Italian Clothing Company Defeats Apple, Wins the Right To Use Steve Jobs' Name (macrumors.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Italian Clothing Company Defeats Apple, Wins the Right To Use Steve Jobs' Name (macrumors.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday December 28, 2017 @12:20PM from the multi-year-legal-battles dept.

An Italian clothing company that uses the name "Steve Jobs" as its brand will be able to continue using the moniker after winning a multi-year legal battle, reports Italian site la Repubblica Napoli. Mac Rumors reports: Brothers Vincenzo and Giacomo Barbato named their clothing brand "Steve Jobs" in 2012 after learning that Apple had not trademarked his name. "We did our market research and we noticed that Apple, one of the best known companies in the world, never thought about registering its founder's brand, so we decided to do it," the two told la Repubblica Napoli. The Barbatos designed a logo that resembles Apple's own, choosing the letter "J" with a bite taken out of the side. Apple, of course, sued the two brothers for using Jobs' name and a logo that mimics the Apple logo. In 2014, the European Union's Intellectual Property Office ruled in favor of the Barbatos and rejected Apple's trademark opposition. While the outcome of the legal battle was decided in 2014, Vincenzo and Giacomo Barbato have been unable to discuss the case until now, as their claim on the brand was not settled until 2017. The two told la Repubblica Napoli that Apple went after the logo, something that may have been a mistake. The Intellectual Property Office decided that the "J" logo that appears bitten was not infringing on Apple's own designs as a letter is not edible and thus the cutout in the letter cannot be perceived as a bite. The report goes on to note that the company plans to produce electronic devices under the Steve Jobs brand.

172 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That is one by phalse+phace · 2017-12-28 12:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

ugly logo
1. Re:That is one by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-12-28 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, it's heinous. I thought it was a joke when I first saw it.
  But the real question is, what sort of pretentious, self-absorbed dickhead will buy this dreadful fucking clothing?
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
2. Re: That is one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 17:02 · Score: 0
  
  Italians apparently
3. Re: That is one by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  Apple fanboys?
4. Re:That is one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  Steve Jobsa (Italian, with an a added)
  Steve Yobs (Mexican variant)
  Steve Jobb (Swedish)
5. Re:That is one by nospam007 · 2017-12-28 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  "But the real question is, what sort of pretentious, self-absorbed dickhead will buy this dreadful fucking clothing?"
  Nice sweater you have there.
6. Re:That is one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 21:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well, it needs to fit the name...
  Captcha: artistry
7. Re:That is one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like the profile of a man opening his mouth wide to gobble up the word "Jobs". Hmmm..... "Steve is eating Jobs"
8. Re: That is one by quadrantviewer · 2017-12-28 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  The Italian Jobs?
9. Re:That is one by nukenerd · 2017-12-28 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  But the real question is, what sort of pretentious, self-absorbed dickhead will buy this dreadful fucking clothing?
  Those who want gay apparel.
10. Re:That is one by Plumpaquatsch · 2017-12-29 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Steve by Joop! (German)
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
11. Re: That is one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  That seems unlikely. Anyone at the level of fanboy would likely only purchase genuine Apple products.
12. Re: That is one by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  Apple fans and CEOs Obviously.
Only retards start writing the comment in the by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 12:30 · Score: 0

subject box.
Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 12:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not a fan of IP hoarding, but "Steve Jobs" implies that either Apple or Jobs (when he was alive) has something to do with the design of the Italian company's products.
It's stupid that now Microsoft will have to trademark "Bill Gates" and "Satya Nadella", Amazon will trademark "Jeff Bezos", etc.
1. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, this is a cheap marketing stunt to imply that Jobs was somehow associated with their products. If the Italian company had a founder or designer named Steve Jobs, I'd support them using the name. However, that doesn't appear to be the case, in which case it's just a pathetic way to imply an endorsement or connection that doesn't exist.
2. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe trademark laws are different in Italy. I think natural persons and by extension their estates should have the inalienable moral and natural right to their name as far as trademarks go. I wonder why the plaintiff wasn't one from the Jobs's estate or family. They might have had a stronger case. My own surname is protected in the way that no person can change their surname to the same as mine without being born to the family, for example.
3. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  If they their product, by its name, to remind people of an arrogant sociopath salesman who shouted at people until he got his way, then they're on the right track.
4. Re:Bad legal decision by taustin · 2017-12-28 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  There is a difference. Jobs is dead, and in most jurisdictions, the right to control the use of one's name dies with the person. Everyone else mentioned is still alive, and can (and can afford to) sue on that basis.
  (This is not a comment on whether or not this was a good decision, but legally, it looks correct to me. Apple missed the boat, and it cost them.)
5. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Jobs also insisted on producing high quality products that justified the premium prices. Now that Jobs is dead, Apple's quality has definitely been in decline. They're coasting on the reputation that they built under the leadership of Jobs. For all of the criticism of Jobs, his name should be associated with high quality products.
6. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  This company is trying to imply an association with Steve Jobs that simply doesn't exist. They are misleading consumers by using Steve Jobs' name as their brand, despite no connection with Jobs. Regardless of whether Apple has a trademark, this is exactly the type of situation that trademark law is intended to prevent. Businesses should not be able to deceive customers by implying an association with a brand (Apple; the bite out of the J) and a person that simply is not present.
7. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it is a lack of products based on the name brand of Steve Jobs that really hindered the argument. If that had happened before his death, they would have had a better argument.
8. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  My own surname is protected in the way that no person can change their surname to the same as mine without being born to the family, for example.
  No, it isn't.
9. Re: Bad legal decision by jblues · 2017-12-28 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure it is as you say in Australia and the USA - and that there was in fact a SlashDot story regarding the first precedent some years ago.
  
