Apple Inc vs a small Restaurant from Luxembourg

http://www.williambrownstreet.net/blog/?p=374&

by littleiffel • 15 years ago

139 73 15 years ago

ajanuary• 15 years ago

Hey Apple, there's a shop near my parents simply called "Apple". It's logo is a picture of an apple. That seems a more likely candidate to go after.

padobson• 15 years ago

This article needs some citation to the lawsuit.

It's certainly appalling if true, and would be another example of big business putting a glass ceiling on independent entrepreneurship, but I would like to know the exact reason behind the lawsuit.

Given Apple's nature, I would be more apt to believe the story of Appleaday was using a hackintosh for their POS system.

kokey• 15 years ago

Actually, it happens quite often and not just with Apple. The mobile company, Orange, has been doing the same to companies with the name 'orange' in it. It normally starts with threatening letters from lawyers, where small companies often can't afford decent legal advice to defend themselves. Some yield, others put up a fight, but the aim is to reduce as many other companies using a similar name as far as possible.

It's strange that the best examples I know of are all the names of fruits.

Hopka• 15 years ago

Similar story with a small cafe in Germany:

http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/apple-wants-a-german-cafe...

I'm curious if more stories like this one pop up.

kitsune_• 15 years ago

I think this just shows how ridiculous the idea of a trade mark is when it comes to words in the dictionary.

darklajid5• 15 years ago

No, this is worse.

This is a (removedswearwords here) company that creates high tech gadgets under the brand (logo & name) of a fruit going after small totally unrelated businesses using that word _in the original meaning_, as - erm - reference to the fruit. You know, the one that existed before any of these companies were even started.

Bonus points for logos that are not even _close_ to the Apple logo (I could probably draw a badly damaged circle and would be nearly as close/similar). And one of the examples listed (the German thing) doesn't use the name 'Apple' (which might have some kind of protection, stupid or not) but the German 'Apfel' instead.

Maybe one needs to have deeper insights into trademark laws or general business practices, but for me this is the definition of bullshit.

IF we're missing something here I might need to apologize and revise my point, but even if you're calling your local restaurant 'somethingwithapple' and have gazillions of Apple gadgets inside (waiters with an iPhone/iPod POS system, cash registers with iMacs or whatever): There should be no way for Apple to ask for anything here. Apple (the word), as far as I am concerned, is public domain, old and has only a single proven meaning: Falls from trees, tastes good with chocolate or honey.

Retric• 15 years ago

Trademarks are fairly limited, but Apple does have a trademark for Apple Cafe not just Apple.

Cushman2• 15 years ago

The idea isn't ridiculous. You could even start a company called Apple Computers Inc if you could effectively make the case that consumers are not confusing you with the big Apple.

Now Apple is being ridiculous.

ghshephard2• 15 years ago

If your theory holds true, then why was Apple Corp able to win $500 million from Apple Inc? Do you really think there was anyone confusing the owners of the Beatle's Record Holdings?

miahi2• 15 years ago

Right now it would be easier to change the name of the fruit itself than change the way the money goes. Let's just call apples something else. And grow cubical ones. With no round corners, as Apple has patents on round corners.

This will also defend the farmers that grow apple trees, so they can still sell their products without telling everyone "No, I'm sorry, I don't sell phones, I sell apples. You know, the fruits. No, not silver, red fruits. No touchscreen."

program• 15 years ago

I've read this story back in May:

http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/news/luxembourg/story/La-pomme-d...

littleiffel2• 15 years ago

If i am informed correctly, the story came to Luxembourgish newpapers in May 2011

grigy• 15 years ago

I'm curious how Apple Inc. missed the AppleBee's restaurant chain.

sukuriant3• 15 years ago

The lawyers-with-too-much-time-on-their-hands probably go to AppleBee's sometimes and don't want that company to disappear.

Or, they don't think they could win that suit.

All in all, appauling.

littleiffel2• 15 years ago

There are hundreds of cafes called Apple, Big Apple, Red Apple...

There are cities beiing referred to as Big Apple...

bigiain• 15 years ago

Didn't Apple do this themselves back in the day?

Anyone else remember the story behind "sosumi"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

Joakal• 15 years ago

Does Apple Inc own the section of trademarks regarding food service?

sabret00the• 15 years ago

That's my query. I thought you could only sue if it infringes on your trademark in your particular field? They're going on like they want us to rename the fruit.

tintin• 15 years ago

Link is quoting from this article: http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/en/luxembourg/articles/2011/05/1...

Some people like to start a restaurant -> file the name 'AppleADay' -> name is approved -> they start the restaurant -> Apple files a complained about the name.

Seems like this is an automated action from Apple.

coob• 15 years ago

This is why Apple have a trademark on 'Apple Cafe':

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/06/03/from-a-parallel-universe-the-...

martinkallstrom6• 15 years ago

It is not Apple but the copyright system that is rotten to the core.

