This is out of hand now: Apple attempts to trademark the LEAF
If you thought Apple patenting the rectangle was a gratuitous abuse of intellectual property, you may be pained to hear that Apple has now applied to trademark a leaf. Specifically, Apple wants to protect the leaf on its company logo. Apple applied for to the European Trademark Registry on 3 December, with the help of London …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: prior art
> It looks like a diagonal vulva.
Awesome.
I wonder how long it would take for Apple to drop a trademark that virally came to be known as that "vulval oval".
Re: prior art
They could use an iPad 1 week a month for that iSnatch or iTwat, a natural accessory (maybe Apple can patent the string?). But from what I hear, Tim Cook wouldn't be interested anyway.
Next step: sue God?
There are more apple leaves in nature than there are in Apple's marketing department. Presumably this application is simply to open the way for more litigation against whatever divine being was arrogant enough to "copy" Apple's design - though in real life, apple-tree leaves don't look much like the logo.
Re: Next step: sue God?
Well, if the application is granted they plan to clarify their position, devalue the leaf and, er... burn down all the forests. Seems to be a sensible move. Fiscally shrewd.
Damn, we so need a Douglas Adams icon.
Re: Next step: sue God?
<Joke>
Apple is bigger than God
</Joke>
Re: Next step: sue God?
If they were to find somewhere to serve the lawsuit I'd be impressed.
Re: Next step: sue God?
His or her representative on Earth - obviously. Follows competition to be recognised as the true representative by a Californian court.
Apple v The Pope. I wouldn't try that one. Stalin: "How many divisions has the Pope"? But the Catholic Church still looks healthier than the Soviet Union, despite everything.
Re: Next step: sue God?
@ Mr ChriZ
Re: <Joke>Apple is bigger than God</Joke>
Well, joking aside, you're actually right. Apple is bigger than God. So am I. So is an ant. So is an atom.
Anything that *actually exists* is physically bigger than God.
Re: Next step: sue God?
He'd be stuffed for legal representation if they did.
I suspect all the lawyers are somewhere else slightly warmer.
Re: Next step: sue God?
$DEITY may be at a disadvantage in this one as he/she has no access to lawyers.
<---- he/she has them all.
Re: @ Mr ChriZ
My joke was of course in relation to the famous John Lennon quote.
I'm for reference an atheist. However for purpose of scientific debate. Prove that God has no mass. :-P
Re: Next step: sue God?
>Damn, we so need a Douglas Adams icon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams#Technology_and_innovation
-from Wikipedia, though I got the same impressions from reading The Salmon of Doubt. Just saying.
Re: Next step: sue God?
No contest - God won't even bother to turn up.
@TeeCee
Well there is the old joke about the Pope passing to Heaven and being shown around.
After being shown to his palace in Heaven, he looked out the window, and saw another palace whose magnificence dwarfed his and all the other Popes.
"Surely that must be the palace of the Almighty Himself!", he cried.
"No," said Saint Peter,"a lawyer lives there."
The Pope was dumfounded. "Surely we Popes, that have dedicated our lives to God, deserve better than a mere lawyer!"
Saint Peter responded,"We have many Popes here, but there dwells the only lawyer in Heaven!"
If Apple sues, I hope he's a talented one as well.
Re: Next step: sue God?
God wouldn't have a chance of defending the case. All the lawyers are in the other place!
Re: @ Mr ChriZ
> My joke was of course in relation to the famous John Lennon quote
Pah, John Lennon copied it. It was originally from the great Imp Y Celyn, who described his band as "Bigger than cheeses".
Vic.
Re: Seriously....
I am so glad that this comment didnt get moderated, tried to post something similar a while back.
Re: Seriously....
Many of us came to that conclusion 20 years ago.
Well on the bright side....
"paper packaging for audio tapes"
Can't see much of an infringement happening there.
Re: Well on the bright side....
Maybe they are hoping to go back in time to the 80's and innovate cassette tapes.
