back to article iPhone baby clothes shop mauled by Apple

Not content with firing patent suits at tech rivals, Apple's lawyers have forced a baby clothes retailer to halt sales of items styled on the iPod and iPhone user interfaces and icons. The US giant is fiercely protective of its brand image, having spent millions of dollars on marketing its kit to shiny loving IT professionals …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anomalous Cowturd
    Joke

    But do they come with...

    A mute button?

    1. Arctic fox
      Happy

      Well, I'm hoping they come with a free bumper.

      To ensure that any dropped babies are protected from the consequences of parents holding them the wrong way.

  2. Randolf McKinley

    Just stomping on bad taste ...

    Gotta admire Apple for stomping on bad taste when it sees it!

  3. technohead95
    FAIL

    Hardly surprising

    This is hardly surprising coming from Apple. They're the same company who brought a law case for a paper notepad that resembled an iPhone design on the grounds that their consumers may get confused with the branding.

    If Apple think their customers could get confused between an over priced mobile phone and a $2 paper notepad then what does this say about the average intelligence of their customers??

    Sent from my Android mobile :-)

  4. Lockwood

    I don't want to live on this planet any more

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Mind if I join you?

      Pretty much fed up with the "human" race myself, if this is what it is coming to.

      Dressing your children in clothes that look like cell phones? How utterly brain-dead can people be? Very...apparently.

  5. Eponymous Cowherd
    Thumb Down

    Shiny loving IT professionals?

    ***"having spent millions of dollars on marketing its kit to shiny loving IT professionals"***

    Well, that's money wasted, isn't it?

    Most of the IT pros I know are fairly immune to marketing bullshit, tending to make their own mind up by reading specs, reviews, etc.

    1. ChrisB 2

      ROFL.

      You'd think, but you'd be so very wrong. Some of the people I know who are the most susceptible to any advertsing/marketing are also the most intelligent and otherwise hard-nosed business people. Some of them work in IT.

      1. Eponymous Cowherd

        I was referring to.....

        IT *professionals*, not IT "managers", who are a different kettle of fish, entirely, most of whom have trouble tying their own shoelaces.

  6. NoneSuch
    Devil

    "Rather than forcing the retailer to bin the iOS garb, surely Apple execs should be encouraging hapless parents to indoctrinate their children in the ergonomic designs of its iToys before they can even talk?"

    Correct, but only after Apple receives their standard 30% cut. THAT is why they are objecting.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ....

    "i _Who's_ Baby?"

  8. Sean Baggaley 1
    Mushroom

    This is about copyright, not patents.

    The accused's mocked-up "iPhone" image does at least look different enough that it probably shouldn't be considered infringement, but that "iPod click wheel" T-shirt design is just a blatant rip-off of the original and certainly *does* fall under copyright infringement. Frankly, it's surprising they got away with it for even this long.

    "ipopmybaby.com" don't have a legal leg to stand on and completely deserve this. What the hell were they thinking? Apple have _never_ made any secret of their intentions to protect their brands and designs.

    @technohead95, etc.: seriously? You're calling _Apple_ out? Copyright laws exist for a reason. You don't get to blame Apple for using them in cases like these, when the infringement is so bloody blatant.

    Why The Register even thinks this is news escapes me: it's just Apple doing what it is legally obligated to do by US IP laws. It's not as if they have any real choice.

  9. LarsG

    IT SERVES THEM RIGHT.....

    EXPLOITING apple owners with children.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Endless Apple Bashing

    "iPhone baby clothes shop mauled by Apple: Cupertino misses opportunity to condition kids"

    Seriously El Reg the anti-Apple thing is getting old. I'd cancel my subscription, if I had one.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Avoiding lawsuits

    I think Apple just wants to avoid any left-handed parents from death gripping their infants.

  12. Armando 123

    Hard to sympathize with clothing folks

    Let me get this straight. Apple has copyrights all over their image, they pursue violators aggressively, and you still go ahead anyway? Huh.

  13. sueme2
    Happy

    ynot

    Why not then, make Android baby gear? Why not make a "Samsung 10.1" style range? Just triangulate the corners so your baby doesn't get all confused.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I suppose before we bitch about Apple in this instance we should spare a moment to consider what would happen if someone tried to sell outfits with the olympic rings, fifa logo's or man united logos on them without paying your dues.

    1. BongoJoe

      I suppose

      that they would be cheaper and, perhaps, better made.

      Anyone who buys anything just because it has a logo on is deserving to be parted from their money.

      Whatever happened to clothes which just looked like clothes and not an advertising billboard?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      not quite the same

      whereas the stripey apple logo is certainly protected, as is e.g. the olympic logo.

      I doubt that a photo of an olympic athlete on the podium with the logo showing would be considered an infringement but on the podium without the logo would get laughed out of court. That's a closer analogy to what Apple's up to this time.

      I would at this point attach a photo on my wall light switch but as the design is property of MK electrical, subsidiary of Honeywell, maybe best not...

  15. Darryl

    Missed opportunity? I think not. I think Apple would just prefer you skip over the baby clothes and buy your little rugrat an iPad

  16. Head
    Thumb Up

    Hmmm

    Where's the IE logo bib? :D

  17. Lars Silver badge
    Pint

    I suppose

    The bigger the company the more lawyers. I suppose they are going to look for bitten apples in the market next.

  18. Justin Bennett
    FAIL

    If

    I'm no fan of Apple whatsoever, but if they didn't defend (attack) this violation, then they'd have less legal legs to stand on for a proper issue (whinging about Samsung et al).

    So they've got to pursue it or lose their rights, which would be rather funny.

    Still, crap clothes for moronic parents, good job they're going!

  19. Drakkenson

    But why...

    Why would anyone want to dress up their baby as a phone? This is what I cannot understand. Apple are dicks, so at least they are not doing something new, but dressing up babies as a phone??

  20. Purlieu

    Copyright ?

    If you actually take the trouble to look at these baby clothes, the link was provided, you'll be hard pushed to find an Apple logo, which is the trademarked thing here (NOT copyright). Simply having an image of a smartphone on the t-shirt, or as in most cases, a generic mp3 player control dial, how does that offend Apple ?

    Shrugs ....

    1. Sean Baggaley 1
      FAIL

      There's nothing 'generic' about that iPod click wheel graphic.

      It's a flagrant copyright violation—yes, that click wheel image DOES fall under copyright. It's a graphic image _Apple_ created.

      The Apple logo's trademark status is utterly irrelevant. This is not about a trademark violation. (And trademark status is independent from copyright status anyway. Copyright is *automatic*. You don't have to apply or register a damned thing.)

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    iCried

    or

    iPooed

    or for larger babies:

    iShitMyself

  22. KrisM
    Black Helicopters

    I hope The Reg got some commission on this article - all the offending baby clothes have now sold out!

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019