  --
  If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
10. Re:Bad legal decision by DontBeAMoran · 2017-12-28 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing out of the oridinary.
  And yet you were able to do it in that sentence.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
11. Re:Bad legal decision by hey! · 2017-12-28 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think natural persons and by extension their estates should have the inalienable moral and natural right to their name as far as trademarks go.
  Technically this would make company names like "Honda" or "Walgreens" invalid. What "inalienable" means is that it is legally impossible for you to part with the thing or convey it to someone else. Any contract in which you sold the rights to use your name would be unenforceable.
  The reason for calling the right to liberty "inalienable" is that it automatically renders any claim that the people implicitly accepted a reduction in liberty void. Even if they explicitly agreed to give up their liberty in exchange for something else, that agreement would be null. But if you believe this, there is no argument by which you can justify slavery, something that Thomas Jefferson himself was too intelligent to miss.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
12. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  That is idiotic, most names have 1000's of people with the identical name, sometimes 10's of thousand. With your dumb arse Idea the first person born that becomes famous for his/her name suddenly excludes every other person. Anyone can change their surname to match yours, costs less than $100 and a bit of time.
13. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:48 · Score: 0
  
  Australia has protected words which cannot be used in names eg military ranks. Maybe if you r family had that surname a long time ago before the law existed you can keep it. new people cant change to it or migrate here with that name. However that law is to protect the word not the surname. That ac needs to get his head out of his ass. There are no protected surnames in australia only words.
14. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  "My own surname is protected in the way that no person can change their surname to the same as mine without being born to the family, for example."
  Bullshit. Names are not protected. Anyone can use your name.
15. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree. Ever heard of Samuel Adams beer? First Franklin Financial? John Hancock Financial? Now what's wrong with clothes in honor of Steve Jobs the man. Apple did the same thing with Apple with The Beatles Apple records.
16. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  Does that mean Adams family descendents should sue the company selling Samuel Adams beer?
17. Re:Bad legal decision by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-12-28 14:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm not a fan of IP hoarding, but "Steve Jobs" implies that either Apple or Jobs (when he was alive) has something to do with the design of the Italian company's products.
  If a marketing shill like Musk can denigrate the name of one of the greatest engineers of all time like Tesla then some Italians absolutely have the right to make bullshit under the name of a bullshit artist.
18. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  no, in US and Australia you have the right to use your name, not the right to exclude others from using the same name which would be fucking stupid.
19. Re: Bad legal decision by jblues · 2017-12-28 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  The details are coming back to me now. It wasn't about a trading name, but domain name registration. The precedent was about registration of a famous person's domain name, given that the domain was available and there was no trademark on the name. The person in question legally appealed, and the domain name registration was ruled invalid. I still can't find the details, but found something similar for USA law regarding domain names:
  Additionally, U.S. Federal Law 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), (the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or the ACPA) protects against the registration, use or trafficking in, of any domain name with a bad faith intent to profit from a trademark (or service mark) that is protected under federal law. However, federal law often will not protect a personal name as a trademark unless the personal name has acquired distinctiveness (think “become well known by the public”).
  The person name must be already well known.
  
  --
  If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
20. Re: Bad legal decision by Hognoxious · 2017-12-28 14:21 · Score: 2
  
  On reading that, did anyone else start going:
  diddly dum [click click]
  diddly dum [click click]
  diddly dum diddly dum diddly dum [click click]
  No? Just me then.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
21. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:24 · Score: 0
  
  My grandfather applied for the protection specially (the name needed to sound less German after the war), so that's a special case of course, particularly now that a person can change their name almost arbitrarily with the current law in my country. The point is that names may sometimes have more protections than a trademark would get.
22. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  The reason why those cases lose is because the ones that claimed it first had no right to the name in the first place and were cybersquatting. If morganfreeman.com had actually been registered by someone by the name morgan freeman for his own life stuff there is no way morgan freeman the actor would have been able to commandeer it.
23. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously the Boston Beer Company is using the name and image of Samuel Adams to sell beer. And I certainly like the Boston Lager as well as some of their other beers. They have a lot of beers that are good but not great. Regardless, I'm happy to drink most of their beers.
  Trademarks are a form of intellectual property, much like copyrights and patents. As with what I believe are the vast majority of users on Slashdot, I believe intellectual property should not be restricted in perpetuity. Samuel Adams died in 1803. The Boston Beer Company was founded in 1984 and created the Samuel Adams Boston Lager in 1985. I don't see why any intellectual property claim should be valid after over 180 years.
  In this case, a trademark might not be the appropriate claim, but rather the name and likeness of the individual. Either way, it's a form of intellectual property. It shouldn't last 180 years, nor do I think anyone would be confused that the 18th century politician Samuel Adams was somehow associated with a business that was founded in 1984. This is related to the expiration of intellectual property ownership.
24. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 15:35 · Score: 0
  
