Apple sues small german café

[Djuntas]

GUYS! TO MY RIGHT I GOT A FRUIT THAT LOOKS LIKE APPLE'S LOGO!!!!!!11 (...) Hope they don't sue my stomach

[Valort]

Able to tell which logo belongs to whom? If not, this might actually make some sense:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2DYo9F1UZ



Maybe it's due to the recent legal battles with Samsung that has made our favorite fruit a bit stingy?

What do you think about this?

So, by Apple's outlandish standards, if I am seen on TV eating an apple, I am liable to be invited to court? Yeepee.
One would have to be completely retarded to find any relation between the logos beyond the "they both have apples in them" point, which makes no sense.

If there is a finder's fee, I'll be mailing Apple's lawyers some pictures of the local cake shop over here, which has a picture of an apple, and apple in its name.

[Powerogue]

They'll probably lose. You can't just trademark an apple and then start suing because there are apple trees everywhere.

[Bakis]

Apple are idiots and sue to the left and right. Luckily they only succeed in the US since the US have different patent laws than the rest of us regarding subjective things as design, looks and forms.

Yesterday Apple got bitchslapped in Sweden after going after IKEA for a symbol. Symbol being a mobile phone with a round button in the middle.
Apperently Apple consider that look too much like an iPhone and happily forget many phones got that and there is a reason for it...
you dont place the main button at the lower backside of a phone for a reason.



Fuck Apple and there retarded crusade. Upside is they look more and more silly to more and more consumers.

[Deleted]

Lol someone at Apple must have too much spare time on hand xD
These lawsuits are either fake, or Apple's lawyers are a bunch of retards with minimum wage.

[Howard Moon]

Damn, I ate an apple last night.

Should I find myself a lawyer?

[Deleted]

This is worse than when Cadbury's tried to copyright the colour Purple on packaging.

[Anakso]

Apart from being a picture of an apple, those logos don't actually look similar at all. For starters, one clearly has a picture of a womens face in it, is red, has a stalk, and has no bite out of it.

I'm half wondering if this story is actually true or if someone made this up, because apple can't possibly think it owns the image of an apple...can they?

[Deleted]

Lol someone at Apple must have too much spare time on hand xD
These lawsuits are either fake, or Apple's lawyers are a bunch of retards with minimum wage.

apple just generally love to sue everything they can. if something bares even the smallest resemblance to their product, they sue it. not usually that successful at least.

---------- Post added 2012-11-29 at 11:38 AM ----------

This is worse than when Cadbury's tried to copyright the colour Purple on packaging.

hasn't an American chocolate got the colour orange on packaging copyrighted? i think it was hersheys, may have heard wrong, but its what i heard.

[Rapti]

Next time you will be sued by Apple for eating an apple my friends! Just you wait! lol
I really hope Apple gets destroyed soon, hate such companies.

[Ryuukon]

Apple is the product of a socially retarded man called "Steve Jobs". The guy would fire employees working there for 20 years for looking at him "in a way he did not like". Ofcourse the company suits its owner.

This.

I am so sick of hearing about Apple's "creativity" when they haven't hardly created a damn thing. They just were smart enough, under Steve Jobs, to plagiarize popular and functioning mechanics before those who actually created them could. Steve Jobs will go down in history as nothing other than the first man who knew how to play the American patent system for all it's worth.

Give it a decade and every patent Apple owns will be worth less than the toilet paper you use to wipe your ass with, simply because the courts will realize that "patenting" an "idea" is so far out there it's not worth mentioning.

The UK courts have already caught a whiff of Steve Jobs' bullshit when they ruled in favor of Samsung, especially when they showed so many PREVIOUS products introduced by MANY companies that showed almost EVERYTHING that IOS does that someone else came up with before them.

[wdmshmo]

Apple be trolling.. I hope.

[Deleted]

An apple is an apple. They don't own the fucking fruit. Jesus christ, this probably isn't as bad as it sounds, but if it is, then this is absolutely pathetic and apple should be ashamed of themselves.

[Tepesch]

Hahaha,

what would they tell about that:



It's an advertisement of a Canton in Switzerland (A Canton is a small governmental region in Switzerland, which is divided into 26 cantons). It is famous for its Apple juice.

[Gilian]

All I can do is laugh. It doesn't even look like it. So I guess that every company that has an apple in their logo is now going to be sued?

[Deleted]

I believe this is a lost cause for Apple. Also this article was written on october 31st 2011, over a year from now.
I don't think Apple won this one, but it really shows what kind of company they are. Downright disgusting.

[Deleted]

Kinda weird they havent sued applebees yet for this logo:

[Statix]

They don't even remotely look alike. This is so pathetic.

Soon they will demand apples (as in the fruit) are only allowed be sold in Apple Stores.

[Rotted]

Apple is the product of a socially retarded man called "Steve Jobs". The guy would fire employees working there for 20 years for looking at him "in a way he did not like". Ofcourse the company suits its owner.

I'd like to see a source on this since a dead man cant defend himself tbh

But yes, this does seem over the top,

[Ratyrel]

I believe this is a lost cause for Apple. Also this article was written on october 31st 2011, over a year from now.
I don't think Apple won this one, but it really shows what kind of company they are. Downright disgusting.

This article may be old, but the case is still going: http://www.general-anzeiger-bonn.de/...cle913066.html

Apple seems to have indicated that they would be prepared to offer a compromise after the initial overwhelmingly negative response to their actions by the public, but now that interest has died down they are again trying to forbid the use of her logo in all categories of marketing.

However Ms Römer is a slightly dubious character herself, because she's trying to generate profit and publicity off an enterprise that while pretending to be charitable and aimed at children and families, is not in fact particularly well suited to children at all.