Copyright infringement requires the copyright holder to litigate to keep the copyright. If there is a preceding history of infringement that Apple knowingly ignores, there comes a day when a willful and harmful infringement cannot be stopped.

darklajid5• 15 years ago

- The common word 'apple' plus translations in every language ('Apfel')?

- A generic image of an apple? Using completely different colors, a wildly different style and lacking the 'missing bite' identification?

Humor me and do a google image search for 'still life apple' and tell me why not every one of those could be flagged as 'infringing' just as well?

martinkallstrom6• 15 years ago

It's seems many people don't understand how a market works. Companies are not evil for evil's sake, not even a company like Apple. Sending a cease and desist letter to a small restaurant is a cost that would be eliminated if it was possible without risking a much greater cost. Apple is not ignorant about the PR pitfalls either. They are forced to weigh risk vs risk and act accordingly.

Instead of coming to premature conclusions that border on delusion, we should ask ourselves what mechanisms exist in the market that forces a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate to go after a small restaurant.

Forget the notion that Apple or any company is doing stuff like this out of spite. That is a red herring. The system within which Apple and AppleADay are actors needs to be changed and situations like these are data on what is wrong with it.

mdc• 15 years ago

You mean trademark. Copyright doesn't work that way and is not relevant to this issue.

martinkallstrom6• 15 years ago

Thank you.

yaix2• 15 years ago

Why is this downvoted? Unfortunately its true.

rcfox• 15 years ago

No, it isn't.

schrototo• 15 years ago

Any time a story like this pops up, regardless of the company involved, I assume it's the fault of some overzealous subcontracted lawyers. I can't imagine any sane company executive approving something like this, since it makes absolutely no business sense. It only creates bad PR.

mishkovski• 15 years ago

Not closely related but this reminds me to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute

It's ridiculous.

notmuch• 15 years ago

Oh Hacker News, I see the balancing act, tit-for-tat.

Careful, approaching CNNness ...

tripzilch• 15 years ago

This is ridiculous. It'll never stick in Europe, either. To make a trademark claim you need to be operating in the same sort of market, and you really need to prove that this restaurant is profiting from the popularity of Apple's brand by people confusing their logo/brand with that of Apple.

The latter is a real requirement in trademark law. It might be worded slightly different in the specifics, cause it's been a few years since I learned about it.

Another requirement for maintaining your trademark, is that you spend reasonable effort to protect it. That is, you can't trademark some word or logo and do nothing with it, and then when some other company happens to use it, grows big, you can't suddenly jump out of the shadows and say HAHA! I TRADEMARKED THAT (yes, that is indeed quite the opposite from what those software patent trolls are doing, patent law is quite different from trademark law, even though they both fall under IP laws).

In some strange and twisted sense, Apple's lawyers might have gotten the idea that this is how they should be protecting the Apple brand. Except Apple is not in the restaurant business, nor does the general public associate their brand with restaurants in any sense, so that's that.

peyton• 15 years ago

Knowing little about trademark law, I'm wondering if you considered trademark dilution [1]. It appears to contradict most of what you've said, e.g. must operate in the same market and prove the offender is profiting.

The rules may be different for famous marks, and Apple's actions could make perfect sense.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

narcissus• 15 years ago

From the Wikipedia article: "Such trademarks would include instantly recognizable brand names, such as Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Kool-Aid, or Sony, and unique terms that were invented (such as Exxon) rather than surnames (such as Ford or Zamboni) or ordinary words in language."

So in this case, at least, I would think that 'Apple' is an 'ordinary word'.

pook1e• 15 years ago

Exactly. I'm not sure why Apple is going after small cafes now to protect it's trademark. This isn't the first time it has happened, either (as someone has pointed out below). I really don't see them gaining anything by winning this case, or losing anything by letting it go.

Interested to see how these turn out.

pflats• 15 years ago

I'm not sure how much this'd be important, but Apple (iTunes, really) has a presence in Starbucks stores. The lawyers might consider that enough to perk up their radar.

miahi2• 15 years ago

There is no Starbucks in Luxembourg, so it's not even a local presence.

antihero• 15 years ago

> . To make a trademark claim you need to be operating in the same sort of market, and you really need to prove that this restaurant is profiting from the popularity of Apple's brand by people confusing their logo/brand with that of Apple.

The restaurant will probably go bankrupt from legal fees before this can be thrown out in their favour?

eru4• 15 years ago

Slightly off-topic: Suppose they do go bankrupt, but somehow get some money to fight on (or sell the premises to get enough money to fight on) and win. Can they get compensation for the interruption of business?