  and denying your childs paternity; and ripping off the man just just formed a partnership with; and trying to cure cancer with herbal teas. The man was an embarrassment.
25. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  By your argument, Musk should not be allowed to use "Tesla".
  "This company is trying to imply an association with Nikola Tesla that simply doesn't exist. They are misleading consumers by using Nikola Tesla's name as their brand, despite no connection with Tesla. Regardless of whether "anyone else" has a trademark, this is exactly the type of situation that trademark law is intended to prevent."
  So...what is it going to be?
26. Re:Bad legal decision by jrumney · 2017-12-28 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  I see from a WIPO search "Vincenzo Barbato" and "Giacomo Barbato" are up for grabs. These guys had balls pulling this off without first protecting their own names. If I was Apple, I'd be marketing the hell out of a line of Barbatos brothers branded soft toys based on emoji U+1F4A9, and license the brand out for free to every Chinese manufacturer that wants to copy. Imagine if every time they introduced themselves to someone the reply came back "You mean like the soft toy?".
27. Re: Bad legal decision by sound+vision · 2017-12-28 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have thought the rights rested with the individual, or in this case, his estate. I guess not?
28. Re:Bad legal decision by Dutch+Gun · 2017-12-28 16:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Perhaps it's simply clear to most people which one is an homage and which one is a simple cash grab.
  
  --
  Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
29. Re:Bad legal decision by BoogieChile · 2017-12-28 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Go label something "Walter Elias Disney widgets" and see how far you get.
30. Re: Bad legal decision by vux984 · 2017-12-28 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  The rights to what exactly? The word salad that makes up his name?
  There are easily thousands of people with my first and last name wandering around. I certainly can't own it exclusively, nor should I be able to it.
  Even if Apple & Steve Jobs had trademarked his name, it would still be restricted to an industry etc. So even if they owned steve jobs brand in conjunction with computers in the united states, I could still register that trademark to sell fruit and herbal teas. Or I could still register it to sell electronics in Mexico.
31. Re: Bad legal decision by hackwrench · 2017-12-28 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  Paradoxes and quantum physics. I'll try.
32. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 19:34 · Score: 0
  
  Disney had a trademark on "Disney", and still does. Apple didn't trademark "Steve Jobs" (and apparently neither did Steve Jobs or his estate), which allears to be the main cause of this.
33. Re:Bad legal decision by nospam007 · 2017-12-28 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Maybe trademark laws are different in Italy. I think natural persons and by extension their estates should have the inalienable moral and natural right to their name as far as trademarks go."
  Sure, but no Steve Jobs is living in Italy nor the EU or the planet.
  And you have to register a trademark first, which Apple couldn't be bothered to do.
  But they are forcing their current CEO to use private planes for security reasons, for that they had the resources.
34. Re:Bad legal decision by nospam007 · 2017-12-28 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  "My own surname is protected in the way that no person can change their surname to the same as mine without being born to the family, for example."
  It's really cute that you think that.
35. Re: Bad legal decision by nospam007 · 2017-12-28 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  "Australia has protected words which cannot be used in names eg military ranks."
  So then no Colonel Sanders' Kentucky Fried Chicken down there?
36. Re: Bad legal decision by marka63 · 2017-12-28 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  Colonel Harland David Sanders has the honour title of Kentucky Colonel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
37. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 21:46 · Score: 0
  
  May I suggest 'Ponzi' as an alternative name for Tesla?
38. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  You have clearly never read the continuous praise in the press for everything Musk does or says. Many people are really bad at recognising a very obvious fraud. That being said, I think the clothing company probably isn't much better.
39. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  The surname 'Coward' is not protected.
40. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous Coward wrote :
  
  My own surname is protected in the way that no person can change their surname to the same as mine without being born to the family, for example.
  But my name is "Anonymous Coward" too.
41. Re: Bad legal decision by Pimpy · 2017-12-28 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Mike Rowe would beg to differ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
42. Re:Bad legal decision by Hognoxious · 2017-12-29 00:40 · Score: 2
  
  cretin american with 3rd grade English.
  Their's allot of it a bout.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
43. Re: Bad legal decision by Hognoxious · 2017-12-29 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read the post you're replying to? People's names.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
44. Re:Bad legal decision by houghi · 2017-12-29 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And then there are companies that use the common word Word. Word, yo!
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
45. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  You might have a point if Apple was known for their clothing line. Since they aren't, this is totally legit. Different product types can use names from other industries.
46. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  You might want to note that "English" was correctly written with the uppercase initial, contrary to "american". One must be really stupid to interpret that as a grammar blunder rather than an intentionally diminishing way of spelling. Have you ever been outside the US in your life? LOL
47. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  +1 Agree.
48. Re: Bad legal decision by Gornkleschnitzer · 2017-12-29 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  They're creepy and they're kooky!
49. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not a fan of IP hoarding, but "Steve Jobs" implies that either Apple or Jobs (when he was alive) has something to do with the design of the Italian company's products.
  Not really. However, throw in that hideous logo, and then it certainly does start to look that way.
50. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  I guess they will do it in the same way all companies imply something, using the name and a black lightbulb shadow as a logo, not linking the specific person or that person's work.
  Several companies do the same like some beer company using a founding father's name or other products with historically or popular known people's names.
51. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Aaaaaand once again, none of that matters, because we are talking about branding and products, not a pseudo-documentary and personal moral choices.
52. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  No it doesnt. I am familiar with that case. If it had gone to court microsoft would have lost and they knew it. thats why they bribed mike rowe with free ms courses and xbox games to give up the domain.
53. Re:Bad legal decision by AbrasiveCat · 2017-12-29 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  "My own surname is protected in the way that no person can change their surname to the same as mine without being born to the family, for example."
  It's really cute that you think that.
  But who would name their kid "nospam007"? so no worries.
54. Re: Bad legal decision by dcw3 · 2017-12-29 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's all fine and good if your name is Steve Jobs. But if you're attempting to market something off of the back of the Steve Jobs that we all knew, that's simply fraudulent, and should not be allowed.
  I get the comparison someone else made regarding Tesla, and see the point, but I think it's pretty clear that Mr.Tesla wasn't backing the vehicles. Maybe put a time limit...like 25 years after the person passed away, the name becomes fair game. In the case of Jobs, it's just too soon.
  And, FWIW, I'm no fanboi
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
55. Re:Bad legal decision by blind+biker · 2017-12-29 10:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If a marketing shill like Musk can denigrate the name of one of the greatest engineers of all time like Tesla
  
