Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

Apple partly victorious in EU trademark dispute with Chinese keyboard and solar panel maker

read original get Apple iPhone Lightning Cable → more articles
Why This Matters

This ruling highlights the importance of trademark protection in the tech industry, emphasizing how established brands like Apple can defend their brand identity against similar logos that could cause consumer confusion. It also underscores the EU's rigorous criteria for trademark disputes, which can influence how companies approach branding and product design in the European market. For consumers, this case reinforces the value of recognizable branding and the legal measures in place to protect it.

Key Takeaways

The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has partly granted Apple’s opposition to a trademark application from a Chinese company called Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics, due to concerns that its citrus-shaped logo could benefit from Apple’s reputation in the EU. Here are the details.

Apple wins trademark dispute over citrus-shaped logo, with a caveat

As spotted by MacRumors, the EUIPO has rejected Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics’ request to register its citrus-shaped logo for keyboards and other computer-related products, but upheld the company’s application for solar panels.

This case started last July, when Apple opposed Yichun Qinningmeng Electronics’ EU trademark application, arguing that the company’s citrus-shaped logo was too similar to Apple’s own logo.

The logo depicts a round citrus fruit with a left-pointing leaf, a missing section on its right side, lower segments that look like keyboard keys, and upper segments reminiscent of sunbeams. Apple argued that most of those elements evoked its own logo, especially for products related to computers and electronics.

As the EUIPO explains it, “the grounds for refusal of Article 8(5) EUTMR are only applicable when the following conditions are met:”

The signs must be either identical or similar.

The opponent’s trade mark must have a reputation. The reputation must also be prior to the filing of the contested trade mark; it must exist in the territory concerned and for the goods and/or services on which the opposition is based.

Risk of injury: use of the contested trade mark would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

The EUIPO adds that these requirements ”are cumulative and, therefore, the absence of any one of them will lead to the rejection of the opposition (…).”

... continue reading