> without bite mark
Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.
Why? Apple isn't going to brand products with that surely? Sounds like there is yet more back story i.e. trademark trolling - Apple only applied for that mark to go after other people.
I suspect the agreement between Apple and Apple probably requires Apple Inc to take reasonable steps to protect the ex-Apple Corps trademarks that they now own, such as filing for registration if needed.
Then someone not understanding trademark law and that registering a trademark for a Granny Smith apple as a logo for a record label doesn't mean you're trying to claim all apples for every use.
That shows the absurdity of trademark infringement and confusion if a company deliberately licenses their trademark to an independent company. I'm surprised they can be said to be using a mark if all they are doing is licensing it to someone else. IMHO it should be used in a court as a self-admission that there are no confusion concerns and it's just legally wrapped asset fuckery.
The article is written to be ragebait, and judging by the comments here, it’s been successful.