...because people who bought that application would obviously no longer need to buy an actual Cartier watch. Really?

Another perfect example of lawyers looking for a reason to justify their existence.

watches, are they still kicking around?

from a legal perspective because of Apple's approval process. Is Apple liable for the trademark infringement because they explicitly made it available for sale?

For an analogy, say Barneys started selling imitation Cartier watches. Would Cartier go after the manufacturer or just get Barneys to stop selling them.

...and Cartier confirms they are grade A, 100% high-end douches, who would rather look down their nose (via lawsuit) than make a gentlemanly request to have the app removed.

I said, "Good day, Sir!"

Couldn't they just make a request to Apple instead of filing a lawsuit? Seems a little extreme and a giant waste of time to me..

think that the corporate app stores on the other platforms are going to be able to get away with anything they want and not draw fire from all sorts of idiots. I'll bet all of those supposedly uncensored and unrestricted corporate app stores will need lawyers working around the clock. I guess Apple didn't see that Cartier thing coming by a longshot and yet you people are always complaining about Apple being too quick on the trigger to reject apps. No way an iPhone will be mistaken for a Cartier Tank watch.

That's it, to protest Cartier's move I refuse to buy another Cartier watch this month. In fact, just on principle, I won't buy one for the rest of the year!

As for Apple, I won't buy any iPhone apps this month either! Oh, wait, I don't have an iPhone (yet). Guess I'll have to wait to be upset with Apple, until, oh, say, never.

This is a non-issue, folks.

...because people who bought that application would obviously no longer need to buy an actual Cartier watch. Really?

Another perfect example of lawyers looking for a reason to justify their existence.

Oh, please. If someone made a watch that had an iPhone look to it, you'd be saying Apple should be suing them to get them to stop.

And its about trademark and copyright. The face of a cartier watch is distinctive. Apple, for one, would appreciate that.

I'm sure many of you think that the corporate app stores on the other platforms are going to be able to get away with anything they want and not draw fire from all sorts of idiots.

What idiots? Oh, you're calling the Cartier watch company a bunch of idiots? For what, protecting their brand? They're a high-end maker of goods who is as much about image as product. You know, like a computer company we know.

I'll bet all of those supposedly uncensored and unrestricted corporate app stores will need lawyers working around the clock.

Around the clock for what? Since Apple has to approve each app, they are as much responsible for what is on the iPhone as the developer. Thus they need more lawyers and more checking just to make sure they aren't violating laws.

Apple is giving themselves more work to do by having all apps go through this ridiculous approval process. Somehow the iPhone is a special device that needs constant protection from it's mother, while every other phone and computer platform seem to survive without overseers (big brother?) approving every little thing you can put on the device.

And all this for a phone built on OS X, the most secure and stable OS around. Go figure.

I guess Apple didn't see that Cartier thing coming by a longshot and yet you people are always complaining about Apple being too quick on the trigger to reject apps. No way an iPhone will be mistaken for a Cartier Tank watch.

Except Apple didn't reject these apps, did they? No, they were too busy rejecting apps that could end up displaying a dirty word or picture to a user who might get offended by that.

John Tantillo named Apple the weekly brand winner on his marketing blog (once again) for the way they handled this situation.

"Apple has built devices that other people —i.e., programmers and users— have added even more value to by creating applications. Apple doesn’t want to micro-manage this independent creation because it will douse the creative spirit and the accessibility of its product. The risk is that copyright infringement happens— but it’s a risk that Apple can counter by being responsive when problems arise."

Tantillo called this incident a great example of how successful marketing requires constant corrections/adjustments to a company’s course - “the key is responding promptly and correctly to evolving realities.”
Full post