Apple takes legal action against small company with pear logo
iphoneincanada.ca
iphoneincanada.ca
https://breue.com/twitter https://breue.com/86851616.pdf
I was working on a project called Scoper, which let you do video streaming. It had done fairly well at SXSW, and we had a decent amount of users. Just before we thought we were gonna be awarded a trademark for the name, we got a not so friendly letter from Twitter's counsel at Fenwick and West, telling us we were infringing on their "Periscope" brand, and listing some pretty clear demands. We never really thought of our app as a competitor to Periscope.
Our lawyer let us know that they had no strong grounds against us, but would drain us in a legal battle we could never afford. We told Twitter we knew they had weak grounds and that the case would just drag on, and we would rather save both sides money, if they would just buy us out.
They gave us a super low amount of money to drop the trademark application, transfer the domain, all brand related stuff, and remove our app from the App Store. It was kinda depressing, but it could have been a worse outcome.
To be fair, this wasn't outrageous like this pear logo case, but it was just a feeling of being bullied and knowing you don't stand a chance.
Can someone explain how does that work?
He’s asking for someone to explain how the legal system allows a big business to force a smaller business to spend money on legal fees.
Also, how do other countries protect the little guy from frivolous lawsuits?
There is also a limit in discovery, so you can't drag court cases on forever as you want.
So even if you, as a small SMB, get sued by Twitter, and you only bring your off-the-street lawyer and Twitter brings their 12-headed star team of lawyers, you won't pay more than double your lawyer's bill if you loose in terms of legal fees.
Even if it had, you'd still have to manage to stay afloat all the way to the verdict. It wouldn't be hard for powerful entities to let the process drag long enough to sink you in fees, even if you could hope to get it all back eventually.
And that would be a very risky bet too, would you bet a few millions against a, say, 95% chance that you'll get that pear logo or that "scoper" trademark? That's a 5% chance of losing and going bankrupt.
The only solution is for the process itself to be cheaper. The system shouldn't allow big players to bully small ones.
After all with the current system if it goes to court Apple/Twitter will probably have to pay a few millions for their own legal fees. Having them reimburse the other party if it goes all the way and they lose will make it even more expensive, but I don't know if it'll be enough to really change their mentality.
(if that's not obvious, I'm not from the US btw)
Not to mention your own time likely being better spent elsewhere.
Having the most money is pretty much the only thing that matters here.
The other party should make the case that I infringed on their rights. If I'm sure I'm in the clear, why do I have to move even just my pinky finger? What fees do I have to pay? I don't care about the process, don't want to submit anything. Is there a fee for getting sued?
As far as I understand, the problem in America is that nonaction is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. But "actions" often cost money, or can only be legally performed by lawyers who take insane hourly wages. Crazy system.
They’re like a tax paid by every person or company with a significant sum of money in America. Doesn’t matter if they’re right or wrong, grounds or no grounds, there will still be a team of lawyers on your side taking your money to “defend” you.
Does your lawyer’s $20,000 motion really have any chance of succeeding? Did he really have to pay that company $12,000 to convert all your files to TIFFs? Did he really spend 16 hours on that letter, or does he have 95% of it saved in a template somewhere?
At first you’re happy to have lawyers on your side. But eventually you realize even the ones defending you are in on the same game, and are just there to rob you.
Don’t ever tell anyone you have money or that your company is successful.
However, your statement is a dangerous one. It's a ludicrous thought to try to run a company of any size/complexity without at least occasional legal support. As expensive as lawyers can be, trying to navigate legal obligations & requirements without counsel can be disastrously more expensive.
As with anything, it comes down to who you hire and for what purpose. With your mention of motions and such it seems you're mostly talking about litigation. Yeah, litigation can be extremely expensive and there are absolutely firms that appear to want to drag out cases to charge more fees. A lot of this is a problem more with our civil legal system here in the US (civil as in civil vs. criminal, not civil vs. common law). Litigation has become nearly pay-to-win -- but a lot of the fault for that can be laid at the feet of megacorps and tort """reform""".
So yes, litigation can be eye-wateringly expensive. But the best way to avoid litigation is to judiciously use the services of legal professionals. This may shock you, but the vast majority of lawyers are in it for nothing more than a 9-5 career and out of the satisfaction of navigating tricky situations, and the vast majority of lawyers in the US make significantly under six figures -- which doesn't go very far when paired with shocking student loan burdens.
