Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Threatens Bistro Over "AppleADay" Name

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-our-name-out-of-your-mouth dept.

The Courts 301

itwbennett writes "In today's edition of David v. Goliath, Apple lawyers have sent cease and desist letters to a tiny health food restaurant in Luxembourg named AppleADay. For their part, the owners of AppleADay, with help from a lawerly friend, have promised that they would continue to sell only food, not computers. Of course, Apple knows as well as anyone that promises are made to be broken, having famously promised Apple Corps, the Beatles' production company, they would never get into the music business."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They should change their name (5, Funny)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940724)

...to iAppleADay

Why are they such assholes? (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940728)

I mean, NOBODY is going to confuse them for the Apple Store. This is just petty.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940744)

Better watch out, I hear your local grocery store has hundreds if not thousands of violators out back...

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940760)

Because when they were younger, they were the revolutionaries bucking the system. There is nothing more fascist than an old man who was a young revolutionary.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (-1, Offtopic)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941178)

There is nothing more fascist than an old man who was a young revolutionary.

And there is nothing more progressive and radical than the conservative young man whose eyes are opened.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940770)

This is what happens when overpaid patent lawyers sit around and have nothing to do. They're acting busy by going out and sending out C&D orders to random people.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (4, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940786)

Trademark lawyer, not patent lawyer.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940890)

This is a trademark issue, not a patent issue. Trademark owners have to defend it or risk losing it.

That, of course, won't stop the Slashdotters from freaking out over nothing. Notice the article was submitted by the ITWorld author who wrote it. He knew exactly what he was doing and how this readership would react. It's all about page views. This story isn't even new; it dates back to late August.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940990)

This is a trademark issue, not a patent issue. Trademark owners have to defend it or risk losing it.

That, of course, won't stop the Slashdotters from freaking out over nothing. Notice the article was submitted by the ITWorld author who wrote it. He knew exactly what he was doing and how this readership would react. It's all about page views. This story isn't even new; it dates back to late August.

Name and logo, have you looked, are not very close.

This is a very big stretch of "confusion" concern.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (2)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941096)

Wouldn't you only have to defend it in the same industry the trademark is registered in? Unless Apple has a registered trademark in the food service industry (or whatever it's classified as) I can't see how the would risk loosing their trademark. By this logic they need to sue AppleBees as well.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941152)

freaking out over nothing

So nothing happened? And the fact that they have to try to appear to be defending their trademarks by law doesn't mean that people have to agree with that law (or their actions). You just end up with things like this that a lot of people don't seem to agree with.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941058)

This is what happens when overpaid patent lawyers sit around and have nothing to do. They're acting busy by going out and sending out C&D orders to random people.

Dumb comments like these are exactly why people shouldn't assume that they're educated on a topic just because they read Slashdot headlines.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940780)

New York better watch out for an infringement lawsuit, too. :p

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940784)

Why?
Because they can be!

Re:Why are they such assholes? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940796)

I know... and you're not going to hear too many apple fans backing this action up either. I happen to know the saying "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" (the saying this shops derives its name) predates the birth of both of Apple's original creators... possibly by more than 100 years. The lawyers who signed their names to any papers associated with this frivolous and aggressive C&D need to have their credentials reviewed.

I think it is more than reasonable to presume that somewhere along the line, they are more than aware of the history of this common saying and could never in good faith believe this to be an infringement of any kind against the Apple trademark.

What's more, I think it's about time someone pulled a "Lindows" and filed to have Apple's trademark revoked. It wouldn't be hard to argue that Apple is a "common word" and cannot be trademarked. They seriously need to eat the shit they serve up.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940894)

The lawyers who signed their names to any papers associated with this frivolous and aggressive C&D need to have their credentials reviewed.

Man, I hate such lawyers as much as every other decent person... but in this case, isn't it someone in Apple's management that hired them? That's the guy (or girl) who needs a little attitude adjustment on the head, and who's responsible for this PR fiasco.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940808)

I hope the owners of the restaurant stand their ground and take the case to the courts. nevertheless this case is a pretty good advertisement for their business

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941106)

The story is 6 months old [lesoir.be] and there have been no updates from Appleaday since though there's been plenty of news stories about it. A good advertisement you say, hmmm.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (5, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940814)

Just because Steve Jobs is dead doesn't mean Apple is all out of assholes.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940864)

Mod parent up! Could not agree more...

