Talk:Litigation involving Apple Inc./Archive 1

Proposed merge
I agree with the proposed merge of Butt-Head Astronomer into this article. Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs HP section
Contains the sentence "Many consider this to be a specious argument, however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely stole the MacOS GUI design from the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer". As far as I know this is not correct, Apple paid for that usage, did it not? Mikkel 12:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PARC was compensated in return for allowing Apple to visit PARC. Apple did not walk out with screenshots or code.  Obviously they were inspired by what they saw.  Personally, I'd re-word that sentence to say something more like: "due to the fact that Apple's Mac OS GUI design was inspired by what they saw of the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer."  But to say that it also matters how much of the Mac OS GUI was inspired by PARC and how much they'd already been working towards some of that stuff before PARC.  If it truly ALL started w/ the PARC visit, I'd leave as is, but I thought some of that stuff they'd already been thinking about.  But I have no plans to do any of this research right now and that would have to be done before changing this.  I know there's good material out there about this, esp. in books.  Also "Many consider this to be a specious argument" needs citation.  Who is the "many"?
 * --Jason C.K. 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd go further and delete the whole section "Some say that Apple was at fault because they were hoarding a superior input system that would put all competitors out of business. Others say Microsoft stole Apple's ideas, and it would have been possible to create a GUI that would not infringe on their copyright. Many consider this to be a specious argument, [verification needed] however, due to the fact that Apple themselves largely based the Mac OS GUI design on the PARC User Interface found on the Xerox Alto computer." Apple lost its case. The rest is editorializing unless notable sources are cited.--agr 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree...I did put a "verify source" tag on that...if no one fixes that up in a week, delete it all?
 * --Jason C.K. 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Apple vs Apple
This case is of interest not only to Apple Computer enthusiasts but also to Beatles fans. Currently Apple Corps sends them here for a full analysis of the dispute. Also, I believe the earlier agreement may have some legal significance too? Therefore, if anyone here is able to flesh the story out into a full, seperate article it would be an idea I'd support. --kingboyk 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've forked this out to Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. Please expand it if you can. --kingboyk 17:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words
"*Some say* that Apple was at fault... *Many* consider this to be a specious argument..."

Can someone please clean the article up from these statements and/or add some references? Rm999


 * Any weaselly words that annoy you, go put a or  or some other tag on it in the article text. Guidelines here.  If it remains unsourced for a week or more, consider deleting the unsubstantiated words.
 * --Jason C.K. 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

section order
Should the sections be ordered chronologically or based on notability? Regardless the order of the cases needs to be looked at and organized better. I think it would work nicely if they were ordered chronologically based on when the case was first brought to court. This would result in this order:
 * Apple v. Apple (1978)
 * Apple v. Franklin (1982)
 * Apple v. Mackintosh (1986)
 * Apple v. Microsoft (1988)
 * Carl Sagan (1994)
 * Abdul Traya (1998)
 * Ben Cohen (2000)
 * Apple v. Does (2004)
 * iPod Class action (2005)

Additional sections would need to be created for the eMachines lawsuit and the GEM lawsuit out of the GUI section currently at the top. Paul C/T+ 19:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you raised this, as I was wondering the same. (I'm a Beatles Apple person, but I kinda like this page :)). I think chronologically, as you've suggested, would work. Go for it! --kingboyk 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple v. Does latest info.
I don't really have the time to do this, but Ars just did a nice report of the Apple v. Does lawsuit and the latest decision that was handed down. If someone could incorporate it into the article it would be very helpful. Paul C/T+ 06:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs. Does and Apple Vs Think Secret
I've seperated out the "Apple vs. Does" case from Apple's law suit against Think Secret over its alledged trade secrets violation. There's no connection between the two cases, other than they happened at roughly the same time. The article on Apple vs Think Secret is a stub - I'll expand if/when I have time. Ianbetteridge 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cisco v. Apple
I think there's gonna be lawsuit from Cisco because they trademarked "iPhone" first. So we need to add that soon. 168.254.226.175 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (or Awesimo)