So by all means, avoid keeping megafirms on retainer. They certainly have motivations to find work for themselves.
But luckily, there's a fairly good alternative -- in-house counsel. If your lawyer is on your payroll, they have zero incentive to do anything extraneous. Furthermore, you can rely upon them to keep an eye on any additional outside counsel you may need -- to tip you off if they think you're being charged for make-work. If you can't afford the payroll hit of in-house (which does not have to be enormous, we're talking in the 70k - 110k range for a good, experienced counsel), then seek out recs for smaller firms with track records of representing small businesses.
I know this comment has come across as defensive, but trust me, I have nothing to be defensive over. I left the profession for good reasons and have nothing positive to say (and plenty negative) about what we call biglaw. I guess it's just the vestigial shell of a lawyer still living inside of me that cringes whenever I see someone strongly recommending businesses avoid legal representation. It's just asking for disaster.
> But luckily, there's a fairly good alternative -- in-house counsel. If your lawyer is on your payroll, they have zero incentive to do anything extraneous.
This sounds like a good way for companies to mitigate the issue of perverse incentives, but how can individuals benefit from this?
You can do it, though.
For example, in breue's case he had enough money for lawyers, but pretend it was the same scenario only breue was an 18yo still living with his parents (who are not wealthy theoretically)
Does the judge just blindly believe everything Twitter says since they have lawyers?
After I filed my response denying all allegations, they blinked and we made a small change to the description of the trademark. (Something that I had offered them from the beginning).
From my perspective the worst that could happen is I would get to the point where I needed a lawyer (actual discovery) and could determine if it was necessary to continue.
Filing an answer to an opposition is not difficult and a little online searching goes a long way to help you avoid making mistakes answering the opposition suit.
They may seem to have unlimited resources, but a legal dept doesn't actually have a bottomless budget, and it has to demonstrate ROI to the CFO's office.
Many attorneys you might consult won't realize this, because they can't conceive of a scenario where you don't need maximal legal representation. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like... :-)
There already is one, it's called hourly billing. You come up with a reasonable plan, and you decide when to call it quits later if the bill gets too high.
I think that's incredibly unlikely, (in the US legal system there isn't a lot of cost shifting for trademark suits) but if you assume that the person responding to the lawsuit doesn't know what they're doing, then I can't rule it out.
Edit: The downside is that it would also prevent poor plaintiffs from suing richer ones. But that is already generally the case. It's probably best to judge on a case by case basis.
Alternatively, you could cap the amount the looser pays to what they themselves payed, devising some sort of scheme to prevent exploits around lawyer-on-retainer/permanently-hired-lawyer on a large-entity's side.
But as with you, it wasn't worth the fight. We got a cheap legal aid person to draft a letter saying we thought they didn't have a case but we'd play along if they covered our fees for renaming the business and updating stationery/website/etc. In the end it worked out OK and the business was renamed. I think she made a slight profit if you don't factor in the stress.
This is a clear failure of our justice system.
I remember reading about a culture in east asia or the pacific where farmers did not have written contracts and usually had very little problems. Everyone knew what was expected and fell in line. If a farmer were to break with the norm, I am sure it would have resulted in them being ostracized.
I hope one day we expect more from each other, and expect more from ourselves.
Extraordinarily lax antitrust laws (in both Republican and Democratic administrations, you'd expect the Dems to be tougher on this but follow the money trail and it's simple to see why), a general disdain for shareholder activism, and corporate culture in all of the aforementioned companies prioritizing the needs of advertisers over the needs of the end user.
> The media we are sold and consume should reflect what is important to us. If cases like this were blasted across the twitter verse and people actually cared, it would stop
I would have agreed with you fifteen, maybe ten years ago. The point of no return has been passed. Apple and Amazon alone are worth enough combined for public opinion to matter nil in terms of their actual business practices. They could suffer millions of dollars in bad press and shareholders would continue to invest and consumers would continue to buy product. Look at TSLA as a fantastic example -- Elon consistently sticks his foot in his mouth and makes a mockery of himself but TSLA short sellers continue to lose big time.