  Musk has done nothing to "denigrate" Tesla - if anything, Musk has raised awareness of Tesla and generously donated to the Tesla Science Center - one of the greatest memorials to the man. In fact, Musk's donations were so substantial that the work on the Center would have not been possible without them. Musk truly put his money, to the tune of millions of USD, where his mouth is.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
56. Re: Bad legal decision by datavirtue · 2017-12-29 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's not as good as Ohio Fried Chicken. TM
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
57. Re:Bad legal decision by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-12-29 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  If Musk wanted to do something in Tesla's name he would put a tiny fraction of the wealth he's generated from it into making the Wardenclyffe project a reality. That was the result of Tesla's life's work. Using his name to market batteries and cars is so far from it as to be an absurdity.
58. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-30 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  The details are coming back to me now. It wasn't about a trading name, but domain name registration.
  
  So, fuck all to do with the question at hand. Well played, moron.
59. Re:Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe some one should market a perfume called Musk? Just a thought.
60. Re: Bad legal decision by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-01 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  LOL, good one. I hate the guy as well.
Law & courts are funny by aliquis · 2017-12-28 12:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, exactly NO-ONE can perceive a bite mark into the letter J in the name Steve Jobs as a BITE!
Regardless of whatever we eat letters normally or not ..
1. Re:Law & courts are funny by Xenx · 2017-12-28 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Especially when the letter J has an apple leaf.
2. Re:Law & courts are funny by KingMotley · 2017-12-28 12:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yeah, another winning conclusion from the EU. Either the EU courts are just unbelievably stupid, or they believe the populace of the EU is stupid. Or as most suspect, the EU will just side against any American company no matter how stupid the argument.
3. Re:Law & courts are funny by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  The J actually looks like an apple core.
4. Re:Law & courts are funny by aliquis · 2017-12-28 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well we got Muslims and Africans now.
  We don't need the last bastion of freedom, Europeans and the west!
5. Re:Law & courts are funny by drsquare · 2017-12-28 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they heard bacon-faced Americans chanting 'American First!' and flipping the bird to the world, and decided that some 'Europe first' policies in return might be in order in retaliation.
6. Re:Law & courts are funny by Megol · 2017-12-28 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  ... While you can continue thinking this is the case I'll try to explain things so that others (which have a brain) can understand. You however is of course free to be a bigoted clueless idiot.
  There are laws. Those laws include trademarks (at least due to international treaties ensuring that). Trademarks apply to a certain area of commerce. A registration is valid if 1) if passes local laws that limit some wording, reserved words that can cause confusion or is already in use 2) the word/phrase isn't already registered as a whole or as a part of an already existing trademark _in_that_area_of_commerce.
  See the problem here? Because 1) the name isn't off-limits as a trademark 2) it isn't already registered as a trademark 3) it isn't already trademarked for selling clothing.
  So why should a reasonable court go against their own laws only to make some Apple fanboys feel alright? Indeed the members of the court may all think this is a shitty move to try to link the name of a wholly unrelated person with shitty articles of cloth. It doesn't matter.
  TL;DR stuff your idiot EU v.s. US shit.
7. Re: Law & courts are funny by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 22:15 · Score: 0
  
  This wasn't an EU court.
8. Re:Law & courts are funny by stephanruby · 2017-12-28 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just let nature take its course and wait until the company goes bankrupt on its own.
  I personally do not think there is any danger of a consumer accidentally buying a Steve J Jobs Tablet instead of an iPad.
9. Re:Law & courts are funny by Hognoxious · 2017-12-29 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  A stick man falling on his butt.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
10. Re:Law & courts are funny by aliquis · 2017-12-29 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I totally expect it from the US.
  It's just feel weird seeing how the EU act as such. Here in Sweden we would of course never do anything such but rather be the first one to volunteer to get butt raped by as many as possible because someone has to be the most extreme and that got to be us. .. and in three days we'll have the worlds highest taxes on gasoline. Just a continuation of our long tradition of being the most retarded progressives of the planet.
11. Re:Law & courts are funny by KingMotley · 2017-12-29 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  There are laws.
  
