Apple takes Chinese food company to task over their logo | Hacker News Reader

Apple takes Chinese food company to task over their logo

networkworld.com

20 pointsanderzole20 comments

For those who choose not to read the article and merely comment that Apple is haphazardly suing another company, the article describes one of the basic principles of trademark law and why Apple must sue:

Now here's where things get a little tricky.

Fangguo Foods produces items like snack foods, flour and noodles, which obviously have nothing at all to do with any Apple products. As a result, Apple's trademark assertions seem misplaced and without merit. Recently, though, Fangguo had filed applications to extend its trademark to 16 different product categories, one of which includes "notebook computers" and "electronic-game software."

And therein lies the rub.

Fangguo received the status of "Famous Nanchong City Trademark" in 2007 and "Famous Sichuan Province Trademark" the following year. Zhao explained that he registered Fangguo's logo under so many seemingly unrelated product categories not because he had specific plans to expand to other types of manufacturing, but just in case he did meet somebody who wanted to produce, say, Fangguo computers, he would be able to expand the brand name.

In the world of trademark law, a company that doesn't actively seek to protect its trademarks is more likely to lose the ability to enforce them. Consequently, it makes a whole lot of sense to go after Fangguo for their trademark given that they are looking for trademark protection in an area where Apple already operates.

The logo looks more like the LG logo (http://www.lg.com/us/img/logo-lg.png) than the Apple logo

This is exactly what I thought.

yes; I knew when I saw it that it looked similar to a company that I could not remember. You reminded me.

That logo looks like the love child between Apple and LG. In fact it reminds me more of LG than Apple.

> Seeing the Fangguo logo in a super market clearly doesn't conjure up images of Apple products, but imagine an electronics store featuring products plastered with the Fangguo logo - it stands to reason that consumers might get confused and mistake one company's product for another.

I suppose that if you had never seen the Apple logo, and merely had it described to you very badly then you might confuse the two. Maybe, if it was a really bad description and you had poor eyesight. I didn't even get that Fangguo's logo was supposed to be a stylized apple until the article said so.

How often do you see food company logos in electronics stores? I suppose if there's snacks by the checkout, but people mistaking that logo for Apple's and thinking that Jobs started manufacturing candy bars doesn't really pass the straight-face test.

Target and Walmart are among the retailers that sell both groceries and Apple products in the same store.

I can _kind of_ see where they're coming from. I've been out and about and had folks look at my MacBook Pro (no case, no shell, no stickers) and ask me if it was a Mac. I can definitely see older folks seeing "a fruit" on a computer and assigning it to Apple. I guess you could even argue that they own "fruit" branding on electronics.

This is no more out of line than that time they sued Woolworth's.

So.... everything that has a logo that resembles an apple (the most popular fruit after banana?) violates Apple's rights?

I'm all for defending your IP but this is ridiculous. That logo looks nothing like the Apple logo. I mean this is from China where they wouldn't give two squirts of piss when it comes to ripping the rest of the world off, but this is what Apple decides to go after?

Recently, though, Fangguo had filed applications to extend its trademark to 16 different product categories, one of which includes "notebook computers" and "electronic-game software."

In that light it's a bit more understandable. If they had stayed strictly in the food segment I doubt it would have been an issue. Trademarks have to be defended or they can be voided; companies tend to err on the side of caution.

That makes a little more sense, but I still do not think that anyone would ever mistake Apple's "I look like an apple" logo for the Chinese company's "I don't look like anything but I have a leaf" logo. Their logo looks more like an old hand grenade.

It's a "where do you draw the line" thing -- Apple has to demonstrate that, in their opinion, things are getting a little too close for comfort. LG should probably do the same. Neither, I don't think, would be launching an action with the expectation of winning (necessarily), but having a filed grievance on record for something at this level would certainly help in a case where the offending logo were a little closer to theirs.

AAPL is obviously not in the music business, therefore can use the name Apple. And it doesn't sell Beatles anyway ...or isn't that the case?

Are these the same people, who deliberately manipulate photographs which they submit as evidence to courts?

hypocrites. and their followers. and their propagandists who pay attention to the hype.

If you were paying attention this was an actual case and ended up with Apple, Inc. buying the Apple trademark and then licensing it back to Apple Corp.

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

I was paying attention, and am paying attention.

What you are referring to, in plain terms, is that Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do. (don't misunderstand: I have no empathy for the record industry either).

Are you seriously arguing that The Beatles are the underdog in this scenario? Also, "Apple Inc. had more money than Apple Corp, meaning that it can afford to do whatever it wishes to do" implies there was something improper, which is clearly not the case. It's not like Apple, Inc. bribed the courts to force Apple Corp. to hand over their trademark; Apple, Inc. reportedly paid as much as $500 million to Apple Corp. to control the trademark. Sounds like the real winner was Apple Corp.

It ticks me off that Apple uses its gadzillions in profits for frivolous lawsuits like this. Dear Apple, the shape of an apple belongs to the fruit, not to you ... if you can use it, so can others.

To be fair, remember how trademark law works. Apple doesn't necessarily actually think Fangguo is infringing on them. The law is such that Apple must defend their trademark against anything that may appear to be an infringement, or else Apple may lose the right to defend it later against actual infringement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com