Talk:Litigation involving Apple Inc.

Removed A.pl logo entry to here

This dispute is before an administrative office, rather than being in the courts (so far), thus it is not litigation, yet. Moving the text here for later use should the matter progress to litigation. The media reporting the matter using the words "sues" and "is suing" are confusing an administrative hearing with a lawsuit. The Polish news telepolis.pl actually says:

The proceedings before the Patent Office may result in cancellation of the right of protection for a commodity or dismissal of an application made by Apple. In both cases, the parties are entitled to appeal to the Regional Administrative Court in Warsaw. Judgment and the WSA may be subject to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court. The dispute may take up to two or three years.

______

A.pl logo

In September 2012, Apple sought to prevent the Polish online grocery store fresh24.pl owned by A.pl from registering its trademark, claiming a likelihood of confusion in the store's logo as "trying to deliberately confuse customers by using Apple's well-known likeness and reputation." The dispute began when Apple objected to the store's registration of its logo with Urząd Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (the Polish patent office).

— Sctechlaw (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Sctechlaw (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

===References (for A.pl matter)===

Community reassessment

Apple Inc. litigation

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Update tag still present and relavent AIRcorn (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Template:update maintenance tag puts into question the stability of the article (GA criterion 5)?. —Nemoschool (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment — I don't think the article has a stability problem. The stability criteria means that the article should not be subject to constant changes due to edit warring or content disputes. I think the maintenance tag on the page goes more to broadness and whether the article addresses the main aspects of the subject. I don't know enough about Apple litigation to know for sure. I will say that there is a subsection about litigation that occurred after the maintenance tag was added. The article could also use some clean-up with its citations, including bare urls and inconsistent styles for the date. Knope7 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The tag says that the article has needed to be updated (true) since 2014: 2 years after it passed GA nomination and 6 years ago, respectively, which is a criteria 3 issue. During this reassessment process, someone or some people should take up the mantle. Otherwise, it must be demoted. ⌚️ (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

links not in order

just added new section Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application but the links are out of order and I don't know how to fix them. Contribute14 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

References not consecutive

After new section entitled Cancellation of “Apple Music” trademark application was added, references are no longer consecutive and must be renumbered in this new section as follows: 2 must become 86, September 17, 2016 Office Action Outgoing must become 87, 3 to 88, 4 to 89, 5 to 90, 6 to 91. Thereafter, all subsequent references must be renumbered, i.e. 86 must become 92 et. seq. Contributor does not know how to do this and no template seems to be available. Contribute14 (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The refs were added as inline links, and thus did not take advantage of WP's auto-numbering for refs. I have contained them in refs to fix that. Masem (t) 17:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Current shareholders law suit

The settlement was reached recently some $490M! what is the proposed benefit to shareholders? 2600:8800:9D80:4E:E4E3:BDEB:FE19:DD48 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)