
But when it came to a small cafe in the town of
Bonn, the former capital of former West Germany, Apple figured it out
very quickly.
A gal named Christin Römer opened her café in May
2011 and called it “Apfelkind,” German for apple child, the name of a
nearby orchard. Its logo was a red apple, not bitten into, but with the
silhouette of a girl’s head ingeniously superimposed. A cute logo,
feminine, playful, and not at all reminiscent of Apple’s bitten-into
apple, other than that both were playing on the theme of an apple.
She
registered the logo with the Patent and Trademark Office in Munich
(DPMA) and plastered it on cups, cushions, and chairs.
“I love the logo and have used it everywhere,” she told The Local
at the time. “I wanted to do something like Starbucks, and have the
logo as my trademark. I was even thinking of eventually expanding and
creating a franchise business so other people could open up other
Apfelkind cafés, which is why I wanted to register the trademark.”
It would be a child-friendly place where you could
go for some good coffee and homemade apple pies, and buy some of these
cups and other branded merchandise. An entrepreneur with a vision! In
America, we value that, and we encourage it. It makes us think of IPOs
and jobs. But not at Apple. At the epicenter of mythic Silicon Valley,
they tried to squash it.
In September 2011, she received a letter from
Apple. The company saw a clear danger that both logos could be confused,
in particular her choice of the color red and the leaf on the apple
stem (Apple's logo doesn't have a stem). The apple in Dürer’s painting
is red as well, as are most apples on images around the world. And the
apple Adam is holding has both a stem and some leaves. The letter
demanded that she withdraw her trademark applications, cease to use the
logo, sign the letter, and remain silent about it. So that her vision
would evaporate quietly.
“I’m not going to accept that,” she said at the time. “At first I couldn’t believe the letter – then I called my lawyer.”
The legal battle – proportionately much more
pitched than David and Goliath – dragged on. Last year, Apple tried to
bamboozle her into signing a settlement whereby she would graciously be
allowed to continue using her logo on her cups and toys but couldn't use
it to market and sell electronics. And she would have to remain silent
about the settlement. It was that gag provision that caused her to turn it down.
But now suddenly, after two years of fighting,
Apple withdrew its claims from the DPMA this week, without giving any
reasons. It was an ingenious – and possibly insidious – move: since
there was no final decision by the DPMA or by a court, the dispute has
in essence not been resolved, and Apple, if it runs out of other people
to harass, could start all over again.
On the positive side of the ledger, the café got
some good publicity out of it, and its owner has plans to do what Steve
Jobs would have done too: develop the product, expand the brand, and
branch out. The vision lives. Someday, perhaps, there will be new
franchises, and clothes, and products for children. Unless, someday,
Apple decides otherwise.

Source
WB7
No comments:
Post a Comment