The only solution at this point in my view is a fundamental overhaul of antitrust law and safeguards to ensure competition in cutting edge industries, and collectivization of essentials like public internet and public utilities so the profit incentive doesn't get in the way of service. We're already seeing how terrible the outcome is with the Post Office, we don't need any additional privatization in the world of tech.
The postal service is not private in any way shape or form.
So I have to work 9 hour days, come home and cook dinner, do family time, put kids to bed and then go shame random corporations for not following the spirit of the law?
I think that’s unreasonable. Ain’t nobody got time for that, and we have a lot of people who can get paid to do that if we just change the laws.
Dead simple : don't buy Apple at all and every time you can, explain why you don't and don't spend time explaining "how good Apple is a t anything". That single action wipes anything good they could do.
And whenever someone sends you a link to a tweet , tell them... ?
Dead simple?
I think it'd encourage companies to only sue, if the expected value from winning, was large in comparison to one's litigation costs times two.
Which seems ok to me
Tricky case where both sides have a legitimate reason to believe they are in the right - no costs awarded. Borderline barratry - full costs awarded.
One FAANG sues another - full costs awarded to the winner. Owner of a small corner shop wins against a FAANG - full costs. Other way round, no costs.
Also to set appropriate levels on what costs can be awarded (kinda like the German model). You want to spend 10M on suing a street market stallholder? Knock yourself out, costs awarded = 10k.
This makes big cos more risk averse - not a win, but likely no different in practice to the current US litigation landscape.
But it also makes them consider their relationship with Rest of World more carefully.
On top of that the burden should be made equal by having the CEO participate when I am forced to, or to personally discusd with their lawyers.
In other words, a trial should be for the company a similar pain in the ass as it is for me.
The problem is the justice system accept this behaviour. We can not and should not depends on the public opinion in general to determine injustices to happen. That's why we have a justice system after all.
Judges already have the ability to throw out a case of it has no merit. Why are obvious cases like this possible is a question I'd like an answer to.
We already depend on public opinion in general to determine criminal Justice norms. In place of apple put a prosecutor, in place of pear company put suspect. Every single one of us commits infractions every day we exist in the USA. Protectors use prosecutorial discretion. They do not charge us for every single crime that has technically been committed, because the populace would be up in arms and the prosector would lose their job. Each plaintiff is like a prosecutor. They should be beholden to popular opinion, and that opinion should be that behavior like this should be unacceptable.
Justice cannot behold on popular opinion at all. There is a reason for 'her' to be a blindfolded lady.
If 'every single of you are committing infractions everyday as you exist in USA' and black represents 40% of male prison population while are just 12% of the whole population and while black youth comprise 14% of the national youth population, 43% of boys and 34% of girls in juvenile facilities are Black, we could easily conclude that this system is highly unfair.
Note: while writing this comment it got my attention that in my mother language the words for justice and fairness are the same.
This is still nasty for the less advantaged individuals when faced with a claim that could lead to, say, a $10k maximum fee, but for smaller businesses any reasonable claim amount is still affordable and the "drain the other party's legal funds" tactic is practically outlawed.
It is also ultimately the profound failure of society.
http://bgbg.blogspot.com/2002/08/zillegalities.html
I created a groupware platform Officezilla (have since sold the domain). Almost as soon as I registered the domain the GodZilla trademark holders lawyers sent me a letter. I sent them a letter letting them know I appreciate their concern and to take a hike, never heard from them again.
Toho Company, Ltd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 654 F.2d 788, 790-94 is precedent. Courts have to follow it and lawyers know it. You don't even need a lawyer to send Twitter packing.
https://thehftguy.com/2020/08/03/amazon-blatantly-taking-ove...
Maybe there needs to be some sort of a collective trademark ownership org small projects and sites could go to, which wouldn't sue somebody proactively for i.e naming their GitHub repo similarly, but would come up when legal at these large companies was running the name of their new product past existing trademarks.
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-...
The trademark codeguru is not deposited by anybody, neither CodeGuru nor Amazon did their homework. Anyway the 20 years of usage should have precedence over just depositing a trademark.
You'd still run the risk of Amazon just not looking it up or caring, but the legal grounds would be much more on your side, abet I agree that 20 year precedence should be strong enough in itself.
That's fair. However a few hundred dollars could still be quite a lot. Especially for a small website or an open-source project where this could be basically all their donations.
