Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Sued an Independent iPhone Repair Shop Owner and Lost (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tough-luck dept.

Jason Koebler, reporting for Motherboard: Last year, Apple's lawyers sent Henrik Huseby, the owner of a small electronics repair shop in Norway, a letter demanding that he immediately stop using aftermarket iPhone screens at his repair business and that he pay the company a settlement. Norway's customs officials had seized a shipment of 63 iPhone 6 and 6S replacement screens on their way to Henrik's shop from Asia and alerted Apple; the company said they were counterfeit. Apple threatened to take action, unless Huseby provided the companies with copies of invoices, product lists, and a plethora of other things. The letter, sent by Frank Jorgensen, an attorney at the Njord law firm on behalf of Apple, included a settlement agreement that also notified him the screens would be destroyed. [...] Huseby decided to fight the case. Apple sued him. Local news outlets reported that Apple had five lawyers in the courtroom working on the case, but Huseby won. Apple has appealed the decision to a higher court; the court has not yet decided whether to accept the appeal.

9 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Counterfeit screen? by sinij · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is a counterfeit screen? Something that made look like a screen, but doesn't actually works? If not that, then it is third-party replacement screen, and Apple has no business telling anyone what parts to use.

    1. Re:Counterfeit screen? by MikeDataLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do you know?

      Because it is literally my job to know these things.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    2. Re:Counterfeit screen? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article specifically answers your question:

      a part is “counterfeit” if it is masquerading as an original manufacturer part rather than an aftermarket one

      I.e. It's a counterfeit if it bears a company's logo but isn't from that company. It's fine to sell aftermarket screens, but it's not fine to sell aftermarket screens that falsely bear a company's trademark. If a product bears Apple's logo, Apple actually may have a say in who gets to sell them. Oh, but there's a wrinkle in this case, of course:

      This definition seems straightforward, but is further muddied because often broken parts—with original manufacturer logos—are sent back to China to be refurbished and sent back to independent repair companies. [...] [The defendant] imported 67 iPhone 6 and iPhone 6S screens that fell into this grey area. They were seized by Norwegian customs officials because Apple logos on the inside components of the screens “had been covered up by ink marker. The ink marker could be removed with rubbing alcohol,” [...]

      So, these were screens manufactured for Apple that Apple had rejected for whatever reason. At that point, despite bearing Apple's logo they were no longer "official" Apple screens and could not be marketed or sold as such. As such, should an unscrupulous repair shop try to pass them off as official Apple screens, they could find themselves in hot water. Thankfully, this guy wasn't doing that:

      [The defendant] told me [...] that they were “refurbished screens assembled by a third party.” [The defendant] told the court that ‘the logo is covered up because it has never been relevant to market the products as Apple products,” the court decision states. “[The repair shop] has never removed the coverup of the Apple logo on the screens that have been imported and has no interest in doing so. [The repair shop] does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.”

      Had he been making repairs while claiming he was using official Apple parts, he'd have been defrauding customers and rightly would have been in trouble, but that's not what he was doing. Had those parts not had their logos covered up, he'd have run afoul of EU laws governing the use of trademarks, but that's not what happened here. The fact is, he's using parts sourced from a third-party supplier who is clearly making an effort to ensure that the parts are not mistaken for official ones. He never claimed they were official parts, never claimed he was authorized by Apple, and went to every reasonable effort to ensure that there would be no confusion.

      Apple is well within its rights to prevent counterfeit parts from being used by unscrupulous repair shops, but the defendant here was doing no such thing, so the decision makes perfect sense while also not having any wide-reaching impact on Apple's ability to prevent unlawful use of its trademark.

  2. Nope by bracktra · · Score: 5, Informative

    He does not operate an authorized repair shop.

  3. Re:what's the problem? by klingens · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this is /. but you should read the article before you comment.
    From the teaser of the article:
    "Apple said an unauthorized repair shop owner in Norway violated its trademark by using aftermarket iPhone parts"

    unauthorized repair shop, not apple licensed and blessed center.
    Considering how wrong you are in your first assertion, what makes you think that you are right in your 2nd one that they defrauded their own customers?

  4. Re:what's the problem? by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The shop agreed to be licensed as an Apple Authorized repair center."

    Authoritative source needed, because that's not at all what the article says. The article says it was an "independent" and "unauthorized" repair shop. It also says "PCKompaniet does not pretend or market itself as Apple authorized and does not give any indication that the repair comes with an Apple warranty.â

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  5. Re:what's the problem? by edtice1559 · · Score: 5, Informative

    How did this get modded up. It's like the first paragraph of the article that the is not an authorized repair shop, never claimed to be an authorized repair shop, and doens't want to be one. More importantly he imported refurbished Apple parts but never tried to sell them as OEM parts but a generic after-market parts.

  6. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why don't you just read TFA?

    What part of "Independent iPhone Repair Shop" could suggest to anyone that he was/is a authorized Apple Repair Center?

    Also TFA states just in the subtitle that "Apple said an unauthorized repair shop owner in Norway violated its trademark by using aftermarket iPhone parts"

    So, an Independent iPhone Repair Shop which is not an authorized Apple Repair Center and obviously can't do WARRANTY Repairs and get paid for them fixing phones of people that don't want to pay hefty Apple aftermarket repair prices.

  7. Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Huseby does not claim to be an authorized repair shop, nor has he misrepresented his service, nor does he submit invoices to Apple.

    The original Motherboard article is quite clear on this point. Huseby bought OEM refurbished parts. They had an Apple logo on them because they were, in fact, Apple parts originally. Since the refurbishment was done outside of the Apple monolith those parts had the logos inked out. Fact is, Huseby and his parts suppliers all seem to be operating responsibly and 100% within the law.

    Also, there's this tiny little matter that Huseby won the court case and Apple lost. Yes, Apple is appealing, but in the meantime Huseby is the winner.

    Also, as a fundamental and practical matter, does the owner of a phone actually control the phone? You know, as the owner, of property, that they purchased? Apple does not lease or license these phones. They sell them.