I added addational informaiotn and cleared up the lawsuit article, which appeared to have the stance that Apple and Cisco were almost settled, which was not the case accordint to Cnet.--Zeeboid 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename?
Should this be renamed to "Notable litigation of Apple Inc."? Shawnc 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple, Lugz, and the Postal Service
I was wondering if it was appropriate to have entries reguarding Apple "borrowing" Lugz's ads and "remaking" the Postal Service's music video? Immortal Time Keeper 07:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

eMachines
This article and iMac each direct the reader to the other article with regard to the eOne lawsuit. Romperomperompe 03:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nokia
There is a current patent dispute with Nokia. The article should be updated accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.100.228.72 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan
Maybe the Carl Sagan link, at the top of the lawsuit concerning him, should be changed to the part in his article regarding Apple? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightningstripe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple vs Samsung 2011 over phones and tables
Is there any merit of the lawsuit Apple Inc. litigation ..? or is it just Apple trying to own ubiquitous ways of doing things ? Electron9 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There basically isn't, it's just their ubiquitous ways. But I think it would be ideal to have a new Wikipedia article for this matter as it is multi-faceted enough to earn a proper page. Significant products by Samsung and Apple are involved in continuous injunctions by both parties, and just today, Samsung is now planning on seeking court injunctions to block the sale of the iPhone 4S in France and Italy due to patent infringements for the W-CDMA standard. What do others think? I am certain this issue won't end for quite a while, so I think a new page dedicated to this matter would help document the events and the discussions at hand. Eug.galeotti (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Motorola vs Apple
I'm surprised there is nothing in here regarding the attempt by Motorola to invalidate 11 Apple patents on October 18th 2010 and the following patent infringement lawsuit placed by Motorola against Apple followed by Apple counter suing using the patents Motorola was attempting to have invalidated. It seems incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doombug5000 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

 * Apple Ruling Hits Android by Jessica E. Vascellaro WSJ 20.December.2011, exceprt ...


 * U.S. Backs Apple in Patent Ruling That Hits Google by Nick Wingfield published NYT December 19, 2011, excerpt ...
 * http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/daily-report-apples-win-in-patent-ruling-hits-google/ December 20, 2011, 9:36 am

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this against Apple too? See Portal:Current events/2011 December 19 ... Samsung Electronics announces it has filed new claims of patent infringement against Apple in Germany, raising the stakes in an ongoing worldwide patent war. (Reuters)
 * 99.19.40.211 (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See Smartphone. 99.181.143.108 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sagan
I've sourced the Sagan assertion, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to competently cite it. Here is the header, from Lexis:

CARL SAGAN, Plaintiff, v. APPLE COMPUTER, INC., Defendant CV 94-2180 LGB (BRx) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 874 F. Supp. 1072; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20154 June 27, 1994, Decided June 27, 1994, FILED

12.208.150.136 (talk) 19:02, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

Itunes.co.uk
"nominet responded by publishing facts" Perhaps a link to the facts or quoteing them would help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.155.135.133 (talk • contribs). 217.155.135.133 (talk) 14:38, April 7, 2006 (UTC)

merge
I think that this page should be merged with the main Apple inc. page on Wikipedia. It should be done. 74.57.32.16 (talk) 18:50, August 15, 2007 (UTC)

