Apple Takes Legal Action Against Small Company With Pear Logo

[MacRumors]

Apple is taking legal action against the developers of the app "Prepear" due to its logo, according to iPhone in Canada.

Prepear is an app that helps users discover recipes, plan meals, make lists, and arrange grocery deliveries. The app is a spinoff of "Super Healthy Kids," and the founders claim that they are facing litigation from Apple. Apple reportedly takes issue with Prepear's logo, arguing that its attributes are too similar to its own logo.

The company said via a post on Instagram that Apple "has decided to oppose and go after our small business' trademark saying our pear logo is too close to their apple logo and supposedly hurts their brand". The post goes on to describe the action as "a big blow to us at Prepear," and sets out the intention to retain the original logo and "send a message to big tech companies that bullying small businesses has consequences."

The company has launched a Change.org petition in an attempt to persuade Apple to "drop its opposition of the Prepear Logo, and help stop big tech companies from abusing their position of power by going after small businesses like ours who are already struggling due to the affects of Covid-19."

Prepear says that it is a "very small business" with only five team members, and explains that legal costs from the dispute have already cost thousands of dollars and the layoff of a team member.

"Apple has opposed the trademark application for our small business, Prepear, demanding that we change our obviously pear shaped logo, used to represent our brand in the recipe management and meal planning business... Most small businesses cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to fight Apple," the petition claims. "It is a very terrifying experience to be legally attacked by one of the largest companies in the world, even when we have clearly done nothing wrong, and we understand why most companies just give in and change their logos."

The petition has currently reached almost 9,000 signatures, and the founders hope it will reach 10,000.

Prepear says that Apple "has opposed dozens of other trademark applications filed by small businesses with fruit related logos," even in cases where the logo or industry is dissimilar to Apple's. Logos have been the source of legal action by Apple in the past, such as the case against a Norwegian political party and a German cycling path.

Update: Image from the trademark opposition paperwork filed by Apple:

Article Link: Apple Takes Legal Action Against Small Company With Pear Logo

 

[johannnn]

Before all the youngsters enter. They need to do this to defend their own logo. Go read law.

 

[q64ceo]

Are you ****ing kidding me?

 

[MacBird]

Before all the youngsters enter. They need to do this to defend their own logo. Go read law.

Could you elaborate?

 

[wilhoitm]

It is clearly a Pear not an Apple!

 

[aaronhead14]

Ridiculous. They don’t even look remotely similar!

 

[macsplusmacs]

Look up trademark law and the result of not defending this.

Apple (or any company in a similar situation) must do this to defend their mark.

 

[t76turbo]

I like Apple but this is over the top. So many other targets they could have gone after that were ripping them off. They dont have a copyright on all images of fruit.

 

[mj_]

Oh look, free publicity for a small company that nobody has ever heard of before and nobody would have ever heard of if not for that legal stunt. What a coincidence...

 

[twistedpixel8]

Look up trademark law and the result of not defending this.

Apple (or any company in a similar situation) must do this to defend their mark.

What the heck are you talking about? No, that’s not how it works at all. That only works IF THE LOGO LOOKS REMOTELY SIMILAR.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Seems a little petty of Apple. I've seen logos that were blatant copies, but there's only so many ways you can draw different fruits... If I saw this logo somewhere, I honestly don't think I'd think of Apple.

 

[wyarp]

Before all the youngsters enter. They need to do this to defend their own logo. Go read law.

I am by no means an expert in trademark law, though we did cover it in our university course so understand the basics (at least as far as the UK is concerned.)

To be clear, Apple DO NOT need to do this to protect their brand. The name is different, the logo is distinctly different, the purpose of the company is different. This logo and company in NO WAY harms Apple as a business, it is not connected to the same business sector as Apple and DOES NOT confuse customers to thinking there is a connection. It’s a disgrace for then to go after to such a small company on such a tenuous claim.

Apple do not own the rights to all fruit based names nor fruit based logos.

 

[Apple_Robert]

If you don’t defend your trademark, even if the logo in question isn‘t close, you could (over time) end up losing your trademark.

More than likely, Apple is going to cite McLean v Fleming, amongst other cases.

I don’t see the logos as similar, outside of them both being fruit.

 

[B4U]

So, out of curiosity...
A fruit company?
What is going on here?

 

[foobarbaz]

If you don’t defend your trademark, even if the logo in question isn‘t close, you could (over time) end up losing your trademark.

Great, if they need to sue even if the logo isn’t close, they could just sue Microsoft or Google instead.

 

[Akrapovic]

Next up: Nike suing emoji designers. ✅

 

[twistedpixel8]

If you don’t defend your trademark, even if the logo in question isn‘t close, you could (over time) end up losing your trademark.

More than likely, Apple is going to cite McLean v Fleming, amongst other cases.

Sure, and then they’ll sue Pepsi for having a logo too. How dare Pepsi have a logo, Apple has a logo! People might mistake Pepsi products for Apple products. Apple must defend their trademark ?

In case it isn’t obvious, I’m mocking you pseudo-lawyers.

 

[JPack]

Based on this logic, Applebee's, Fanta, Del Monte, and Fruit of the Loom are screwed.

 

[inkswamp]

Before all the youngsters enter. They need to do this to defend their own logo. Go read law.

That only applies if there's any chance of market confusion.

For example, if I open a burger stand with a single golden arch and call it McDougals, I'm going to get sued rightly into oblivion.

A company using a green outline of a pear for a logo that isn't even remotely similar in design to Apple's very well-recognized logo isn't in any way causing market confusion. This lawsuit is BS, and Apple is completely and utterly in the wrong for doing this.

I hope Apple gets their butt handed to them and that this company counter-sues for damages.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Sure, and then they’ll sue Pepsi for having a logo too. How dare Pepsi have a logo, Apple has a logo! People might mistake Pepsi products for Apple products. Apple must defend their trademark ?

In case it isn’t obvious, I’m mocking you pseudo-lawyers.

1. I didn’t say Apple should sue everyone nor did I say that they had a case here.
2. I did state that if you don’t defend your trademark, you could end up losing it which is correct.

Take your petty mocking somewhere else.

 

[Akrapovic]

Before all the youngsters enter. They need to do this to defend their own logo. Go read law.

Do you need the youngsters to explain to the old guys about brand confusion etc? Go read law old man.

 

[dannyyankou]

Before all the youngsters enter. They need to do this to defend their own logo. Go read law.

That would be a fair argument, if Prepear’s logo had even a tiny bit of resemblance to Apple’s. The only similarity is they’re both fruits.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Great, if they need to sue even if the logo isn’t close, they could just sue Microsoft or Google instead.

I am not saying I agree with what Apple did here. I don’t think the logos are similar.

 

[lederermc]

Ridiculous. They don’t even look remotely similar!

I disagree. It does look remotely similar.

 

[inkswamp]

Based on this logic, Applebee's, Fanta, and Fruit of the Loom are screwed.

The way it works is that you have to be in the same industry which presents the possibility of market confusion so none of those companies would be open to a lawsuit like this.

Having said that, though, I don't see the case for this causing any market confusion. Apple is in the wrong for doing this.