Re:Why are they such assholes? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940908)

"apple: an asshole a day ruins computing in every way"

go ahead apple, sue my ass. you can have all my savings, all $103.53 worth.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941164)

I'm sure they'd take it.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940854)

They're not "assholes." They have to exert effort in defending their trademark or risk losing it.

Notice the submitter is the very ITWorld article who wrote the article. He submitted it to Slashdot knowing a "David v. Goliath" story would rile up the readers and generate posts exactly like yours.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940874)

very ITWorld article who wrote the article

Whoops. ITWorld author.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940900)

They're not "assholes." They have to exert effort in defending their trademark or risk losing it.

This is not true in this context. They only have to defend it where relevant. Going after a tiny health food restaurant is not, unless Apple have plans to enter into that market.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940986)

I'm fairly sure the word "apple" won't be a defensible trademark in the food trade.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940940)

This misinformation is trotted out every time a ridiculous trademark C&D is published in the media. While it is true that a company has a duty to defend it's trademark, it is not true that a company has a duty to do so frivolously against non-infringing cases. In other words, the law does not require trademark holders to be bullies and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (5, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940960)

Yes, trademarks must be defended, but this is not an instance of that because Apple's trademark doesn't cover bistros.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941002)

He submitted it to /. knowing he makes money from page hits. "coondoggie" over at Network World is another Roland Piquapaille wannabe too.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

wygit (696674) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941006)

The fact that ITWorld submitted it somehow excuses Apple's asshole behavior?
Nobody can use "An Apple A Day" anymore?

Just because they stole their trademark from the Beatles and got away with it, (with the promise that they would not use it for music), it's theirs now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi [wikipedia.org]

My Gawd, fanbois will stop at nothing to defend any slight against their precious church.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941070)

The fact that ITWorld submitted it somehow excuses Apple's asshole behavior?
Nobody can use "An Apple A Day" anymore?

I don't think anyone said that.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941150)

Just because they stole their trademark from the Beatles and got away with it, (with the promise that they would not use it for music), it's theirs now?

Apple Inc. paid Apple Corps about a nine digit sum for ownership of all of Apple Corps' trademarks, so it seems you are talking out of your arse.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941036)

Hmm, I have reason to believe you're one of the assholes who goes around moding down every comment you can find that's even slightly against Apple. I see it by the way you're defending them even when they are obviously being assholes, as in RIAA suing Girl Scouts level of asshole and your friend/enemy structure.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

jiteo (964572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940994)

Their products have to come out of somewhere...

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941010)

I mean, NOBODY is going to confuse them for the Apple Store. This is just petty.

I'm only going by American trademark law here, but, no, this has nothing to do with people confusing them with the Apple Store. They have to pursue these matters to maintain their trademark.

That said, where you could nail Apple on this is that the store only sells food. The only reason I can imagine that Apple'd even try this is if they intend to sell food at their stores... which actually was a rumor that popped up recently.

In short, I agree that it's petty, just nitpicking the details a little.

Re:Why are they such assholes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941012)

The phrase An Apple a Day has been around far longer than Apple COmputer has!
Next thing you know, Apple will sue doctors for using the phrase, and heck why not the entire apple industry - watch out, you'll have to change the name of the fruit to something else!

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

gerddie (173963) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941118)

Some judge probably will. Remember Obelix versus MobiliX [tuxmobil.org] ?

Re:Why are they such assholes? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941136)

Johnny Appleseed better get his ass overseas pronto...

This just in! (5, Funny)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940738)

Apple sues Mother Nature for making a fruit with the same name.

Re:This just in! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940778)

I'm putting my money on Apple, Mother Nature's screwed. No more apples for us :(

Re:This just in! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940804)

I'm putting my money on Apple, Mother Nature's screwed. No more apples for us :(

Mother Nature is, if nothing else, tenacious. She'll simply rename Poo as Apples and Apples as Poo.

"How ya like your new iPood?"

Re:This just in! (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940860)

Mother Nature has this one covered. They're to be called the non-citrtussy-roundish-things-that-are-great-at-keeping-doctors-away, N-CRT-TAGA-KDA for short, and will be sold by The Pirate Party for a small fee.

Re:This just in! (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940842)

Next in line: Oracle sues Mother Nature for making a star named Sun.

Re:This just in! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941078)

Next in line: Oracle sues Mother Nature for making a star named Sun.

