The Forbidden Fruit of Intellectual Property: When a Universal Symbol Comes into Dispute

Apple v. Fruit Union Suisse Case

When you think of tech company Apple, do you think of that iconic logo — the silhouette of an apple with a bite out? Well, Apple owns the trademark for this logo, which means it has the exclusive right to use it. In Switzerland, the company is now trying to take this protection further. Apple wants to register the apple, that is, the fruit.

Apple’s attempts to obtain the trademark in Switzerland date back to 2017, when the Cupertino, California-based giant filed an application with the Swiss Institute of Intellectual Property requesting intellectual property rights for a realistic, black-and-white representation of an apple variety known as Granny Smith — the generic green apple. The request covered an extensive list of potential uses – mainly in consumer goods and electronic, digital and audiovisual hardware.

This move on Apple’s part is not without criticism and dissatisfaction. Some argue that the company’s aggressive efforts to obtain exclusive rights to the representation of a simple apple can undermine creativity and freedom of expression. Moreover, there are concerns about the impact this action could have on smaller or local establishments that commonly use images of apples.

In this context, Fruit Union Suisse enters the scene as a venerable organization with a history of 111 years behind it. This group represents fruit growers in Switzerland and has as its symbol a red apple with a white cross, distinctively representing Swiss nationality. Despite its longevity and significance, the organization faces the threat of changing its iconic logo due to Apple’s attempts to obtain intellectual property rights to the generic representation of apples.

“It’s hard for us to understand this, because it’s not like they’re trying to protect their bitten apple,” said the organization’s director, Jimmy Mariéthoz. “Their goal here is really to own the rights to a real apple, which, for us, is something that’s really almost universal… which should be free for everyone to use it. We are concerned that any visual representation of an apple – that is, everything audiovisual or related to new technologies or media – could be affected. That would be a very, very big restriction for us. Theoretically, we could enter slippery territory every time we advertise an apple.”

Conclusions

While we await a decision from the Swiss court, which could come in a few months or even years, Swiss apple growers are faced with a dilemma with significant financial implications. In the event of an unfavorable decision, they may face the need to change their brand, with substantial amounts on the table.

This legal dispute not only highlights the complexities of intellectual property rights in a globalized world, but also raises fundamental questions about the extent to which corporations should monopolize universally recognized symbols.

The Swiss court’s upcoming decision has significant consequences, potentially affecting farmers, artists, educators and small businesses that include images of apples in their work. Critics argue that such aggressive actions hamper creativity and violate the rights of others to use common symbols and shapes. This situation highlights the asymmetry of power in the global brand industry, where the financial power of large corporations can pressure smaller entities into submission, even if their activities are perfectly legal.

Despite these prospects, Fruit Union Suisse CEO Jimmy Mariéthoz emphasizes that their intention is not to compete with Apple, but to defend their long-standing identity. Thus, he humorously and wisely remarks, you know, Apple didn’t invent apples… We have been around for 111 years. And I think apples have been around for thousands of years.”