  A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services.
  Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademar...
  The article is about how apple tried to keep some clothing manufacturers from using "Steve Jobs" as a clothing line with a capital J with an apple stem stuck on the top of it that is the exact same style and relative size and position of the apple logo. The logo (the J) also has what appears to be a bite taken out the right hand side in the same style and shape is apple's logo.
  A 2-year old would say that a shirt with that brand (Steve J Jobs) with the J logo could (and even extremely likely) to be confusing as whether it was made by apple or a clothing division of apple, but the EU court ruling that the logo doesn't infringe is just beyond stupid.
  Simple test... When I say Steve Jobs while discussing this clothing, do you honestly believe that there is no confusion about what I might be talking about? There are even exemptions for "famous" marks, and I would say "Steve Jobs" is pretty famous.
What do they look like, Jimmy? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 12:52 · Score: 0

Dorks. They look like dorks.
Good one Italian guys by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:02 · Score: 0

Way to start a holy war
Mod this post, Apple fanboys... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:11 · Score: 0

Steve Jobs sucks.
Cmdr Taco Pizza would make me rich by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:23 · Score: 0

If I just had a logo.
Douchebags won. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:25 · Score: 0

Douchebags won.
1. Re:Douchebags won. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Douchebags won.
  Why do you Anonymous Coward's keep posting about Trump?
You can't trade mark a persons name by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:25 · Score: 0

Apple was bound to fail anyway. You cannot stop someone from naming something after themself. You cannot trademark a name. You cannot take a persons name out of circulation. If i want to name something John Smith no John Smith can ever stop me from doing so.
1. Re: You can't trade mark a persons name by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:34 · Score: 0
  
  And just to add to that that's why Apple went after the logo and the bite in it because they had no grounds to the words Steve jobs. Apple hadn't and cannot ever trademark Steve jobs because it is a persons name.
2. Re:You can't trade mark a persons name by Hognoxious · 2017-12-28 14:30 · Score: 2
  
  If i want to name something John Smith no John Smith can ever stop me from doing so.
  If it's in England and it's beer they can.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
bite me by bugs2squash · 2017-12-28 13:27 · Score: 0

The J with the ash on the end cannot infringe on Paul Simon because clearly no-one could smoke a J

--
Nullius in verba
erm by cascadingstylesheet · 2017-12-28 13:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

They admit that they deliberately used his name and his popularity related to Apple. They admit that the logo mimics the Apple logo.
So, it's good that they won via fraud?
1. Re:erm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up Hitler!
2. Re:erm by Hognoxious · 2017-12-28 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Your premises do not lead to your conclusion.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:erm by JoshuaZ · 2017-12-28 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  It will be interesting to see what happens if they ever market in the US. The US concern about trademarks will I suspect take a much dimmer view of this.
4. Re:erm by sg_oneill · 2017-12-28 15:13 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So, it's good that they won via fraud?
  I'm not sure what they lied to the court about? When you admit something, thats sort of the opposite to lying, and fraud requires that you lie about something.
  Regardless, this whole thing is about trying to get a payout out of apple. At some point apple is going to offer a big fat old payday to them to give up wth name. That, I suspect, is the end goal.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
5. Re:erm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  fraud? haha no. what they did was legal.
  that's the point.
  take the idevice out of your ass and recognize they didn't do their due-dilligence when it came to a valid and common business aspect.
6. Re:erm by Mal-2 · 2017-12-28 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  "We're dicks, but it's legal" is not fraud, it is the sort of semantic game Apple plays all the time with their own patent portfolio. Like any game, they're going to lose at least occasionally, else it's not much of a game. This time, they got out-lawyered. Nothing of any real significance happened to anyone outside of the two companies in question.
  Outright forgery of a brand is a crime. Making sly references to a brand is not. Putting Gibson headstocks on Epiphones and selling them out the back door of the factory probably isn't legal, but it seems to be tolerated by authorities. (The third great blunder is: Never start a lawsuit in China.) It happened to Aquilasax, twice. Both times, the manufacturing company was releasing "back door" horns before they had delivered their promised contract to him.
  Surely the world can do better than outright brand forgery, but the world isn't exactly in a crisis over it outside of a few specific markets like pharmaceuticals. Granting Apple automatic ownership of anything resembling a second- or third-derivative of their precious brand is likewise swinging too far in the opposite direction. I think this case may have defined exactly where the line is. Rejoice in that, I suppose. A rule got clarified without a precipitating disaster, and the world isn't really any worse off.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
7. Re:erm by gravewax · 2017-12-28 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  What Fraud? being arseholes is perfectly legal, if it wasn't then Apple would not exist today.
8. Re:erm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 16:40 · Score: 0
  
  To be fair, Apple patent these sort of 'innovations' all the time. So fuck them.
9. Re: erm by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  The logo skirts "lying" to the consumer that they are an "Apple Authorized" clothing manufacturer for Apple Computer or at least Steve Jobs. At least that is how it would come across if they distributed the clothing in the USA, or to US tourists.
10. Re:erm by Tablizer · 2017-12-28 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, it's misleading for consumers. Judge should throw the iBook at them.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
11. Re: erm by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  I think this hits a little to close than "second or third derivative".
  
