Apple, understandably, is no stranger to holding core parts of its product range close – having defended its Passbook icon, the ‘iPhone’ name, the ‘Think Different’ slogan, and even the ‘Apple’ name before, but now, the company is taking action on its trademark of… Apples. Like, actual apples.
No, I’m completely serious. As per Wired, the international tech company has had a rendering of an Apple trademarked in 84 jurisdictions across the world since 2009 (including Australia). Per the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s page on the trademark: “The mark consists of an artistic rendering of an apple.”
Because of this, a legal back-and-forward is playing out in Switzerland over the use of such an apple, and has been playing out since 2017. In the country, Apple was granted use of the artistic Apple in some cases, but there is legal recognition that generic images of common goods (such as apples), are in the public domain. Wired reports that Apple is now appealing this decision.
And this is just… Strange, right? To own the trademark rights behind an image so benign and common as an artistic representation of an apple sounds like a non-issue, but it’s actually not without precedent. Back in 2010, as pointed out by Wired, Apple entered into an out-of-court agreement with a small grocery cooperative in Switzerland to not add a bite mark to the co-op’s apple logo. Apple has also, in recent years, decided to get up in arms with the creators of an app with a pear logo and musician Frankie Pineapple, for similarities to the Apple name and image.
This action from Apple has companies in Switzerland, such as The Fruit Union Suisse, which uses a red apple with a white cross on the inside as its logo, worried.
“Their objective here is really to own the rights to an actual apple, which, for us, is something that is really almost universal … that should be free for everyone to use,” Fruit Union Suisse director Jimmy Mariéthoz told Wired.
Apple’s logo is iconic – a simple low-detail apple with a bite chewed out of the side, and the company deserves to hold onto its iconography – but should it get to own the rights to the apple?