Photo by Pineapple Supply Co. ()
Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.
Given the power of Appleās brand, it is no surprise that they actively challenge trademarks that resemble their own to protect the dilution of their trademark. But this raises some key questions: Should Apple have the right to challenge all trademarks relating to an apple? What about fruits that bear a resemblance to an apple? In its act of trademark enforcement, Apple seems to be casting the net as widely as possible. According to the , a research initiative seeking to hold large technology companies accountable, Apple filed 215 trademark oppositions, nearly two-thirds more than all the trademark oppositions of Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook and Google.
Appleās numerous filings are targeting that are seemingly unrelated to the companyās brand, including but not limited to āan organization that supports families of children with autism, a school district in Appleton, Wisconsin, and an online test prep service for nursing studentsā.
The as āa trademark owner that uses its trademark rights to harass and intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow.ā Ā Apple has taken issue with individuals and businesses trademarking anything related to apples, and even other fruits. Those targeted include individuals and businesses providing services that Apple does not, such as . , Apple also filed an opposition to the trademark of Stephanie Carlisiās stage name āFranki Pineappleā, as they were āboth the names of fruits, and thus convey a similar commercial impressionā.
Appleās argument against these companies in mainly emphasizes Appleās Ā significant brand value ā as a business grows, so do its efforts to prevent the brandās dilution. Many smaller parties are unable to respond to opposition because of the costs involved; it can often seem like they have no choice at all. With no opposing voice loud enough to fight back, arguments emphasizing brand values only encourage large companies to continue to enforce their trademarks aggressively and boundlessly.
However, brands attached with the term ātrademark bullyā can face negative consequences and be reprimanded by the courts for filing āweakā cases. In 2016, Louis Vuittonās inability to pass off ās parodical products as a ājokeā led to . , the district judge stated that ā[i]n some cases ā¦ it is better to āaccept the implied compliment in [a] parodyā and to smile or laugh than it is to sueā. Ā For this reason, trademark enforcement can be seen as a double-edged sword.
Image from United States District Court for the Southern District of New 91ŃĒÉ«
In the media, world-famous brands are often , and infringers are sympathized with. Still, Ā many companies are simply trying to protect their brandās dilution. Clarifying the thresholds for depreciation of value and distinctiveness of trademarks would be beneficial to ensure that smaller businesses and individuals are not silenced by nets cast too widely and prevent companies from enforcing their trademarks over-aggressively and falling victim to the double-edged sword of trademark enforcement.