  "We're dicks, but it is legal.", Ironically, I think such a move strengthens the Apple brand at the cost of some profit. The P.R. from this lawsuit might be worth more than any profit from Apple Computer attempting to sell clothes on its own. It might also be good for "Steve Jobs" clothing, as such a bold and in your face move fits the Apple motif they are trying to connect with. This whole thing could merely be a PR stunt intended to reinforce the image both companies are marketing.
12. Re:erm by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  Apple had the opportunity to trademark the name and chose not to, therefore it's a reasonable (legal) inference that they were not interested in doing so, and it was free for the taking. It will be a different problem if the SJ company markets products that can readily be mistaken for a true Apple brand. Note: IANAL.
  Think of it this way: suppose someone started a company with your name, even though they had no previous connection to that name. Could you then sue to claim the trademark? Answer: no. SJ is no different.
13. Re:erm by thegarbz · 2017-12-29 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  So, it's good that they won via fraud?
  You think that capitalising on popularity is fraud? You could learn something from the Dutch. They are very direct people and it would be far less confusing to others if you simply wrote: "Everyone I don't know what fraud is!"
14. Re:erm by Tom · 2017-12-29 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or Apple could partner with on of its chinese suppliers, who also runs a clothes factory, and produce knock-off products, just a little bit cheaper, until the Italiens run out of money.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
15. Re: erm by Mal-2 · 2017-12-29 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  I figured this was more a case of the Steve Jobs side saying "Apple let this one slip through the cracks, now they have to buy us if they want to get rid of us". Will Apple take the bait? I suppose that depends on how much the asset is really worth to them.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
It is a very bad decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:52 · Score: 0

but courts are notoriously insular. If Apple challenges the trademark in the US they will probably get a different decision from from the EU.
I hate IP hoarding too but this decision stinks, I hope their brand flops big time and I hope the US courts bankrupt these phonies.
1. Re:It is a very bad decision by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  Enforcement of Copyright and Trademarks varies across Jurisdictions, even though the fundamental Laws are the same for those that abide by the Berne Conventions. Copyrights are assumed to exist at the moment of creation, but only Registered Copyrights can can generally claim Statutory relief in Courts. Copyright infringements are rampant, simply because most aren't Registered, and it isn't worth the Court Costs to go after infringers.
  Trademarks are different in that they must be Registered, and Due Diligence must be shown that the Trademarks are unique and don't substantially infringe on existing Trademarks. See Pilot Pen vs. Palm. (Remember when Apple paid MODCOMP $1M for the use of the word "Classic" for a line of Computers?)
  Apple has no standing here. There is no connection between Job's name and other Apple Trademarks. But it does not end there. The Steven P. Jobs Trust does have standing, and it and the subsidiary Trusts are quite wealthy; for instance they own ~8% of Disney and are the largest single Shareholders, and they own somewhere around $20B in APPL. Hmmm... that ~8% of Disney...
  What's Italian for "Don't fuck with the mouse."?
Tit meet Tat by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 13:56 · Score: 0

So. You are suggesting that a European company shouldn't be able to steal the Apple logo.
How about this one?
1. Re: Tit meet Tat by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 14:13 · Score: 2
  
  American consumers have been exposed to a myriad of brand names which contain the same, or similar words, but are not related. The state of Georgia has a lot of companies called "Peachtree".
  
  "Apple Computer" and "Apple Records" with their distinct logos are sufficiently distinct to avoid confusing the majority of consumers. At least until iTunes and the iPod, and Apple Computer's music industry presense.
  
  "Steve Jobs" and its distinctive logo is clearly intended to invoke recognition of Steve Jobs. In the USA, it is strongly expected that such obvious and overt references would be the result of some deal or agreement of sorts. Apple's position in the market suggests that a clothing line, potentially called "Steve Jobs" could be an area where Apple could expand into and build their brand. Though, it is perhaps more valuable to have a separate italian brand, rather than just some marketing materials like most orher brands.
2. Re: Tit meet Tat by aliquis · 2017-12-28 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair it would likely be an off-the shelf regular white shirt with some almost forgotten print because now Apple is all about key-chains instead! ;D
3. Re: Tit meet Tat by Hognoxious · 2017-12-28 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Steve Jobs" and its distinctive logo is clearly intended to invoke recognition of Steve Jobs.
  
  Apple have no more right to the name "Steve Jobs" than Pepsi do.
  
  In the USA, it is strongly expected that such obvious and overt references would be the result of some deal or agreement of sorts.
  
  If I had a beer for every time someone mentioned Sam Adams in this thread, I'd be posting as much sense as you.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
4. Re: Tit meet Tat by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Sam Adams and the other founding fathers and former presidents are long dead. I doubt very many would actually believe that Samuel Adams started a brewery or had a beer recipe that has lasted til today.
  
  Furthermore Sam Adams is a product by a company, not the company itself. Nor is it the company's only product.
  
  Finally, "Steve Jobs" not only references the name, but links the name to Apple. Signifying a relationship or agreement with Apple.
5. Re: Tit meet Tat by Hognoxious · 2017-12-29 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, "Steve Jobs" not only references the name, but links the name to Apple.
  
  Legally, it doesn't. If they used any other [former] employee's name it wouldn't either.
  Hence the court's decision.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Too late... by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-12-28 13:59 · Score: 1

What about Apple Jeans?

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
1. Re: Too late... by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 17:41 · Score: 1
  
  That IS the official Apple Computer logo. Either those jeans are officially licensed, or are custom made. If not licensed and distributed, that would be in violation of copyright.
  