Proview and iPad Trademark?
Is there some reason Apple's spat with Proview over the iPad trademark in China isn't included? Not my editing genre, so not being WP:BOLD myself. J Clear (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just haven't gotten to it yet. Thanks for the reminder though. :-) Sctechlaw (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All done now! Sctechlaw (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please participate in the GA nomination review
I've finished expanding and cleaning up this article and forked a couple of sections to new articles. The article is now nominated for Good Article (WP:GA) status. Please participate in the review noted in the banner, above.
 * &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Infinite Loop reference is pointless and childish
Apple refers to a drive on its campus as Infinite Loop in reference to programing terminology. There is no point to bring this up and it adds nothing to one's knowledge of the subject at had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.57.51 (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

and Xerox litigation ?
Lost in the mists of night, there is the "famous" 'Xerox Corp. v. Apple Computer, Inc.0, 734 F. Supp. 1542 (N.D. Cal. 1990).... All the thing is quite funny, 'cause Xerox sues Apple and basically (wrongly) lost. And for the same reason instead (yet probabily wrongly!) Apple lost vs Microsoft ... Some details in Apple vs M$ war here. 88.149.240.100 (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Monopoly" in letter "i"
Apple has never had an exclusive right to use the letter "i" in trade marks. Contrary to the article "Apple Cannot Monopolize the Letter 'i' – iGood!", cited as a reference under Apple Inc. litigation, it is factually incorrect to say that Apple "no longer has a monopoly on the letter 'i' as part of the name for its products" as a result of that case. The cited article uses hyperbole to suggest that Apple's perchant for using a lowercase "i" in product names such as iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc., amounts to some kind of exclusivity, but this should not be cited to support a "monopoly" as being fact. It's hyperbole, not fact. The article itself refers to two competing trade marks, iSkin and iSoft, which would contradict any such claim that Apple formerly had a "monopoly". At most, we might say that:


 * "Julian Lee and Asher Moses stated in the Sydney Morning Herald that the decision confirmed that Apple did not have "a monopoly on the letter 'i' as part of the name for its products." (Note that cited reference replicates this article from the SMH which should be cited as the primary source for the "monopoly" claim.)

However, I do not think there is any value even making this mention. As discussed above, it is factually incorrect to say Apple ever had "monopoly" in the "i" prefix, much less the letter "i" as a whole, and there is little (if any) value making a spurious reference to it. It is simply unencyclopedic. —sroc (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Apple v. Samsung: Android phones and tablets
Can someone with expertise please check the accuracy of this section, as I did my best, but it became confusing due to the amount of information I was dealing with. I am most concerned about the timeline and the veracity of the content.--Soulparadox (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Section headings
I've reverted "antitrust" to "antitrust claims" because that's the technically correct term and it chimes with the content of the section, particularly the subheaders. "Antitrust" on its own is ambiguous and the reader should not have to peruse the section to find out what the section header means.

Ditto "unfair trade practice" - that's what people call it and removing the word "unfair" makes it unclear - not all trade practices that are capable of bearing law suits are necessarily unfair.