On the other hand
Not nearly as bad as The Register trying to register "Register."
Oh, wait...
Re: On the other hand
On an ever so vaguely related note, anyone remember the "Aimster" farce?
Re: On the other hand
But if the R in a circle is short for REGISTERed trade mark, shouldn't that symbol have a little R in a circle next to it too...
and then shouldn't that little symbol have an R.....
Will the Register crash the internet with a stack-overflow with all those recursive ®s ?
... mine's the one with the rather large core-dump in the pocket.
Prior Art...
I think this looks like an alien eye - as on thousands of inflatable toys (of whatever colour).
Re: Prior Art...
AAARRRGGGHHHH!!! MY EYE! They've stolen my eye. It's ok, I'll just grow another one and set the one they stole to auto-destruct. You folks might want to stay clear of Cupertino for a bit. 120 miles should be far enough.
Jewellery?
A quick search shows lots and lots of prior art on "pointed oval" jewellery.
Intellectual property = vested interests = corruption
Essentially IP is being used to curtail everyone's freedoms.
The organisations designed to grant IP get paid more.,the more claims they accept, which means making as few rejections as possible.
Obviously this creates a conflict of interests. Trademarking a leaf is no different, in essence, from patenting software, there is an obvious pattern, and you stop other people from using it.
Software should never be patented, no more than mathematics or music should -that's the real scandal. But with trademarking a leaf, the craziness is just more obvious to the layman.
Re: Intellectual property = vested interests = corruption
Hold on, this 'leaf' looks less simple than an equilateral triangle... I haven't read any comments here having a go at Bass Brewery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_Brewery#Marketing
Maybe we need a Monty Python "A Plea for Peace and Tolerance (in a World of Fucking Loonies)" icon.
Re: Intellectual property = vested interests = corruption
It is widely stated that the Bass red triangle, a simple distinctive shape was so that the illiterate beer drinker could recognise Bass beer without needing to be able to read the label.
Is this new Apple leaf logo for a new generation of illiterates to go 'ooh shiny, shiny, want it... Want it'?
Re: Intellectual property = vested interests = corruption
It's a trademark, so it is *very* different from a patent. A patent can be used to prevent you from making something using the patented method, a trademark simply prevents you from selling something bearing the mark in the same industries for which it was registered. Pretty much the only reason to abuse a trademark is to pass off your goods as being made by the holder of the mark.
Conflating trademarks and patents? Do you actually understand the difference or did you just want to moan about patents and saw it was an Apple thread?
Re: Intellectual property = vested interests = corruption
Trademarks have a saving grace, they are industry specific. so if a beer company trademarks a shape,that shape can be used by the compuer industry and vice versa.
Patents are worse as they stop everybody!
Re: Intellectual property = vested interests = corruption
That's why the "banana benders" (Queenslanders) have beer called XXXX.
"The trademark application covers 10 classes of products including computers, jewellery, educational material, footwear, film streaming services and paper packaging for audio tapes."
I notice that you only name 6 classes of products, is one of the others for urine extraction plants?.
TM
TM is meaningless even in the USA you need R in a circle for Registered Trade mark.
TM means "we can't be arsed to register it properly or can't afford to either, but we're trying to scare you into thinking we have some control here"
Re: TM
Think of TM as a warning that the word/phrase/whathaveyou is being used as a trademark.
We defended a product name of ours that a US company was trying to register in the EU for a similar product by pointing out that ours had been in use in the UK for about 10 years and giving examples from trade publications.
The other company was a reputable one, they presumably hadn't bothered doing any research beyond a check of the registered trademarks. Having a TM on our product wouldn't have made any difference in this case but if ours had been the registered trademark their application would have stopped dead at the first filing.
Re: oh and
Anybody else sick and tired of these self-important pre-snipes against anyone who has the nerve to not like your comment?
