In a surprising turn of events, Apple Inc., the global technology behemoth, finds itself in a legal tussle with the Fruit Union Suisse, Switzerland’s primary organization for apple growers. At the heart of the issue is Apple’s attempt to secure intellectual property rights over the depiction of apples, an endeavor that is causing alarm and opening up larger discussions on the nature of global IP rights.
The Fruit Union Suisse, over a century old, features a logo of a red apple with a white cross, symbolizing the Swiss national flag. However, the organization fears it might have to alter its logo due to Apple’s aggressive push for a broader apple trademark.
The Fruit Union Suisse’s director, Jimmy Mariéthoz, expresses the organization’s concerns, “Their objective here is to own the rights to an actual apple, which, for us, is something that is really almost universal … that should be free for everyone to use.”
Apple’s pursuit of this extensive apple trademark is not isolated to Switzerland. The company has sought similar rights from IP authorities worldwide, with Japan, Turkey, Israel, and Armenia conceding to their demands. Apple’s quest in Switzerland began in 2017 when the company applied for IP rights for a black-and-white depiction of the Granny Smith apple to the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI). After securing partial rights last fall, Apple wasn’t content and appealed for broader control.
The Swiss apple growers find themselves in a challenging position due to the uncertainty surrounding which depictions of an apple Apple Inc. will aim to protect. The tech giant’s history of aggressive litigation over perceived trademark infringements adds to the concern. Examples of Apple’s legal pursuits include actions against a meal-prepping app with a pear logo, a singer-songwriter named Frankie Pineapple, and even a school district. The company’s determination in enforcing its IP is so fervent that, between 2019 and 2021, it filed more trademark oppositions than Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google combined.
Nevertheless, Apple’s quest for extended trademarks has faced resistance. In 2012, Swiss Federal Railways won a $21 million settlement after proving Apple had copied the design of the Swiss railway clock. A pre-existing apple trademark in Switzerland even delayed the launch of the Apple Watch in 2015.
According to Cyrill Rigamonti, an intellectual property law professor at the University of Bern, Apple’s request for rights over a black-and-white image of an apple could provide the broadest possible protection over the shape, irrespective of the color. However, Irene Calboli, a law professor at Texas A&M University, opines that those with a prior history of using a disputed sign could be shielded in a potential trademark dispute.
This legal endeavor by Apple Inc. highlights a bias in the global trademark industry where the financial strength of big corporations can often coerce smaller entities into compliance, even when their activities might be entirely lawful.
The Swiss court’s decision, which could take months or years, holds significant consequences for the Swiss apple growers, with “millions” at stake, according to Mariéthoz. A ruling in Apple’s favor could set a precedent that might affect farmers, artists, educators, and small businesses who use apple imagery in their work.
Moreover, this lawsuit raises profound questions about the scope of intellectual property rights. Should a tech giant be allowed to monopolize the representation of a universally recognized object like an apple? The outcome could potentially reshape how IP laws are interpreted and applied worldwide.
While Apple declined to comment on the pending litigation, it has previously defended its aggressive stance on trademark issues, arguing it’s crucial to protect its brand and prevent consumer confusion. Critics, however, argue that Apple’s actions stifle creativity and infringe upon the rights of others to use common symbols and shapes.
As the case develops, its potential implications for global IP law are vast. “We’re not talking about Apple’s stylized apple logo. We’re talking about a basic representation of an apple, a fruit. This is something we’ve never seen before,” says Rigamonti. Although the outcome remains uncertain, it could set the stage for other companies to pursue similar claims over basic, universal images.
As we wait for this remarkable battle between tech and agriculture to unfold, it’s clear that its implications could be far-reaching and transformative for IP law and practice around the world.