Andyjsmith (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the double standard, when I edit "Antitrust" to match "Defamation" magically "Antitrust" becomes ambiguous but "Defamation" is crystal clear. If you're going to try and nit pick at least do a consistent job of it. no one reads the section "Antitrust" and thinks there is "multiple interpretations" Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Why add "Claim" in each section
I propose that saying "Defamation Claim", "Trade Practice Claim", and "Antitrust Claims" is not necessary, if anyone disagrees. feel free to say why you want to put Claim in every title. ( or only some things and forget about consistency ) Bryce Carmony (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is hyperbole and rather silly. There are no sections called "Defamation Claim" or "Trade Practice Claim"! I think what you mean is to rename "Antitrust Claims" as "Antitrust" and "Unfair trade practice" as "Trade practice". If so, I've given my reasons why the original text is perfectly fine. As far as I can see it ain't broke, so please don't try to fix it unless other people agree it's an improvement. If you wish, for consistency, we could rename "Defamation" to "Defamation claims"... Andyjsmith (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Suits ≠ Claims. Mostly, this article about suits not claims. A suit is what happens when the parties can't agree how to settle the claim. Strictly speaking those headers should refer to suits. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * per Lawsuit "A lawsuit or (very rarely) "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have". Lawsuits are claims, this article is called Apple Inc. litigation the reason we don't put Antitrust litigation is that "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." So When we put a section called "History" in an article titled "Gun Violence" that section in the readers mind is "History of Gun violence" but we just simply say "History" When we put "Antitrust" in an article "Apple inc litigation" the article is in the readers mind "Apple antitrust litigation" but we simply put "antitrust" if we say "antitrust claims" what is in the readers mind is "apple antitrust litigation claims" which isn't any better since while lawsuits contain claims there is more to litigation then claims. That is why we are going to simple say "Antitrust". Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why we say Trade practice instead of Unfair trade practice
Per the MOS "headings can be assumed to be about the subject[article title] unless otherwise indicated." So the title Apple Inc. Litigation gives every section the attribution "litigation" so our subsections are organized what is being litigated. in the section Defamation the thing being litigated is in fact Defamation (technically libel but close enough), in the section Antitrust that is what is being litigated. in the section "Trade practice" what is being litigated "trade practices." We could write "Fair Defamation" since the court ruled that apple was ok to call Carl Sagan a butt head. but that's not what the litigation is about. Trade Practice and Defamation = what the litigation is about in each section. Fair Defamation and Unfair trade practice set a precedent that mixing what is claimed and what is ruled ( which will be confusing) best for NPOV is simple to title the sections what is the litigation about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn´t the very first sentence void of real information?
The first sentence of this article conveys, in my opinion, no significant information, as any multinational corporation is constantly involved in some kind of litigation.Amchamp (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Most of this article seems to exist only as a resource for those curious people, who clog the comments sections of technology blogs, with their religious hatred for all technology companies except the one whose smart phone they bought! Evidently, in the 21st century, football barracking has been replaced with corporate boosterism. (Now that is an interesting phenomenon, worthy of a Wikipedia article!)
 * Turning to the actual article:-
 * The description of Apple as a "multinational technology corporation" is otiose in this context and ought to be moved to the main article about Apple.
 * Saying that Apple "has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims ..." amounts to nothing more than "Apple behaves as you'd expect," as does the statement that begins "In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively ..."
 * What evidence is offered for Apple's litigious hair-trigger?
 * The case described in "Apple iPod, iTunes antitrust litigation" has now been settled. I believe Apple has been exonerated of any wrongdoing.
 * The next section ("Apples and AT&T Mobility..") spends 500 words saying "no news here."
 * The next section ("Apples and AT&T Mobility..") spends 500 words saying "no news here."


