Neither party is infringing until Apple sells actual fruit or the fruit company starts making tablets etc. The only point of contention is likely Apple making Movies and other entertainment which could create conflict if the fruit company wants to make a documentary at some point in the future.

> Wired notes that Apple first tried to secure the fruit trademark in Switzerland in 2017, when it filed an application for a black-and-white depiction of a Granny Smith apple. Indeed, it applied for an image of a whole apple rather than its trademark apple with a bite.

This seems to me like a (intentional?) misunderstanding of trademark law as having a trademark for the grayscale picture of an apple would merely entail that grayscale picture of an apple, not all other apples, nor even necessarily another grayscale picture of a different apple from a different perspective.

What I read into it is that Apple filed for a generic apple trademark rather than either of the pre-existing logos it already owned the trademarks for in other markets.

Given the source's likely bias, I'm inclined to believe the article is written in bad faith and there is no realistic threat to the actual fruit company.

It will also alienate non-trivial part of Swiss population, who are (rightly) patriotic to everything Swiss-made or grown. Few millions of direct losses in one of the wealthiest (albeit small) markets globally.

Is somebody from brexit team, ie Boris Johnson employed as consultant on this brilliantly executed move?