  Those have nothing to do with "Apple Bottom" jeans, which do not use the Apple Computer logo, and are clearly distinguishable as a separate product.
Steve Wozniak by jfdavis668 · 2017-12-28 14:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Apple should rename itself to "Steve Wozniak" in retaliation.
1. Re:Steve Wozniak by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  He stitches his own jeans from hemp, and pens his name in with a big fat black Sharpie. Long story short, he already has his own clothing line.
2. Re:Steve Wozniak by jfdavis668 · 2017-12-29 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  But has he trademarked his own name?
3. Re:Steve Wozniak by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  doesnt look like it
4. Re: Steve Wozniak by CyberRacer · 2017-12-29 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  The "Woz" invented the Apple. All hail the "Woz"! Steve Jobs was just an opportunistic penis_with_ears that slapped a logo on it and made a fortune. The fact that Jobs' name is being used by other johnsoncraniums to make money is nothing more than poetic justice.
Did one gnnn forget one's gnnn password? by Hognoxious · 2017-12-28 14:40 · Score: 2

Fucking hell, Prince Charles is posting on slashdot!
And with all due respect, you're talking out of your royal arse. There's Barbara (actress) and Bobby (Rugby player) just off the top of my head.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
1. Re:Did one gnnn forget one's gnnn password? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  It was more of the fear of all those burny and rapey communists, reprisals for the war and the fear of their revolution that could come at any moment. I know some people had suicide kits with syringes ready to go if the troops would ever come knocking. The fear was real. I know it all sounds funny, but it seems one of the best ways of trolling Americans is telling them about legislation in another country, and vice versa. ;)
2. Re:Did one gnnn forget one's gnnn password? by Hognoxious · 2017-12-29 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  And why would being the only people with a particular surname help? If anything it'd make them easier to find.
  In case you've forgotten, the original claim was that somebody stopped others from using their shiny, new English-as-Queen-Victoria name, and it's still bollocks.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
3. Re:Did one gnnn forget one's gnnn password? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  Who knows? Laws may have been changed multiple times since then. In Finland, the established family names, both foreign and domestic, company names and trademarks are all out of bounds for new names, unless the normal reasons apply (marriage, birth and so on). I would imagine that Italian trademark and name related laws may very well be different from the Queen's and the Founding Fathers' laws.
Always check bed for horses' head by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 14:53 · Score: 0

URSINE ; `^ J ; `^ FERRO . INBUILT `INBUILT . JIU on FERRO . J tot J on J J on J tot J `J tot J `J us are `JIU . J tot J ` J tot J . J . J . J us are J tot J `J us are . J on J us are J tot J `J tot J `J `HECK `J tot J `FERRO tot J ; `^ FERRO . J tot J `INBUILT `J tot J `J tot J `J us are `us are ; `^ J ` J tot J `J tot J `J tot J `J tot J `J us are ; `^ . J tot J ` URSINE . J tot J . FERRO . INBUILT `INBUILT us are . FERRO .
Cheapskate world leaders by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 15:04 · Score: 0

Awesome! I need to start trademarking names of famous world leaders and start producing cheap ass products out of Blangadesh or Pakistan.... sorry mate Chinaâ(TM)s quality is improving too fast and getting too expensive...
Some ideas to start...
Xi JingPingâ(TM)s Jingle Bell Playhouse
Macronâ(TM)s Macaronis
Merkelâ(TM)s Market
Obamaâ(TM)s Abominations (sells weird ass stuff like voodoo dolls and white Arabic words on black flags like âoeLoveâ, âoePeaceâ, âoeCareâ and âoeNobel Priceâ)
Clintonâ(TM)s Wontons
Bushâ(TM)s Bushes
Theresaâ(TM)s Mayhem Brexit Trinkets
Trumpâ(TM)s.... shit thatâ(TM)s already trademarked
Erdogans Ninjitsu Collectibles
Abeâ(TM)s Abominations (war criminal shrine replicas)
Kimmy Jongâ(TM)s Undies
Natanyahuâ(TM)s Hoolahoops
Hamas Hamsters
1. Re: Cheapskate world leaders by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 18:31 · Score: 0
  
  Aung San Sukiyaki!
2. Re:Cheapskate world leaders by Megol · 2017-12-28 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  FFS stop â-ing âll the fucking time mâte!
3. Re:Cheapskate world leaders by Hal_Porter · 2017-12-28 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Jacob Rees-Moggie plush toy cat. speaks truths * about the world to your children.
  * Truths require a Wifi connection with access to moggie.reesmogg.com
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
4. Re: Cheapskate world leaders by Nidi62 · 2017-12-29 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Someone doesn't watch Live PD. There's already an Obama gas station
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
5. Re: Cheapskate world leaders by Midnight+Thunder · 2017-12-29 01:20 · Score: 1
  
  Or the those people in the legal team.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Italy is the new by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 15:05 · Score: 0

China
Contadiction.... by mark-t · 2017-12-28 15:44 · Score: 2

If nobody can really perceive it as something with a bite mark, then why would anyone use the terms "appears bitten" to describe it?
Clearly it can be perceived as a bite mark, even if what is being depicted cannot be eaten.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Contadiction.... by mentil · 2017-12-28 17:52 · Score: 1
  
  I eat 'J's all the time. Not as convenient to eat as 'O's or 'I's though.
  
  --
  Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
2. Re:Contadiction.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Uh oh, spaghetti-Os...
"electronic devices" by jargonburn · 2017-12-28 16:11 · Score: 1

I will not pretend to have any particular knowledge of applicable rules/laws, not even for my own country. However, I wonder if selling electronic devices (which Apple is well known for) might result in a different decision? And certainly, if they attempt to sell outside of the EU (*cough*America*cough*), I imagine Apple consider pursuing similar cases in attempts to forbid the import/sale.
1. Re: "electronic devices" by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think the logo might be a bigger issue here. It implies a connection to Apple Computer.
  
