Café stands up to Apple over trademark

EDIT: Ignore this post.

ElderTree your analogy seems more conducive to fraud than trademark infringement.

"Applechild", vs "iApple"
Red Apple with leave VS white apple with modernited stick.
Child in Apple vs nothing in apple.
Undertitle vs no undertitle.
DUDE, APPLE. IF I COULD, I WOULD REVIVE JOBS, AND THEN SLAP YO' pomegranate.
HOLY MOTHA PINEAPPLES.

That's a rather extreme example, given that these two logos look nothing alike and it's just a small cafe in a town in the middle of germany. These big time companies just like to think they can be bullies to the small time guys and want to try and make some easy cash.

Example is extreme indeed, but the main idea is the ruining of reputation, and reducing possible confusion for customers. Companies spend a lot of money in advertising and PR to build brand loyalty. Customers should be able to know that if they see a "Starbucks", that they can expect a certain level of quality in the product and service. If people drink a crappy product that they THINK is from Starbucks (whether or not it really is), then they're less likely to go/return to a real Starbucks in the future. They're also more likely to "warn" their friends never to go (back) to Starbucks.

ElderTree your analogy seems more conducive to fraud than trademark infringement.

Then just change it to a bad cup of coffee with a nearly identical logo.

And for the record, I believe this case with Apple is silly since the logos are nowhere near similar. Different color scheme, one has text, one has a bite missing, one has a stem, one has a fucking kid in the middle of it, etc.

Example is extreme indeed, but the main idea is the ruining of reputation, and reducing possible confusion for customers. Companies spend a lot of money in advertising and PR to build brand loyalty. Customers should be able to know that if they see a "Starbucks", that they can expect a certain level of quality in the product and service. If people drink a crappy product that they THINK is from Starbucks (whether or not it really is), then they're less likely to go/return to a real Starbucks in the future. They're also more likely to "warn" their friends never to go (back) to Starbucks.



Then just change it to a bad cup of coffee with a nearly identical logo.

And for the record, I believe this case with Apple is silly since the logos are nowhere near similar. Different color scheme, one has text, one has a bite missing, one has a stem, one has a fucking kid in the middle of it, etc.

What would you be hoping to achieve with the analogy, in that case? Certainly we all, I hope we really are all on the same page about this, know why Apple pursues this matter.

What would you be hoping to achieve with the analogy, in that case? Certainly we all, I hope we really are all on the same page about this, know why Apple pursues this matter.

Justin asked why the trademark laws exist and I gave him an explanation complete with an example to illustrate the idea.

Apple, you make it easier and easier for me to hate you every day.

Apple also filed a complaint over the Woolworths logo in Australia a few years back.
Don't think a lot happened in this case. :/

What makes it more ironic is that Apple itself has broken countless patents of other companies ie. in iPhone.

I bet Steve Jobs is writhing in his grave.

Why? Do you honestly believe he was a nice person in any way?

Why? Do you honestly believe he was a nice person in any way?

You can appear as an ass in business but still be a nice person outside the job.

Oh you knew him personally? All right then.

He doesn't need to. You seen the 60 minutes documentary? He refused to give one of the guys who started with him at apple shares of stock to the point where some other guy goes up to jobs and wanted to give the guy his stock if steve would match it. Steve's reply was "ok i'll match it. you give him 0 and i'll match you 0."

Then just change it to a bad cup of coffee with a nearly identical logo.

The quality of the coffee is irrelevant to trademark infringement. Trademark infringement is trademark infringement regardless if the coffee is good or bad.

Apple also filed a complaint over the Woolworths logo in Australia a few years back.
Don't think a lot happened in this case. :/

But which one is the Apple Logo? They're just so similar.

Apple is patent/trademark crazy and the sad part is 9/10 they seem to get away with it.

Apple sucks.

I would totally concur if it wasn't for the classic iPod. There's just no MP3 player out there with the same capabilities.

Guys what do I do I received a letter from apple after I took a bite out of mine, do I take it to the people who sold me the apple!?

Oh you knew him personally? All right then.

His old boss refused to buy something like 33% of Apple stock for $400K back when he first created the company. Why? Because he took a lot of good workers WITH HIM. All of the wording in that entire interview with that guy was just him skating around the phrases "absolute douchebag" or "pile of fecal matter posing as a human being". In the middle of the interview he actually confirmed that, as of 2011, he still was glad he didn't take that deal, he never has regretted it for an instant in his entire life. That can only mean one thing; NOT being around Steve Jobs is worth billions of dollars to that man.

That speaks more to Jobs' character than anything else in the world, to me.

edit: actually it was only $50K.

Oh you knew him personally? All right then.

There is quite a length biography detailing how much of a plantain he was on many levels, available now in about a million places for you to consult.

Obviously this is relative to your relation with him but he was often a douche to everyone. So...it's safe to call him one if you're willing to say he was also a nice guy...but more often a douche.