Larry Ellison is rumored to be working on a time machine, so he can go back to Delphi, about 2,800 years ago, to sue Apollo for speaking through an unauthorised Oracle (without a licence, no less!)

Apollo is rumored to have been preparing a strong defence, including a handful of lightning bolts, and his own attorneys, those failing.

In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940884)

Orchard owners instructed to cut down apple trees [wikipedia.org] .
Overcoat [wikipedia.org] suppliers feel the breeze.
Hi-Fi [wikipedia.org] manufacturers silenced.

removes tongue from cheek

Perhaps the New Management (iManage?) worry that Jobs will come back to haunt them if they don't continue to act like assholes?

Re:This just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941124)

Of course. Clearly they were invented by Steve Jobs first.

This is what happens... (1)

cocoamag (2500098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940748)

when lawyers have too much time on their hands.

Re:This is what happens... (4, Funny)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940830)

This is what happens when lawyers have too much time on their hands.

Yes. Clearly, the optimal solution is to remove lawyers' hands at once.

Re:This is what happens... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941028)

the problem is a lawyers hands is the least dangerous part of their body.

cutting out their tongue is a much better solution.

Re:This is what happens... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940876)

when lawyers have too much time on their hands.

Time on their hands? I thought they would be busy with Google/Android?

Though I'm certain a tiny little bistro couldn't hope to hold out in the long run, there's always that David vs. Goliath thing which grabs attention.

Is AppleHole a word yet? (5, Funny)

glowimperial (705397) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940754)

Because if not, it should be.

And tomorrow on News Hour with Fluffeh... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940756)

Apple lawyers contact a farmer in Texas about his infringement for having "Apples" on his inventory when they have exclusive distribution rights.

In related news, Apple contacted the Indian government about possible product dilution of their Siri software. Although even Apple had to admit that a Sari wasn't exactly the same pronounciation, they requested that the garment be renamed to something that wouldn't be so close to stave off any possible trouble down the line.

Thanks for watching, enjoy the movie...

Re:And tomorrow on News Hour with Fluffeh... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940892)

I'd suggest you put that on ICHC with Chemistry Cat reading it as a news bulletin, but I might get sued by The Onion for patent infringement on Over-Satirizing the point.

Re:And tomorrow on News Hour with Fluffeh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940934)

They also tried to force a ban on naming their women Siri.

Re:And tomorrow on News Hour with Fluffeh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941218)

If it was a farmer in texas he would be using the broken texas courts to sue apple for using that name when he trademarked it back in 76' and never told anyone.

Upset about commentary... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940774)

Maybe they're just pissed that someone is referring to the reliability and longevity of their PowerPC and Performa lines from back in the day...

At least they didn't name the restaurant "Road Apples [lowendmac.com] "...

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940776)

iDontGiveAShit

They have to (5, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940782)

First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo [macgeneration.com] .

Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.

Re:They have to (5, Insightful)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940870)

To my untrained eye, I have a hard time seeing how they could sue over the logo. It looks nothing like the Apple Computer, Inc. logo! I realize your intentions were to attempt to absolve Apple of wrongdoing, but I think that link has succeeded in helping me decide that this suit is/was even more petty than I gleaned from TFA.

Yes, there's the issue of trademark dilution, but I think this is far beyond ridiculous.

Re:They have to (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940878)

no one REASONABLE would think that's an apple computer co logo.

sorry, but this does not fit reasonable defense definition.

suing over that logo is a joke, in itself.

my boycott of apple still stands. stuff like this only causes me to dig in even further.

Re:They have to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940910)

That looks nothing like the Apple logo, if anything Innocent Smoothies [innocentdrinks.co.uk] might have something to say.

Re:They have to (1)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940930)

That changes nothing. It's still just a f$#king apple that looks nothing like the computer company's logo. It isn't even bitten!

Re:They have to (5, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940944)

Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo

It looks like...a drawing of an apple. Hard to depict an apple without it looking like an apple.
But there are significant differences. Hollow, 2 leaves on top, no bite out of the right side, different color.

Re:They have to (1)

baresi (950718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940964)

The issue is those who are supposedly riled up should and must be riled up on the other points you bring up (court allowing things, etc.) too. So your point while not invalid is not valid either ;)

Re:They have to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940998)

First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo [macgeneration.com] .

