Slashdot Mirror
Italian Clothing Company Defeats Apple, Wins the Right To Use Steve Jobs' Name (macrumors.com)
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.
ugly logo
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.
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 ..
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?
What about Apple Jeans?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
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
If it's in England and it's beer they can.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Apple should rename itself to "Steve Wozniak" in retaliation.
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."
Apple have no more right to the name "Steve Jobs" than Pepsi do.
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."
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'
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.
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.
So you've been to every prison to personally ensure there's no golf there. You've got some clout!
Derp... That should have been trademark. Thanks for the correction.
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.
karma
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
FFS stop â-ing âll the fucking time mâte!
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...
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.
Vincenzo and Giacomo Barbato
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
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;
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.
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
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.
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."
Or the those people in the legal team.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I'm almost certain they just did this to be edgy...
Few people in the general public know who Steve Jobs was.
E Proelio Veritas.
There's only one product it makes sense for them to sell: black turtlenecks. Everything else is ironic.
-Dave
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.
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.
Apple has nothing to say.