Re: oh and
You mean the near pathological, if not pavlovian tendency some commentards have to hit the "dislike" button regardless of the sense a comment makes?
Well worth pre-sniping sometimes, although a separate post is somewhat overdone, I think.
Re: oh and
"Anybody else sick and tired of these self-important pre-snipes against anyone who has the nerve to not like your comment?"
Truthfully I don't care much for the red arrows or the green ones. If you all agreed with me then the world would be doomed, and if you all disagreed with me then the world would be screwed. Either way it's a steaming turd!
To be fair...
...they could be about to launch a new product or service, which they don't want to use the apple logo as its trade mark for, and therefore need to register a different trademark. Just as let's say any car-maker would trademark the model name of their brand new car.
Furthermore, I consider that "design patents" should be renamed.
Re: To be fair...
'...they could be about to launch a new product or service, which they don't want to use the apple logo as its trade mark for, and therefore need to register a different trademark. '
Apple's getting into the audio cassette market?
Oh for gawds sake
It's a bloody trademark. You can trademark anything you damned well want providing no-one is using a similar mark in any of the trade categories you are claiming. McDonalds have trademarked an M for the love of mike, and Blaupunkt have a blue circle. Prior art isn't important, just similar registered trademarks.
Re: Oh for gawds sake
But this isn't a trademark, this is part of a design. If anything is to be registered it is the design in its entirety which Apple already have done. Once you start breaking designs down into each simple shape it just makes a mockery of the whole thing.
Using your examples McDonalds do just use the M as a trademark in their advertising in a specific colour and font, Blaupunkt do not have a blue circle trademarked they have a blue circle followed by the company name in a specific font which they use and that is the trademark - the whole thing. Unless Apple are about to change their branding to the leaf then this is invalid.
Re: Oh for gawds sake
It IS indeed a Trademark, as the article notes, but you are right the entire design has to be considered. But companies can do have multiple trademarks for the various brands and distinctive characters/designs they use.
That said, trademark applications HAVE been rejected in the past if they're found to be too broad. Example: Thrifty Rental Car Co. attempted to apply for a Service Mark (a type of Trademark used in service industries--the UPS logo is a Service Mark) that simply described their vehicles and places of business as "being blue". It was rejected as too broad; they appealed the decision, but the rejection was upheld.
Re: Oh for gawds sake
Wrong, the OP was correct. IAAL and the fact is that this a TRADEMARK application. Prior art and design rights do not come into it.
You can (subject to some exceptions) trademark anything you like (even the colour Orange, or in theory the smell of cut grass), and the aim of the regime is to show origin of goods i.e. that goods with this logo on it originate from Apple. OK, we're all familiar with the bitten apple, but they may simply in future intend to use this 'leaf-like' mark on their products. If they don;t use it, then they lose it. However, the application is (or at least should be) for a limited range of goods, with which this TM will/should be associated.
If I want to market car parts, and Apple is not doing that, then I could use that (or a similar logo) without (too many) problems, unless I was of course trying to exploit Apple's trademarks for my own advantage by taking advantage of their brand, misleading the public and/or diluting their brand.
Again, this has nothing to with patents or designs (or burning down forests).
I do agree, however, that the US PATENT Office grants patents that it shouldn't (and that companies try to file patents when they shouldn't ad absurdum) - but then shout at the politicians making the rules that let them do it.
Re: Oh for gawds sake - @EyeCU
Does the screen grab not give you a clue? The bit which says "detailed trademark information"?
A company isn't limited to one and only one trademarked logo. They can trademark a logo for an individual product and range of products, which is what this looks like.
... or a red triangle.
It is still not a pretty sight to see a rich company fighting for market share by going nuclear on the fluffier aspects of IP law.
Re: Oh for gawds sake - @EyeCU
Well lets wait and see, will we
a: See Apple release a new line of products under the 'leaf' brand
b: Sue everybody using a similar shape in their logos
Given Apples track record my money is on B
This topic is closed for new posts.