So Apple is threatening the small bistro over a logo is not even similar to the Apple logo? This violation is only perceived by Apple's lawyers. No consumer is going to mistake the bistro for being tied at all to Apple, especially since Apple pastes their logo on everything.

Re:They have to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941020)

That logo looks nothing like Apple Computer logo. The shape is different, there is no byte missing, it is an outline rather than solid.

The only similarity is that both logos represent apples. (the fruit, not the gear made by the litigious bastards) Which makes sense, since both companies have "apple" in the name.

On what planet could the restaurant logo be perceived as infringing on the computer company's logo. That's right, only on the planet where a computer company controls all rights to a type of fruit and the letter "i"

Re:They have to (0)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941040)

Idiotic comments like this are the reason you got hellbanned on HN.

Re:They have to (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941060)

'Cepting that a health food shop is not in competition with a computer and phone designer and seller (do they make them? I'm not sure). And so there is no trademark problem. The logo is obviously distinct, so they also can't get them for copyright.

Trademarks are not for all possible businesses. I could make a line of computers and call it Coca Cola, and so long as I didn't use the same logo or a similar logo, there is nothing much the drinks company can do (well, they can threaten, but would probably lose any civil case, unless they actually make computers...). I probably wouldn't be on the right side of the law if I start a restaurant named Coca Cola, even if I don't use the same logo etc., as the drinks company does probably make food.

Also, they don't have to enforce jack shit. They can give a license to the trademark, the same way that Second Life gave a website a license. Unfortunately, it seems taht First Life is offline, but another website saved the relevant text [schwimmerlegal.com] . I'll quote the most of the letter here:

This notice is provided on behalf of Linden Research, Inc. (“Linden Lab”), the owner of trademark, copyright and other intellectual property rights in and to the “Second Life” product and service offering, including the “eye-in-hand” logo for Second Life and the website maintained at http://secondlife.com/. It has come to our attention that the website located at http://www.getafirstlife.com/ purports to appropriate certain trade dress and marks associated with Second Life and owned by Linden Lab. That website currently includes a link in the bottom right-hand corner for “Comments or cease and desist letters.”
As you must be aware, the Copyright Act (Title 17, U.S. Code) contains provisions regarding the doctrine of “fair use” of copyrighted materials (Section 107 of the Act). Although lesser known and lesser recognized by trademark owners, the Lanham Act (Title 15, Chapter 22, U.S. Code) protecting trademarks is also limited by a judicial doctrine of fair use of trademarks. Determining whether or not a particular use constitutes fair use typically involves a multi-factor analysis that is often highly complex and frustratingly indeterminate; however a use constituting parody can be a somewhat simpler analysis, even where such parody involves a fairly extensive use of the original work.
We do not believe that reasonable people would argue as to whether the website located at http://www.getafirstlife.com/ constitutes parody – it clearly is. Linden Lab is well known among its customers and in the general business community as a company with enlightened and well-informed views regarding intellectual property rights, including the fair use doctrine, open source licensing, and other principles that support creativity and self-expression. We know parody when we see it.
Moreover, Linden Lab objects to any implication that it would employ lawyers incapable of distinguishing such obvious parody. Indeed, any competent attorney is well aware that the outcome of sending a cease-and-desist letter regarding a parody is only to draw more attention to such parody, and to invite public scorn and ridicule of the humor-impaired legal counsel. Linden Lab is well-known for having strict hiring standards, including a requirement for having a sense of humor, from which our lawyers receive no exception.
In conclusion, your invitation to submit a cease-and-desist letter is hereby rejected.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is possible that your use of the modified eye-in-hand logo for Second Life, even as parody, requires license from Linden Lab, especially with respect to your sale of goods with the parody mark at http://www.cafepress.com/getafirstlife/. Linden Lab hereby grants you a nonexclusive, nontransferable, nonsublicenseable, revocable, limited license to use the modified eye-in-hand logo (as displayed on http://www.getafirstlife.com/ as of January 21, 2007) to identify only your goods and/or services that are sold at http://www.cafepress.com/getafirstlife/. This license may be modified, addended, or revoked at any time by Linden Lab in its sole discretion.

Re:They have to (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941120)

Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it.

So where's the lawsuit against Applebee's [yourlogoresources.com] since that apple looks a lot more like Apple (Inc.)'s logo [wikimedia.org] than AppleADay's logo?