In codeguru.com's case however, I'd grant you that they probably did have a decent enough income to afford a trademark registration, just maybe not when they started and by now it really wasn't on anyone's mind.
So, this doesn't seem like a good advise to me for that context -
>Major lesson here, if you run a major site in the US and did not deposit the name (maybe it grew organically over the years?), now is a good time to do it.
Can AWS trademark CodeGuru now? I don't think it will be able to do so with basic prior art rules as actual MS CodeGuru has supposedly existed for over 20 years dealing with programming but different core purpose than AWS CodeGuru.
So, I don't think the suggestion to trademark our existing product name in fear of a monolith taking it over seems absurd. Trademark/Patents doesn't automatically provide justice, like any other legal affair it's the 'power' to enforce that TM/Patent via a court that counts and the monolith always has more power[1].
What needs to be done here is changes to trademark/patent laws and justice system which doesn't automatically put those without money at disadvantage like the 5 member meal planner company having pear logo just because I think Apple wants to put in their own meal planner app.
[1]https://hitstartup.com/myths-about-patents-and-trademarks-in...
s/but would/but that he would/
FTFY
I'd have taken the money, and then not done anything.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II_series#Clones :
> Another European Apple II clone was the Pearcom Pear II, which was larger as the original as it sported not eight but fourteen expansion slots. It also had a numerical keypad. Pearcom initially used a pear shaped rainbow logo, but stopped after Apple threatened to take legal action.
Here's one of their ads:
https://www.apple2history.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/pea...
In that case, the situation was much clearer, though. The product was a clone of an Apple computer, so no question they are in the same market. Also, Pearcom's pear logo had a rainbow color scheme like the Apple logo did.
But I agree, some teams take it too far.
It is hard to fight a legal case against an opponent with infinite money.
Perhaps courts should impose spending caps similarly to some sports leagues.
This also applies to criminal cases filed by government lawyers, who file many more lawsuits, with far harsher results than Apple. If this lawsuit is problematic (and I would agree that it is), government prosecutions are much worse.
That said, the overwhelming majority of defendants chose not to defend themselves.
I’m not arguing that that is sufficient at all, I’m just ignorant of the basics. My understanding is for criminal cases, you can opt for a free public defender, but not for civil cases. Or am I incorrect?
I was surprised when the public defender ran circles around the prosecutor. It was actually the prosecutor who I had some sympathy for. She seemed overworked and unprepared.
Albeit it was a big case for the city, so I assume the public defenders office decided it was a case worth winning, but damn, that changed my opinion of public defenders.
Not claiming all public defenders are that good. Just that I was surprised.
Maybe the offending characteristic of this is the leaf. But really is Apple Inc. seriously complaining that a Pear is similar to an Apple?
Unfortunately, they will still win this legal fight anyway.
...
Going to need you to get your things and come with me.
But also as another commenter said I think/hope Deadmau5 v Disney comes up in arguments because I agree: this is seriously petty of Apple’s legal team but I’d love to read their actual complaint if anyone finds it (personal pet peeve of mine when outlets report on “someone is taking legal action against someone else” with nothing but a few quotes and statements from someone party to the action. Could we at least see the demand letter?)
Edit: found the prosecution history here https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87315348&caseType=SERIAL_...
Of all the things the U.S. legal system got wrong, I think not following the English rule of attorneys' fees was one of the biggest mistakes. If plaintiffs had to pay for the defendant's legal fees, and vice versa, should the opposing party win their case, large corporations might think twice about making spurious legal claims.
How much of a chilling effect is there on people suing big corps? Is that less necessary because of better consumer protection?
I'm well aware that companies need to defend their trademarks legally, or risk losing them, so in most cases like this the company is just following the law.
But it always relies on a certain level of consumer confusion, e.g. that some demonstrable percent of consumers see the logo/name and genuinely assume it to be associated with the opposing company.
But "Pear" has zero confusion with "Apple", and the logo is likewise completely different.
Companies generally do their best to NOT pay their lawyers to do frivolous things, because there are more important things to be paying their lawyers to do, and companies aren't charities.
So since Apple has no legal necessity to go after Pear here in order to protect their trademark, and they clearly have no business interest in harming a meal planning app since Apple's not in that business...
...what gives? Why is Apple spending money on this? Apple's a business. What's the business incentive?
How far they go from there depends on how strong their mark is and how strong they feel they have a case to successfully oppose you.
