Since 2017, Apple has been actively pursuing trademark registration for the iconic Apple news symbol in **Switzerland**, as well as submitting similar applications in multiple other countries, according to Wired UK. The tech giant specifically applied to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) for intellectual property rights concerning a monochromatic representation of a Granny Smith apple. In 2022, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request, acknowledging that generic visuals of everyday objects are generally considered part of the public domain.
While I’m not sure the specifics in Switzerland, I would assume it’s closely aligned with EU law, trademark laws are not a blanket ownership. Most specifically, a trademark has to be maintained. That standard requires it to be in active commercial use by the company that wants to own it. If the company can not demonstrate that they are actively using it, they lose it. Trademarks are also market-specific. If I run an IT business under the name “ComPower”, and someone else runs a communist political newsletter under the name “ComPower”, I would not have a case against them as there is no scope for confusion, as we operate in entirely different markets.
This standard caused problems for McDonalds a couple of years ago, when they brought a legal challenge to the Irish fast food chain “Supermac’s” (the name derives from the sporting nickname of the chain’s founder), for being too similar to “Big Mac”. When the case went to the EUIPO, and McDonald’s was required to provide evidence that they were actively using the Big Mac brand, they failed to provide sufficient evidence (it is speculated their lawyers did not do their job in actually understanding the legal standard required), and as a result the trademark on Big Mac in the EU was revoked.
Mostly bullshit.
There’s a lot of talk of “Apple’s quest to own the IP rights of something as generic as a fruit” over here (Wired: [Apple Is Taking On Apples in a Truly Weird Trademark Battle](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle)). This is imprecise at best.
First off, trademarks cannot be granted in the abstract in Switzerland, meaning they can only be granted in connection with clearly defined goods or services. Apple is not seeking the trademark in connection with fruit (and even if they did, it would never be granted). Here’s the filing: https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.1028240
Secondly, Switzerland’s apple growers, who sell fruit, are not affected by Apple seeking a trademark for “Musical sound recordings”.
Thirdly, the trademark has been denied by the authorities. It is very unlikely that it will be granted in court.
3 comments
Since 2017, Apple has been actively pursuing trademark registration for the iconic Apple news symbol in **Switzerland**, as well as submitting similar applications in multiple other countries, according to Wired UK. The tech giant specifically applied to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) for intellectual property rights concerning a monochromatic representation of a Granny Smith apple. In 2022, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request, acknowledging that generic visuals of everyday objects are generally considered part of the public domain.
While I’m not sure the specifics in Switzerland, I would assume it’s closely aligned with EU law, trademark laws are not a blanket ownership. Most specifically, a trademark has to be maintained. That standard requires it to be in active commercial use by the company that wants to own it. If the company can not demonstrate that they are actively using it, they lose it. Trademarks are also market-specific. If I run an IT business under the name “ComPower”, and someone else runs a communist political newsletter under the name “ComPower”, I would not have a case against them as there is no scope for confusion, as we operate in entirely different markets.
This standard caused problems for McDonalds a couple of years ago, when they brought a legal challenge to the Irish fast food chain “Supermac’s” (the name derives from the sporting nickname of the chain’s founder), for being too similar to “Big Mac”. When the case went to the EUIPO, and McDonald’s was required to provide evidence that they were actively using the Big Mac brand, they failed to provide sufficient evidence (it is speculated their lawyers did not do their job in actually understanding the legal standard required), and as a result the trademark on Big Mac in the EU was revoked.
Mostly bullshit.
There’s a lot of talk of “Apple’s quest to own the IP rights of something as generic as a fruit” over here (Wired: [Apple Is Taking On Apples in a Truly Weird Trademark Battle](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle)). This is imprecise at best.
First off, trademarks cannot be granted in the abstract in Switzerland, meaning they can only be granted in connection with clearly defined goods or services. Apple is not seeking the trademark in connection with fruit (and even if they did, it would never be granted). Here’s the filing: https://www3.wipo.int/madrid/monitor/en/showData.jsp?ID=ROM.1028240
Secondly, Switzerland’s apple growers, who sell fruit, are not affected by Apple seeking a trademark for “Musical sound recordings”.
Thirdly, the trademark has been denied by the authorities. It is very unlikely that it will be granted in court.