Re:They have to (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941206)

So where's the lawsuit against Applebee's [yourlogoresources.com] since that apple looks a lot more like Apple (Inc.)'s logo [wikimedia.org] than AppleADay's logo?

This. I was fastforwarding through commercials on my DVR the other day, and I thought I saw an add containing a burning Apple logo.

It was the Applebee's logo.

So, where's the lawsuit against Applebee's, Apple? If you just glance at them, they really do look identical.

Re:They have to (3, Informative)

neo00 (1667377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941130)

Applebee's [applebees.com] logo is an apple, too. Their name contains an "apple". And they sell food just like AppleADay. Under the same logic, they have to threaten Applebee's too?!

Re:They have to (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941134)

First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo [macgeneration.com] .

Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.

This keeps coming up in defense of Apple every time, and it is completely untrue in context like this. Apple have to defend their trademark within the business they operate in, but there is no need going after tiny healtfood companies. Apple is significantly more litigation happy than most companies, and far more than they "need" to be.

Re:They have to (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941138)

Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it.

You are right about this, but surely they'd be exempt from this just on the grounds that this a restaurant.

If only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940790)

Steve took Apple with him. Yes, I am serious.

I despise (the company) Apple in every sense of the word.
They are slowly turning in to huge IP trolls.
I mean, damn it, THEY LIED IN COURT AND STILL GOT AWAY WITH IT. WHY DID THAT EVEN HAPPEN?
WHY IS IT STILL HAPPENING? APPLE LIED, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

This is not only retarded, but a step too far.
I hope the judge forces Apple to pay up. Hopefully they aren't as retarded as the ones who awarded Apple the win against Samsung for using a BASIC SHAPE and ONLY POSSIBLE LOOK EVER.

Re:If only... (2)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940880)

Not quite fair.
Apple became the IP trolls during the last few years of Steve running it. Probably coinciding with his realization that he really screwed up when he put his faith in non scientific medicine, and effectively sentenced himself to a slow disgraceful death.
He were incapable of blaming himself, so he had to take out his newfound level of hatred and self-loathing on everybody else.

Re:If only... (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940948)

Oh, and maybe the judge had an iPad, and had been infected with the dreaded disease "pomum ipodus fanboyus maximus", thus been rendered incapable of perceiving Apple as having done anything wrong.

Class of Service (2)

jmactacular (1755734) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940818)

When you register a trademark, you have to select which class(es) of service the goods or services your company sells should cover. This seems to imply to me that a trademark only covers those classes of service, so unless Apple Inc registered their trademark for selling actual fruit, I don't understand how this works under the law. Why even have classes of service if company's are going to claim trademark infringement willy nilly on any classes of service, even ones they don't offer?

Apple - Aren't they a fruit company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940820)

Green Grocers should sue Apple as they could be easily confused with a fruit company. Something horticultural anyway as they seem to be producing an awesome amount of fertiliser atm.

Apple is untrademarkable for food .... except ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940828)

Apple was trademarkable because it was being applied to computers and other consumer electronics and not to a business selling fruits. This is the basis for the Trademark being distinct and being granted a registration. The interesting legal question: having once been granted this Trademark on this determination and established a brand following. Can such a Trademark now be used as an offensive tool against a company which sells fruits or their close relative food using the theory of dilution of the mark. Dilution of a mark was a crazy idea in 1920s. Now it's the law.

Trademarks (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940832)

I'm a bit confused, I thought trademark law were pretty cut and dry when it came to names. That as long as the products or businesses are in different markets, there can not be a case.

YUO FAIL IT! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940838)

Counselor, counsel thy client! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940844)

Maybe someone should advise Apple that being seen as a bully is not very fashionable.

AppleADay Inc. (1)

Mullen (14656) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940846)

You never know, that small business in Luxemburg just might transform itself to the largest corporation in the world. I think Apple is just hedging it bets on this one.

Re:AppleADay Inc. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941086)

That's as silly an idea as a wood products company turning into one of the world's largest sellers of mobile phones (until recently, that is).

go right ahead... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37940912)

Keep on buying those new iShiny devices. Because supporting evil companies is a fine thing to do and has no social ramifications whatsoever.

so why has apple not sued apple orchards and picki (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940922)

so why has apple not sued apple orchards and picking places as well?