It costs very little to initiate an opposition just a little bit of time and $500. Many trademark filers drop the trademark at this first stage.
(IANAL)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
Could you quote the USC and maybe the principle caselaw on this?
AFAICT it's false.
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/BasicFac...
USPTO is largely a negotiating, registration and notification apparatus. It has no ability to enforce your trademark beyond what you are willing to do. See page 9 of this USPTO document. It is expected that you will do all the legwork to defend and determine your ownership of a trademark.
If you do not, your trademark could be eroded or infringed and left undefended long enough the infringer could potentially file opposition if their use of your mark exceeds your own.
Apple is opposing a company in the food industry using a logo resembling a piece of fruit. It can't get any crazier than this.
Yes, it's a stretch but likely by registering its objecting to the trademark application (with the USPTO granting this trademark anyway), Apple can ensure that down the road there is no risk of the company (or any other company) being able to justify entering Apple's trademark turf.
[1] https://cdn.iphoneincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/pre...
Could you source this. It's a common belief that seems false.
You pay your fees to keep a trademark.
Genericisation is also a risk and that needs some defence.
They're not even using the Apple trademark, so the "defence is required" argument (even if true) doesn't appear relevant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_rights
What if John Deere sued Merrill Lynch? Both are using ruminants on their logos. Is it a failure to defend for Deere to not sue? Come on.
1: https://dw.com/en/german-café-owner-takes-on-apple-and-wins/...
It would have to feel like you have no compassion or empathy in your body whatsoever.
Tim Cook directs these people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
(tl;dr: Apple Corps sued Apple and settled, with Apple promising not to enter the music business under the Apple brand. Then Apple entered the music business in a big way a few decades later, Corps sued again, and lost.)
Currently it looks like you're stripping that information and replacing it with an id.
You could even do something that I did about 7 years ago that people hated for a reason I still do not know and I abandoned, which is if a url is just an id then you create a stub from the document title and use that in your url structure instead. Then it communicates the purpose of the content in those cases as well. Here's the code https://github.com/kristopolous/linkgo.es
This came to mind since neither the story or petition has a screenshot of a threatening email or letter from Apple.
Edit: Appears Apple is opposing it. Found this by trawling around myself: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91254886&pty=OPP
You can start there and find links to download the legal letters from Apple.
Or that they are using the fact that they are being sued to raise their own profile? The second is clear, but it's probably their best play - when life gives you lemons and all that. I don't see what that has to do with threatening emails though.
Every time I've seen a story like this, it's accompanied by excerpts or screenshots of letters, emails, or court docs...or at least short quotes. I suppose in this case, the relevant text from Apple challenging the trademark is what you would expect to see.
Edit: Okay, I found the dispute by trawling records myself. Appears apple is disputing it: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91254886&pty=OPP
You can follow the links to find various documents from Apple.
I've actually been in court and it has never been an expensive experience.
I suppose from one comment I read that patent law is different, and you have to actively defend your patent, but I see this theme in many different types of cases; for instance someone starting directing a documentary about something someone didn't like attention drawn to. How can this possibly be expensive to defend.
You could say that plaintiff has to pay for a crap lawyer for other side (there are complicated consequences, makes it harder for the little guy to access the legal system, etc). Or you could say the state has to provide one always (if the state pays for my doctor [i am not an american] than its in theory possible for them to do this.
Whether or not they should is a different question.
Not saying that it should be done, but implementing it seems straightforward.
If the state wants to throw you in jail, you get a free lawyer.
If some random person alleges you harmed them snd they want you to stop and reimburse them for the harm you caused them, you pay for a lawyer
Ianal
[0] https://www.pcworld.com/article/262202/apple_vs_a_pl_tech_co...
(Anywhere where I can read about the outcome? The article doesn't seem to mention)
Arguably they sue small businesses to create an environment in which you're afraid to do anything close to Apple's actual IP; small businesses are probably just collateral to them.
It's easy to bully others when one expects no retaliation.
This instance, however, falls far outside that area.
I can understand why big companies do it, they want to protect their brand and make sure they are the only ones who are associated with any words remotely close. As a business, it makes sense. But then again, for the rest of us, it's really weird that one company want to own a fruit, and another a house animal.
