There should be a penalty for such bogus trademark claims, best as % of the global revenue. Then, maybe, they would learn that a corporation cannot bully others only because it has unlimited legal resources.
If it was even remotely possible the court would rule "yes, we agree with the plaintiff's arguments that these are similar trademarks, and there is the possibility for consumer confusion, therefore we must check whose trademark has priority... turns out it's the grocers who have used the symbol for 111 years and Apple Computer owe a few billion in back licensing fees" then the lawyers would be terrified of filing the suit.
- Limit the size of a corporation's legal departments, both in number of personnel and annual budget - Limit the amount they can pay lawyers each year for filing lawsuits - Limit the number of lawsuits that can be filed at any time in a given, national (or other, very large) jurisdiction. After a certain amount, require the company to put a certain amount of their annual revenue in escrow for each additional lawsuit. This amount would be forfeited if the lawsuit is lost.
No, some shitstains just need to go to jail to learn. They are actively harming our societies, and the lack of defense justified by "but free market" is mind boggling. Nowhere else would we tolerate such a virus.
There is no good-faith argument for their existence. They hurt the general populace for the benefit of some tiny minority of mega-rich, sick people with a mutation selecting for sociopathic and greedy behaviors.
Abolish patents and trademarks.
You should not be allowed to register your marque for a class in which you are not already trading. Apple doesn't trade in apples, so their registration application fails (or their lawsuit falls at the first hurdle).
Rebecca Vardy successfully registered the trademark "Wagatha Christie" against scores of classes of products that she doesn't produce. She didn't even coin the phrase; it was coined by a journalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagatha_Christie
If there isn't a risk of customer confusion, then there should be no grounds for action. There ought to be something similar to anti-SLAPP laws to stop companies bringing frivolous actions for TM violation.
Or at least in classes you aren't intending to trade in, and you should lose it if you aren't a short period of time after registering
If I’m buying a can of Coca Cola with the logo I want it to be the real drink and not some fake import.
The point is for it to be functional, rather than letting rich firms land-rush anything (colours, shapes, fonts) that might be marketing assets.
In the end, you'd have 35 red cans with white text on the shelf, but the boring square label on the box tells you which firm actually made it.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't deflect to some other issue (notwithstanding its validity) you don't have an answer for the question.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. As of right now, the answer is: nothing happens. The established corporation profits, and you suck it up, because what else are you going to do? Sue Apple?
Anti-trust law hasn't really kept up with modern times but a this can take many forms. Just look at how many large "startups" run at large losses, many claim scale will offer cost efficiencies but in truth its to capture the market after which they can pump up prices, this is basically dumping. Vexatious litigation should also be included.
The last 30 years have been a golden-era for those wishing to abuse their position, but there is hope with increased focus around the world.
This is still the case even though Apple is obviously wrong here.
How anyone can own the likeness of a fruit that has existed for millions of years is beyond my understanding.
"Google" -- an invented word that did not exist prior to its conception forma company -- makes sense to protect. "Apple" does not. When you make a company name after a FRUIT, you should take on the risk associated with a public domain likeness and an inability to own it. Anything else is absurd.
As with spam, what you see is what gets past the filter; the actual attempted rate is much higher, and gets goods seized at customs when C&Ds aren't enough.
As for "this is ridiculous": yes, that's why Apple lost the case it's here appealing.
But Apple also used to regularly lose to the other Apple Corp. because trademarks are separated by domain and the music company wanted to make sure the computer company never did music. Eventually they paid a lot of money and agreed to stop fighting.
Patents were envisioned as a way to share innovation and progress while still protecting the inventor for enough time to make a profit. I think when they first were created it was 8 or 12 years. Not the 70+ it is now.
It was also required be be a non-obvious, specific invention. Slide to unlock which was a patent war apple won against google clearly goes against this "non-obvious" intent. Specific has also went to the wayside in software. When dyson applies for a patent for a new vacuum cleaner they specify exactly how the new suction is generated. Software patents are much more like "a device that sucks" is the patent. Woe be it to you if you create something else that sucks.
Bring back short terms, specificity and non-obvious requirements. Then patents help by protecting innovation instead of stifling it.
To me, it sounds like airlines flying empty because they wanted to keep their airport slot: give them a guarantee that they’ll keep their spot and they’ll be happy not to waste fuel and pilot hours on an empty flight.
Or bleed other side out of money till they yield