's not the spitting definition of petty I don't know what is.

 

I understand trademarks but Apple doesn't have the right to fruit as a whole. I never heard them going after Fruit of the Loom the underwear manufacturer. Hey, they use an Apple right in the middle of their logo. Jeez.

 

But TBH this doesn't surprise me. Apple pulls one extreme stunt after another it's always something with them.

Exactly, an Apple isn't something you should be able to trademark. It's not your invention. Apple didn't create the Apple. It was a tree and we humans make images of apples. If you try to trademark a specific apple drawing for only a specific market, like for example computing devices and their own apps, that might be alright. But if they try to say that they're the only ones who are allowed to use Apples or any related fruits in logos as a whole, that's just horrendous...

[Lord Vile]

Just now, startrek03 said:

Exactly, an Apple isn't something you should be able to trademark. It's not your invention. Apple didn't create the Apple. It was a tree and we humans make images of apples. If you try to trademark a specific apple drawing for only a specific market, like for example computing devices and their own apps, that might be alright. But if they try to say that they're the only ones who are allowed to use Apples or any related fruits in logos as a whole, that's just horrendous...

Think it’s more the “minimalist design”

with a leaf and the fact they’re making software too. 

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, startrek03 said:

Exactly, an Apple isn't something you should be able to trademark. It's not your invention. Apple didn't create the Apple. It was a tree and we humans make images of apples. If you try to trademark a specific apple drawing for only a specific market, like for example computing devices and their own apps, that might be alright. But if they try to say that they're the only ones who are allowed to use Apples or any related fruits in logos as a whole, that's just horrendous...

Good thing it apparently didn’t happen. 

[startrek03]

1 minute ago, Lord Vile said:

Think it’s more the “minimalist design”

with a leaf and the fact they’re making software too. 

To me that's just outrageous, that somebody thinks he could claim such simple stuff.

Apple doesn't compete as a food delivery service. Therefore there's no direct competition between Apple and prepear.

[Lord Vile]

5 minutes ago, startrek03 said:

To me that's just outrageous, that somebody thinks he could claim such simple stuff.

Apple doesn't compete as a food delivery service. Therefore there's no direct competition between Apple and prepear.

It’s all technicalities and if Apple doesn’t contest this it could bite them in the arse on a case that does matter. Doesn’t matter if they win just filing the paperwork could help them. 

[sub68]

I don't see a difference the prepaers company has a green logo that is not filled in

they might argue about the top thing in the logo but I don't see it

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, sub68 said:

I don't see a difference the prepaers company has a green logo that is not filled in

they might argue about the top thing in the logo but I don't see it

I remember following that pear computing thing many many years go.  So long ago I was reading in magazines rather than online. I wanted to buy a Mac and I had high hopes (they might not have even been called pear computing btw.  The whole memory set is old) their first logo was shot down almost immediately.  I don’t remember if I was the hollow pear or not. If that one wasn’t the hollow pear was the next attempt.  Or maybe the one after that.  There were a bunch.  All I remember is that the hollow pear was early in the cycle.  Designs even less similar were also shot down.  They kept coming up with design after design.  They eventually got one that worked but it took so long their computers weren’t cutting edge anymore and they failed.  Iirc there was much argument about leaf shape and placement towards the end.