Hacker News Reader

Comment by kstrauser | Hacker News Reader

My understanding of this isn’t that Apple is suing anyone, but that they filed a complaint against Prepear’s trademark application - and that’s it. As in, at one point in the process, there’s the equivalent of the copyright office asking “does anyone have a problem with this?” and Apple said “we’d prefer you not”. That doesn’t mean the trademark will be shot down, but that the objection will be evaluated.

Is there more to it than that? If not, this seems far different from how it’s being characterized.

View on HN

Didn't you read the headline? This is a battle to the death.

Needs more “slams”, as in “Prepear slams Apple for filing paperwork”.

Prepear /destroyed/ by paperwork!

To keep your trademark, you need to defend it.

It’s a duty of trademark holder to keep an eye on potentially infringing applications and take action if it notices them. If you don’t take actions it means you have given up your trademark.

Not sure how else Apple could proceed here.

> Not sure how else Apple could proceed here.

Apple could simply have looked at it and said "this mark would never be confused with ours" and then been done with it.

If my trademarked logo contains a red circle and you file for a trademark on your logo, which contains a green triangle, will I lose my trademark if I don't oppose yours?

No reasonable person of sound mind would ever confuse the two logos in this case.

How is it being characterized? Certainly not as a lawsuit.

The characterization is that Apple is breaking out the big guns to stomp all over a tiny company, as opposed to them filing a routine piece of paperwork and not showing obvious signs of doing anything more.

This story is that “they’re taking the fight to Canada”, which begs the question that there’s even a fight. Instead, sounds like Prepear filed for trademarks in both the US and Canada, and Apple filed a similar response in both places.

Yes, I thought this was a lawsuit all along. I only realized it was not after reading your reply.

Is it normal for companies to file trademark commentary, like Apple is doing?

+1 for using "begs the question" properly

Yeah, it’s really normal. If you were bored enough, you could get a list of current applications and file your own complaints.

This is the “Notice of Opposition” that Apple filed in the US: https://www.scribd.com/document/471822364/Apple-s-Notice-of-... . That’s it - that’s the only thing I’ve heard that Apple’s actually done. The press makes it sound like they’re trying to have Prepear’s founders keelhauled or something, but to me this looks like like routine paperwork. It’s not even like the USPTO denied Apple’s opposition and they’re appealing it.

> That’s it - that’s the only thing I’ve heard that Apple’s actually done. The press makes it sound like they’re trying to have Prepear’s founders keelhauled or something, but to me this looks like routine paperwork

Where does the press make it seem like Apple are trying to have Prepear's founders "keelhauled or something"? I understand that you are now not commenting on the article here (which certainly doesn't).

I don’t think we read the same article. The one linked here talks a lot about lawyers and fighting and money and layoffs and makes it sound like Apple’s mounting a major offensive. And while I certainly wouldn’t want to be in Prepear’s shoes and having to argue against Apple, literally nothing I’ve seen suggest that Apple is doing anything more than filing one-off trademark opposition letters. For all we know at this time, the whole interaction may end at:

USPTO: Does anyone object to this?

Apple: We’re not big fans of it.

USPTO: Too bad. We’re granting it anyway.

Apple: Alright.

Sure, they may end up fighting this tooth and nail for a decade to come, but there’s been no evidence at all to suggest that they might.

> The one linked here talks a lot about lawyers and fighting and money and layoffs

Are you saying that these are not involved? Who do you think writes and defends an opposition. Who refutes it? How are they reimbursed for their work.

Either way, you are now no longer talking about a mischaracterization. You are either outright claiming that Prepear are simply lying, or you're not making a point.

> For all we know at this time, the whole interaction may end at:

I don't see how baseless speculation serves your argument.

The baseless speculation is that Apple will escalate this. Given that there’s no evidence in either way, I don’t think it’s reasonable to speculate on what Apple might do in the future when they’ve given no indication that they’ll do anything at all.

> The baseless speculation is that Apple will escalate this

Who is making that speculation?

Characterizing a trademark opposition as "a routine piece of paperwork" isn't exactly doing the issue any justice, either. Apple have opposed the registration of the Prepear trademark, because they believe that it infringes on their own. The manner in which that was carried out at Apple, e.g. by routine, is irrelevant.

If instead of calling it "breaking out the big guns to stomp all over a tiny business" or a "routine piece of paperwork" we could describe things as they are (like the article does) and be less confused over what's happening.

> This story is that “they’re taking the fight to Canada”, which begs the question that there’s even a fight.

Do you disagree that there is an obvious sense in which one might call this kind of dispute a fight?

To me, “fight” implies that the knives and guns are out. I’d characterize this as a disagreement. As far as has been reported, the parties haven’t even directly talked to each other.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I think Apple’s in the wrong here. It seems very likely that Prepear will win their trademark applications. I just don’t think what they’ve done is as dramatic as the headlines make out. If I called you a jerk, I’d be in the wrong. If someone reports that as you and I are in a life and death struggle, they would also be wrong.

> To me, “fight” implies that the knives and guns are out.

Then you have yourself to blame for being confused, because most people would understand given the context that Apple and Prepear aren't engaged in a knife fight. I have a hard time believing that you are making this argument in good faith.

I think you’re making too much of this. OK, then frankly, no: I don’t see this as a fight. I see this as paperwork flying back and forth, with nary a courtroom or judge or battleground to be found. This is just some routine filings that don’t IMHO raise to the level of a fight. I, too, feel like you’re trying to deliberately misunderstand what I’m trying to say.

> I don’t see this as a fight. I see this as paperwork flying back and forth, with nary a courtroom or judge or battleground to be found.

Again, the simple view that this is "paperwork flying back and forth" is not very useful and serves only to dilute the matter of those papers. You might as well say that robbery is just particles exerting force on one another.

The defendant will be given time to prepare a case and procure evidence to present to an appeal board, of administrative trademark judges. The only way it won't is if Apple withdraws their opposition, or if they decide not to offer any evidence for their case. In any other case, it's going to involve trademark lawyers, which costs money. From the article it seems that they have already spent "many thousands of dollars" in costs. Whether or not they are lying is not a matter of opinion, nor in any case a mischaracterization by the author of the article.

> This is just some routine filings that don’t IMHO raise to the level of a fight.

Okay. I can't really argue with what your opinion on what constitutes a fight is. To you, a fight involves guns or knives. That said, I don't think that your opinion is a very solid basis for saying that the article mischaracterizes the issue by calling it a fight. Some other person might say that it's only a fight if the participants are wearing boxing gloves, but an author can't possibly account for every literal-minded interpretation one in a thousand might make. Instead, the author thinks highly enough of the readers to assume that they will understand that a "fight" in the context of a trademark dispute doesn't usually come to literal blows or even harsh language.

Why are there so many comments on this page talking about courts and judges and suing?

I think because people read the headline and assumed something that’s totally wrong. When the first of these stories came out, people also misread those and got whipped up over a nonexistent lawsuit. Now every subsequent story suffers from the baggage of that first one: “I heard that Apple’s suing someone, and now they’re also fighting in Canada, too? We should break them up.”

I’m not even on Apple’s side on this. I think they’ll lose the opposition to Prepear’s trademark applications. But I still think it’s a bad look for us that so many people are protesting what they think Apple has done, even though they haven’t.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com