GiraffeNecktie• 15 years ago

This is what happens when the legal department operates without adult supervision. Lawyers gone wild.

wenxin• 15 years ago

From my experience, Most of these legal attack were initialed by small - mid size law firms, they actually didn't received direct orders from Apple, but doing this to get paid by bill Apple legal department for their works. This is a ego system for those small firm even individuals to live with

westicle4• 15 years ago

I don't know what your experience is, but no.

As the legal holder of the trade mark, only Apple can bring/authorise someone to bring these proceedings.

Acting without explicit instructions, or representing that you are authorised to act for a party is a quick way for a lawyer/law firm to lose the right to be a lawyer/law firm.

abijlani• 15 years ago

Let's see go out of business or just change your name. Seems like a no-brainer to me

TDL• 15 years ago

The no-brainer is letting someone else define your marketing strategy & the name of your business?

If more small & mid-sized companies fought these silly claims there would be less of them.

yaix2• 15 years ago

Well, I am pretty sure soon we will have to rename the fruit.

Suggestions for a new name?

GreySyntax• 15 years ago

Not-a-banana-more-like-the-computer

sixtofour• 15 years ago

IANAL, and I realize this is probably laughable from an IP lawyer's point of view, but ...

Why can't OverbearingCompany send a letter stating something like we notice your logo or other IP is similar to ours. We recognize that we are in different businesses, and so we choose not to pursue this matter at this time, but we reserve the right to pursue any legal remedy at any time in the future that we determine your material to be infringing on ours.

That would demonstrate that OverbearingCompany is practicing all due care, yet doesn't waste OverbearingCompany's time and avoids potential destruction of SmallUnderdog.

As things are, the mere existence of large, overbearing companies causes accidental and sometimes catastrophic injury to the small and cuddlies of the world. Is that really what IP lawyers dreamed of doing when they were kids?

mikeryan• 15 years ago

From a legal perspective this would actually be worse then doing nothing. You've now recognized a mark which "might" infringe and tacitly given your approval of such a mark. In a later trademark case (with a new third party) the third party would go "look OverbearingCo you were okay with these guys!".

OverbearingCo is better off doing nothing at all, and claiming they never knew about the infringing work.

nextparadigms• 15 years ago

It seems Apple enjoys digging themselves into a PR hole with all these ridiculous lawsuits. A lot of negativity can destroy a man, and it can destroy a company, too. I think they should focus on the positive and constructive things, especially now that Steve is gone, rather than pursue this path.

drcube• 15 years ago

This is the same Apple that was sued by Apple Music (the Beatles' record company) and promised not to enter the music business. Then came itunes, and Apple Computers was rich enough to settle with Apple Music for millions.

Maybe this "appleaday" restaurant could promise Apple they won't enter the consumer electronics market, and then just do whatever the hell they want anyway.

ghshephard2• 15 years ago

In Walter Issacson's Book, Apple Inc paid Apple Corp $500 million dollars for the worldwide rights to the "Apple" name, and then licensed it back to Apple Corp. When you invest 1/2 Billion dollars in a name, you want to make sure you don't lose rights to it by not defending your trademark.

noonespecial• 15 years ago

Big companies should have a "chief legal officer" position. This guy is not a lawyer, but the overseer of the lawyers. His primary function is to decide when its in the company's best interest to pursue legal action and when they'll simply make an ass of themselves on the world stage.

Too often lawyers confuse what they legally can do with what is in their company's best interest to actually do. Sometimes the best legal action is not the best action.

bryze• 15 years ago

My thoughts exactly. Companies might choose as this CLO someone with considerable PR experience. Lawyers, almost by definition alone, lack this experience.

shimon_e• 15 years ago

If your company can not created enough work for you. Then you create enough work for yourself. You need to justify your pay check to the company somehow.

ck2• 15 years ago

Amazon has sued (and won) against business that were around well before them and didn't sell books, using the name Amazon.

The Olympics has also sued and won against places that were around before them (the modern olympics) that use Olympic in any part of their name.

There is little reality or fairness in trademark law apparently.

anamax• 15 years ago

> The Olympics has also sued and won against places that were around before them (the modern olympics) that use Olympic in any part of their name.

A large part of that is because various govts give "Olympics" special treatment via explicit legislation.

Govts do this because failure to do so makes the IOC angry. Since Olympic venues lose money, IOC anger should be seen as a good thing but politicians benefit from pissing away money on hosting an Olympics so ...

dustingetz• 15 years ago

i can't help but think that, due to the current legal climate, a company has to actively defend their trademarks to establish precedents for future lawsuits. i speculate that apple does not see a threat in the Apple-a-day restaurant, but feels it is strategically to their advantage to go through the motions in court. i speculate that apple doesn't care about the outcome of this lawsuit.

kingsidharth• 15 years ago

An empty mind is devil's workshop. And a jobless attorney dept. is... well... they do this.

Apple Inc vs a small Restaurant from Luxembourg

Related Stories