Slow newsday ? (5, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940926)

Orignal story dates from the 5th of may [lesoir.be] (6 month old stories now Slashdot, really ?) There was a flurry of news reporting and no updates since then, not even on their Facebook page [facebook.com] where the restaurant gleefully displayed its new found notoriety. So I'm guessing it turned out to be very much a non-story played up for advertising value.

Just an idea (1)

captinkid (1224428) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940946)

Maybe executions for the losing party (and their lawyers) in any frivolous lawsuit will fix the problem. With the additional requirement that the wealthier party has to spend as little on lawyers as the poorest party involved.

Yay (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#37940954)

The spirit of Steve Jobs lives on.

The New Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941000)

And by "new," I mean "going on 4 years now." The motto is apparently "yesterday's news today."

It sounds silly, and like a lost cause... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941026)

...but if there's any truth to the argument, here must be some reason--perhaps something to do with local laws in Luxembourg--that is motivating Apple to do this. A simple search on Google shows that there are dozens of businesses even here in the states named "Apple A Day [something]", and unless Apple is planning on suing them, this random lawsuit makes little enough sense that there must be something that we're not aware of.

It's happened before, though. Some time back, I remember reading an article about a restaurant run by a woman whose first name was Sony (probably short for something, but that's what she'd gone by her whole life), which restaurant was named "Sony's". I think it was in San Jose, California. Anyway, they were sued by the Japanese consumer electronics mega corp. I don't know how it turned out. Who knows? Maybe the real reason they were being sued was because they were playing music from the Sony catalog without paying royalties. Probably not, though, as I think that ASCAP are the ones that go after those things.

Point being, I'm intrigued and would love to see more of the actual facts, since I can't think of a single good reason that Apple would even consider providing such wonderful flame bait for their detractors. Also: I can't wait to see the NMA adaptation of this.

My guess: Steve Jobs once had a bad coffee at the place, and his will included them as a target for retribution along with 600 other companies against which he had an un-settled grudge at the time of his passing. Insane? Yes. But at least it would be internally consistent.

What!? Apple is a greedy company? (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941056)

I thought Jobs "thought different" and Apple should be worshiped!

Re:What!? Apple is a greedy company? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941154)

I thought Jobs "thought different" and Apple should be worshiped!

Apple, Inc. (formerly Apple Computer) is not thinking much different from most idiotic practices of idiotic companies.

I expect, as the article doesn't delve into anything much presently going on, from the Apple, Inc., end there may have been a "whoa, there, pard!" issued from Cupertino to the feisty lawyers. Crush a hapless little bistro and you may find riots in front of Apple Stores across Europe - not the kind of "ooo, shiny!" they're going for.

An APPLE A DAY keeps the doctor away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941108)

Apple doesn't own an apple trademark, it licenses a 2D multi-colored graphical apple with a bite taken out of it for its logo. Apples have been growing on trees for how many eons? Apple actually infringed on a well known source of vitamin C that humans and animals have been growing and harvesting since the earth was inhabitable. They took that name without asking me for one. When it all comes down to it, I'm siding with an apple I can actually eat. Good luck with that (in Luxemburg) No, just kidding.. Good luck to the eatery (bistro).

Luxemburg or Belgium ? (1)

wimg (300673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941140)

Seems like that's another journalist who needs to take geography classes... first he talks about a company from Luxemburg, then he says it's located in Belgium... quite a difference !

Speaking of Apples twisted logic... (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941162)

There's serious talk now of them manufacturing a TV. Now if they do, they'll be entering a market dominated by the very competitor it just tried to stifle using its infamous "round corners" look and feel argument, and it even bullied a few weaker governments into banning their products - of course this competitor being Samsung. Now, lets think this through a moment - Apple want to make TV's. So, lets hope they make something other than a large 42" thin black rectangle which shows TV pictures, because that's exactly what Samsung have been making for years. Or if they do, what are the chances of those same governments applying their look and feel logic as before?

Apple Sauce? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941180)

Apple sauce? Can't have that... too close to Apple Source Code.
Apple tart? Too easily confused with Apple Smart Cover.
Apple seed? Too close to Apple I.D.s
Apple Pie? Too close to Apple Ipad.

What about just an Apple please? See you in court Granny Smith!

Apple Arrogance (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37941220)

Apple's arrogance knows no bounds. They begin to think that they own everything apple. How long before you need a license from them to have an apple tree in your back yard? Especially McIntosh apples?

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37941242)

How Microsoft-y of them
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?