Apple going after A.pl

[domainhacks-931385]

Sounds like they are salty that they lost out on their domain hack...


'Apple, fresh from a patent victory against South Korean rival Samsung, has turned its sights on a smaller target - Polish online grocery website A.pl.

Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation," patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/apl-apple-grocery-store_n_1873264.html

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Hmmm...

I thought that UDRP panels were not supposed to include the TLD in their decisions...

*

 

[dompro]

unbelievable, what about that "apple" is a generic word and in no way can it be trademarked in groceries?

 

[rngrdanny22]

And another reason to never buy Apple products.

 

[lothos]

Apple just doesn't want to pay for a cool short url.

A.pl doesn't appear to be selling computers, I don't see where the infringement happened.

 

[rngrdanny22]

I haven't found anything either... I used archive.org and couldn't find anything.

Wouldn't aa.pl been a better one for them to go after since it's their stock ticker symbol?

I'm pretty sure nobody on this planet is confusing a polish online grocery store with an iPod, iPad, etc.

 

[lll]

Whatever I'm still getting the iphone5 on release date.

Nice domain a.pl

 

[rngrdanny22]

Chinese made products at 10,000% production cost from a company that is spending it's $100+ Billion horde by stomping out the competition through the courtrooms.

You stay classy San Diego.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Apple is just another big bad corporate bully.


*

 

[DU]

*

Hmmm...

I thought that UDRP panels were not supposed to include the TLD in their decisions...

*

Depends on the case - just use the precedent in your defense

Brett Moore has interesting cases at his blog..

http://udrp-attorney.com/2011/04/19/tld-as-part-of-a-mark/

Been there more than once or twice in my travels. To be fair.. it's more likely to be the tld is part of a mark with all the new vanity types coming out.

It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

So you're one of the iSheep huh?

Buying Chinese made products at 10,000% production cost from a company that is spending it's $100+ Billion horde by stomping out the competition through the courtrooms.

You stay classy San Diego.

Yeah. Buy an Android from Samsung that is sold at 10,000% production cost from a company that it....

I still use a tin can and string. It's surprisingly effective. I don't get bothered at all.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

It will be interesting to see what kind of legal action might apply to the vanity gTLDs. It could get ugly.

I understand that Viacom lost its case against via.com (a travel site, I think), but I'll be darned if I can find that case.

*

 

[surprise]

I dont get it , even if they are going after the hack , what apl has to do with apple ?!

 

[bmugford]

Ridiculous.

Brad

 

[surprise]

Sounds like they are salty that they lost out on their domain hack...

:hehe: it is obvious they want the domain ...

 

[Toni]

What a joke.

They could have probably bought it for $xx.xxx, now they will spend a lot more...

 

[Kate]

As usual, people don't bother reading beyond titles. It's not just about the name (TM issue), but a possible copyright issue:

"Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation," patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/apl-apple-grocery-store_n_1873264.html

A quick look at the A.pl website reveals zero resemblance to Apple’s own logo, products, or even web design know-how. With that being said, Apple claims a previous logo led to the confusion but is not being used at the moment.

http://www.inquisitr.com/327530/apple-sues-polish-grocery-chain-a-pl-claims-copyright-violation/
So when you have a name that "sounds" like a well-known brand, the one thing you definitely want is to avoid design/branding patterns reminiscent of that brand.

I doubt it's because they don't want to pay money.
apple.co.uk changed hands recently and while we don't know if money was paid, there is no indication there was threats or legal action involved.

A.pl is a store chain anyway, the domain name is not on the market. It's a company suing another on copyright issues.

 

[mwzd]

Actually selling groceries does infringe on Apple, since they sell lemons to users which are packaged as computing devices.

 

[surprise]

As usual, people don't bother reading beyond titles. It's not just about the name (TM issue), but a possible copyright issue:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/apl-apple-grocery-store_n_1873264.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/327530/apple-sues-polish-grocery-chain-a-pl-claims-copyright-violation/
So when you have a name that "sounds" like a well-known brand, the one thing you definitely want is to avoid design/branding patterns reminiscent of that brand.

I doubt it's because they don't want to pay money.
apple.co.uk changed hands recently and while we don't know if money was paid, there is no indication there was threats or legal action involved.

A.pl is a store chain anyway, the domain name is not on the market. It's a company suing another on copyright issues.

Again where is the copyright issue ? i don't see it ...

Apple is a generic word , and it is used in its context here as for a grocery store , where is the confusion ?! Not to mention the difference between a.pl and apple ...

 

[Kate]

Read again. You are focusing on the domain but it's not about the domain per se, it's about a confusing logo/graphic elements of some sort. But the two obviously add up together.

I am not even saying the case brought up by Apple is actually solid (I dunno), but it's not about the domain name as such.

 

[surprise]

Read again. You are focusing on the domain but it's not about the domain per se, it's about a confusing logo/graphic elements of some sort. But the two obviously add up together.

I am not even saying the case brought up by Apple is actually solid (I dunno), but it's not about the domain name as such.

yes i got it , it is about the logo as well , which is totally different IMO and i don't see the resemblance nor the confusion ...

 

[Dave]

As others have said this is very sad from Apple.

 

[copper]

Macintosh maker gone mad!

 

[networkguy]

The letter 'A' is a generic letter representing their grocery chains. Their logos even the ones in archive.org don't appear confusing to apples either, the 'a' looks more like Alexa's logo than apple's.

The 'pl' is incidental to the domain and is something that simply can not be altered, after all it's an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code which is the world standard string structure for the ccTLD protocol.

I'm sure this point will be raised if arbitration arises for the domain name 'A' a single letter ccTLD of Poland.

Maybe I'm wrong here but to my knowledge there hasn't been a UDRP case won by the complainant where the domain's letters right of the dot where brought into question.

 

[DU]

Actually selling groceries does infringe on Apple, since they sell lemons to users which are packaged as computing devices.

:loveyou:

---------- Post added at 11:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Maybe I'm wrong here but to my knowledge there hasn't been a UDRP case won by the complainant where the domain's letters right of the dot where brought into question.

There have been many cases where the right of the dot was considered - usually it is related to .me/.tv etc where the domain registry purposefully markets a "meaning" behind the TLD.

For a company based in PL using a .PL this may be a push to argue as this would have been their primary choice and de facto country default.

Their logo was suspect though :lol:

 

[enterscope]

This is just getting out of hand. It's one thing if they were a tech company and could confuse customers into thinking they were Apple, but this is ridiculous.