Slashdot Mirror
Apple Threatens Bistro Over "AppleADay" Name
itwbennett writes "In today's edition of David v. Goliath, Apple lawyers have sent cease and desist letters to a tiny health food restaurant in Luxembourg named AppleADay. For their part, the owners of AppleADay, with help from a lawerly friend, have promised that they would continue to sell only food, not computers. Of course, Apple knows as well as anyone that promises are made to be broken, having famously promised Apple Corps, the Beatles' production company, they would never get into the music business."
...to iAppleADay
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Apple sues Mother Nature for making a fruit with the same name.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Because if not, it should be.
First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo.
Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.
Just because Steve Jobs is dead doesn't mean Apple is all out of assholes.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
This is a trademark issue, not a patent issue. Trademark owners have to defend it or risk losing it.
That, of course, won't stop the Slashdotters from freaking out over nothing. Notice the article was submitted by the ITWorld author who wrote it. He knew exactly what he was doing and how this readership would react. It's all about page views. This story isn't even new; it dates back to late August.
Orignal story dates from the 5th of may (6 month old stories now Slashdot, really ?) There was a flurry of news reporting and no updates since then, not even on their Facebook page where the restaurant gleefully displayed its new found notoriety. So I'm guessing it turned out to be very much a non-story played up for advertising value.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Yes, trademarks must be defended, but this is not an instance of that because Apple's trademark doesn't cover bistros.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.