Could it be that trademark system, when establish, simply did not see this coming? What's a good solution, from a legal perspective, something that gives companies a way to defend their brand, but within "reasonable" powers, where simply gobbling all words in the space is probably no longer reasonable?
Was this PR hit worth it?
Hey Tim, try to remember what you said at the hearing.
Also, there isn’t much leadership when you allow the company lawyers to bully small developers. Doesn’t really seem like you’re in control of the ship.
In the same predicament, I would not spend a penny at all on the harassment. I would not respond to it at all.
However, I would create a web page divulging every piece of communication I received, and/or forward everything to any media outlet willing to listen.
It's very difficult to get actual money out of someone who doesn't want to pay, or get them to change their behavior (like stop using a certain logo).
The lawyers are just hoping people will get scared of a bunch of words in a threatening letter.
Also, imagine if Carl Sagan had sued Apple.
Apple seems to think people will confuse fruit types and they make some claim about “apple health”
Because a lot of orchards use logos that look a lot like apples (and you know an Apple a day...)
And so far all that’s been sent is a letter, this will never go before a court anyway.
Might not always be a worthwhile trade-off, but might very well be.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
> The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount was later revealed to be $80,000. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer#1...
I'm assuming that the said liability insurance that you are talking about comes with, not too many fine prints and will cover thing like lost business revenue etc.?
Ok, you're right, it didn't worked, but Apple tried.
This seems to be the important bit.
Later when the whole thing is rot beyiond control theres no way you can fight the system anymore, even if you are powerful and have the inclination to do it..
I pity real lawyers (the ones that have integrity and do it also because its their passion)
They could turn this into a David/Goliath battle and get some huge social media awareness for their business and goodwill via doing the 'right thing' and standing up to the bully with some well prepared posts and updates. That at least to me attracts my sense of justice and would steer me to giving a companies services a chance where relevant.
Even if they capitulate after expenses start to grow, it could be a solid marketing strategy to at least attend the first hearing.
So, maybe doing a fruit logo for your next startup isn't such a bad idea.
We do not want people to keep secret their World changing ideas but instead release them for the betterment of society.
7 years as sole seller of your own creations, and leave to apply for 7 more years - IIRC - were the terms under Queen Anne's Statute protecting creative works (approximating copyright). Then works are freely available to all, and deposit requirements meant preservation and access was afforded.
The alternative is that corporate entities get all the money and creators get all the costs and the pubic domain gets nothing.
There's a lot wrong IMO with Western IP laws (I don't know about others) but the concept of them is not wrong.
There's specifically no protection for information in patent and copyright laws (database rights, eh, maybe ...).
This is a consequence of the “use it or lose it” trademark system.
Another meme from Arthur that comes to mind is a store named "One Percent".
I bet lots of details like this escape the target audience's attention... at least in this pre-schooler's case.
Either this is a PR stunt or there's more at play.
Apple has been very busy fighting any fruit logos. [1]
[1] https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pnam=Apple%20Inc.%20%20
You pay USPTO $400 or $500 for each opposition filing and you have to be available for calls as there is an entire process around opposition that is scheduled by the USPTO.
(this is from Bloom County)
I traced this mark application through its two year application and approval process and PrePear had its application suspended once for possible confusion with a Hong Kong based app company called Pear Technology Limited but nothing from Apple.
Big brands take even the weakest cases just to be sure. For example, if you want to start robotics company with 'droid' in the name, you get letter from Disney lawyers.
Can we ban links to sites that do this?
If yes, can I use a tomato as my company's logo?
hpphmf
iqqing
jrrjoh
ksskpi
lttlqj
muumrk
nvvnsl
owwotm
pxxpun
qyyqvo
rzzrwp
saasxq
tbbtyr
uccuzs
vddvat
weewbu
xffxcv
yggydw
zhhzex
aiiafy
bjjbgz
ckkcha
dlldib
emmejc
fnnfkd
lttlqj - little QJ, would work. Otherwise iqqing.
I see none at all presented - not even a quote or statement from a cease and desist.
It seems implausible that Apple could win this, and implausible that they’d even see reason to take action.
Perhaps they haven’t.
https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice-of-...
"I only work on infrastructure. I have no control over this. I just want to do my job."
I consider it similar to buying BP gas.
Edit: I see, they just sit on you until you change it because they can afford to buy out the courts.