Apple responded by launching legal proceedings against the Barbato brothers, who recalled receiving four large folders of legal documents sent from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino. Apple’s objection concentrated on the clothing label’s logo, arguing that the leaf-topped, side-notched “J” was confusingly similar to the bitten apple trademark and could exploit the extraordinary recognition of Apple’s visual identity. In August 2014, however, the European Union Intellectual Property Office—then called the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market—rejected Apple’s opposition in its entirety. The decision included an unusually literal line of reasoning: because the letter “J” was not edible, the missing section could not legally be understood as a bite and therefore did not establish trademark infringement. The brothers were reportedly unable to discuss the dispute publicly until 2017, when the claim was definitively settled. The episode became a striking example of how global luxury and technology brands can spend years defending symbolic trademarks, while a small fashion company can use a famous name and deliberately suggestive visual language to generate worldwide publicity without being legally defeated.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
Apple’s Four Folders and the EU Trademark Ruling That Said a Letter Could Not Be Bitten
Steve Jobs clothing company and Apple Inc. / 2010s
Apple responded by launching legal proceedings against the Barbato brothers, who recalled receiving four large folders of legal documents sent from the company’s headquarters in Cupertino. Apple’s objection concentrated on the clothing label’s logo, arguing that the leaf-topped, side-notched “J” was confusingly similar to the bitten apple trademark and could exploit the extraordinary recognition of Apple’s visual identity. In August 2014, however, the European Union Intellectual Property Office—then called the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market—rejected Apple’s opposition in its entirety. The decision included an unusually literal line of reasoning: because the letter “J” was not edible, the missing section could not legally be understood as a bite and therefore did not establish trademark infringement. The brothers were reportedly unable to discuss the dispute publicly until 2017, when the claim was definitively settled. The episode became a striking example of how global luxury and technology brands can spend years defending symbolic trademarks, while a small fashion company can use a famous name and deliberately suggestive visual language to generate worldwide publicity without being legally defeated.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.