  Apple Computer's reputation suggests that a partnership with a clothing manufacturer is a logical next step, and "Steve Jobs" with that "J" logo is a logical name for the brand.
  
  A third party using that logo when making knock-offs would likely clearly be a third party making knock-offs. A court might let the logo slide. The name however, in combination with the logo, implies a connection to Apple Computer. The combination of name and logo might be enough to push a US court to reject a copyright.
2. Re: "electronic devices" by jpaine619 · 2017-12-28 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  The combination of name and logo might be enough to push a US court to reject a copyright.
  Copyrights and Trademarks are two different things..........
Re: Trump is going to die in prison. by hackwrench · 2017-12-28 18:32 · Score: 1

So you've been to every prison to personally ensure there's no golf there. You've got some clout!
Derp... by Monster_user · 2017-12-28 18:47 · Score: 1

Derp... That should have been trademark. Thanks for the correction.
And they will soon fade into oblivion... by Picodon · 2017-12-28 18:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Creating a brand name (and a logo) is one thing. Running a successful company, selling desirable products, is another. Given the large percentage of companies that fail, and given how crowded the clothing market is, they will probably soon disappear after this ephemeral hour of stolen glory, at which point Apple will probably be quick to snatch back the trademark. Not that Apple should own it, really. Jobs’ family should.
Round corner by future+assassin · 2017-12-28 19:14 · Score: 1

karma

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Good Luck by neoRUR · 2017-12-28 20:49 · Score: 1

In trying to use any Apple Products and apps in the future, I'm sure Apple will have no problem making sure all your iPhones, transactions and customers work just fine...
1. Re:Good Luck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  LOL found the iDiot.
  Other equally stupid ideas would be for apple to stop selling products in Italy to teach them a lesson; or for apple to just buy Italy.
  Id love to see apple defence during steve jobs v apple. "Your Honour; they are using are lord and saviours name in vain"
David vs Goliath by D,Petkow · 2017-12-28 20:53 · Score: 1

Usually smaller companies tend to have my support, but in this case it appears that those brothers used a blatant loophole to steal a chunk off somebody's image, and they don't even sell those polos.
Anti-American. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 21:28 · Score: 0

Just like the judgments against Microsoft, the merits of the case don't matter; this is just an indirect protectionism of European companies, instead of a free market.
1. Re:Anti-American. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  How exactly?
New brand of dildos coming up by iTrawl · 2017-12-28 22:25 · Score: 2

Vincenzo and Giacomo Barbato

--
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Now I know that brand is owned by scammers. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-28 23:40 · Score: 1

I'll never buy anything with that brand on it or associated with that brand or the people involved in the lawsuit.
I'd like to see more name & shame news articles for sleezy business and politics.
The real question is different by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 00:44 · Score: 0

Why should an Italian clothing company use an english-sounding brand? Italy, together with France, is the world's leading fashion superpower.
If I have to buy clothing, I feel instinctively more attracted to Italian-sounding brands. If I want to look "cool", I wear Armani, Versace, Prada, Dolce&Gabbana..., I don't want to wear "Steve Jobs". Only the most desperate apple fanboys would.
Litigation is not always the answer by lowkeyknight · 2017-12-29 00:47 · Score: 1

It would have been a lot cheaper to do what they probably wanted Apple to do, and just buy the brand off them. "the company plans to produce electronic devices under the Steve Jobs brand" I'll bet they do, it's a really good way of incentivizing a high number purchase offer.
Ugly logo AND stupid company name by wardrich86 · 2017-12-29 02:00 · Score: 1

I'm almost certain they just did this to be edgy...
A worthless win by Sqreater · 2017-12-29 02:24 · Score: 1

Few people in the general public know who Steve Jobs was.

--
E Proelio Veritas.
catalog by bigdavex · 2017-12-29 02:28 · Score: 1

There's only one product it makes sense for them to sell: black turtlenecks. Everything else is ironic.

--
-Dave
1. Re:catalog by Anonymous Coward · 2017-12-29 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  I think sj douches and butt plugs would sell like hotcakes.
Idiotic decision by pezezin · 2017-12-29 08:34 · Score: 1

I fail to see how registering some famous person name who is not related to your company is even possible. We are not talking about someone who has been dead for so long there are not any living relatives, Steve Jobs died a few years ago. So now any company in the world will have to register all its famous members names, lest someone register it first? Ridiculous. And for the record, I strongly dislike Apple, and I'm European myself, but I think in this case they were right.
Ok, we’ll see in five years how well they do by Picodon · 2017-12-29 14:42 · Score: 1

Hum, for a business who’s presumed to have been running successfully on Jobs’ coattails since 2014, they’ve been keeping a remarkably low profile. Searching for clothing, jeans or Barbato (or other combinations) returns nothing about them if the search is restricted to pages published before this month. Since you appear to know about them, could you point us to their past financial statements (annual gross income, sales volume, etc.)?
But, you’re right on one point: they’ve certainly managed to get a lot of free publicity. I wouldn’t say “extra” publicity, given that they seem to have been unknown until now. And though the saying goes that there is no such thing as bad publicity, I’m not entirely sure that people will be so unembarrassed wearing a brand name that was rather universally derided for ripping off Jobs’ name and Apple’s logo. Unless they aim for the ultra-cheap low-class bling category, may be.
This should only concern Job's heirs by jgfenix · 2017-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

Apple has nothing to say.