 * The "European antitrust investigation" spends 100 words explaining that Apple overpaid for some music and passed the cost onto consumers.
 * Finally, in the "eBook price-fixing lawsuit" and "High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation" we reach two cases in which Apple actually acted illegally, but the details are elsewhere.
 * I won't go on.
 * Shouldn't the presumption of innocence mean that cases where the accused is exonerated ought to be regarded as non-events, except to legal specialists? If so, then most of this article ought to be erased, and the same holds for the corresponding sections of Microsoft litigation, Google litigation and all the other similar articles. Otherwise we'll see the Wikipedia grow ever larger, as it becomes packed with articles about the innocent going free, or the non-arrest of the not-guilty.
 * A Bloke Wandering (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 one external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.adaptersettlement.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j4226/apple_v_apple_hc03c02428_0506.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.woolworths.com.au/resources/woolworths+launches+new+look+after+21+years.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antislapp.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thinksecret.com/filings/antislappmemorandum.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antislapp.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thinksecret.com/news/settlement.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/apple/microsoft.1997.08.05.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/ca36aa41-cd43-4a0e-8d4e-af91f85d0fc2/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/7a6d9a54-7877-4b76-a4e6-469176cb16a5/iMacs.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=1852
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417001234/http://ipv6.ppk.itb.ac.id:80/~dikshie/IEEE-Micro/06177305.pdf to http://ipv6.ppk.itb.ac.id/~dikshie/IEEE-Micro/06177305.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearchive/Complaint%20against%20iTunes%20Music%20Store.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://forbrukerportalen.no/Artikler/2006/1138119849.71
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/23/europe.itunes.ap/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-263.html#lnk3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hamlin/facts/2ndltr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.appleipodsettlement.com/notice.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.woolworths.com.au/resources/woolworths%2Blaunches%2Bnew%2Blook%2Bafter%2B21%2Byears.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615100827/http://lmsd.org/documents/news/100503_l3_report.pdf to http://lmsd.org/documents/news/100503_l3_report.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hamlin/facts/1stltr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Apple Inc. litigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426012647/http://www.qcollege.ca/about-q-college/blog/apples-and-oranges-vsbt-vs-apple-inc-logo-dispute to http://www.qcollege.ca/about-q-college/blog/apples-and-oranges-vsbt-vs-apple-inc-logo-dispute
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201214220/http://www.woolworths.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/webSite/Woolworths to http://www.woolworths.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/webSite/Woolworths/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426120836/http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-12-CV-219219&crumbs=Civil%20Index&crumbs=Party%2FCase%20Type%20Search&crumbs=Party%2FCase%20Type%20Results&crumbs=Cases%20Involving%20Proview%20Electronics%20Co.%20Limited to http://www.sccaseinfo.org/pa6.asp?full_case_number=1-12-CV-219219&crumbs=Civil%20Index&crumbs=Party%2FCase%20Type%20Search&crumbs=Party%2FCase%20Type%20Results&crumbs=Cases%20Involving%20Proview%20Electronics%20Co.%20Limited
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121129221935/http://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/gdcourt/front/front!content.action?lmdm=LM20&gjid=20120702104546916319 to http://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/gdcourt/front/front%21content.action?lmdm=LM20&gjid=20120702104546916319
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609121231/http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr2-209/1990scr2-209.html to http://scc.lexum.org/en/1990/1990scr2-209/1990scr2-209.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111133703/http://ijclp.net/ojs/index.php/ijclp/article/download/35/19 to http://ijclp.net/ojs/index.php/ijclp/article/download/35/19
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719055252/http://www.living-information.de/pdf/gui_history.pdf to http://www.living-information.de/pdf/gui_history.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111133444/http://128.197.26.34/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume141/documents/Klemens.pdf to http://128.197.26.34/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume141/documents/Klemens.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415013519/http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/110/1/Shrestha.pdf to http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/110/1/Shrestha.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130233318/http://usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_710_Notice12192011sgl.pdf to http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_710_Notice12192011sgl.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206125947/http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/id/11032467.0 to http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/id/11032467.0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524101212/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/136-09 to http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2009/136-09

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Update
This article has been tagged for a Good Article reassessment and currently has a tag on it asking for an update (since 2014). This probably needs to occur if it wishes to retain its Good Article status. AIRcorn (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

✅ I am nominating this article for reassessment (criterion 5. stable). I’m not sure whether or not to remove this tag Template:update after 5 years, so I’m erring on the side of caution. —Nemoschool (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cohen et al. v. Apple Inc. et al.
Is this a significant case? All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Woolworths logo 2014.png

Removed A.pl logo entry to here
This dispute is before an administrative office, rather than being in the courts (so far), thus it is not litigation, yet. Moving the text here for later use should the matter progress to litigation. The media reporting the matter using the words "sues" and "is suing" are confusing an administrative hearing with a lawsuit. The Polish news telepolis.pl actually says: The proceedings before the Patent Office may result in cancellation of the right of protection for a commodity or dismissal of an application made by Apple. In both cases, the parties are entitled to appeal to the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw. Judgment and the WSA may be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The dispute may take up to two or three years. ______ A.pl logo

In September 2012, Apple sought to prevent the Polish online grocery store fresh24.pl owned by A.pl from registering its trademark, claiming a likelihood of confusion in the store's logo as "trying to deliberately confuse customers by using Apple's well-known likeness and reputation." The dispute began when Apple objected to the store's registration of its logo with Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (the Polish patent office). &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ===References (for A.pl matter)===

links not in order
just added new section Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application but the links are out of order and I don't know how to fix them. Contribute14 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)