Cartier kerfuffle bags bogus bangles

I think Cartier has the right to protect all of their trademarks, specially since the Luxury watch market is riddled with replicas; but to sue Apple? I think a simple cease and desist would have sufficed, and maybe it was a move supported by the PR department to get the Cartier name noticed on a wavelenght that doesn't involve high-end magazines or shopping centres.

Apple's response was logical, instead of going through the hassle of yet another suit, they just took the quick way out, they have nothing to lose by taking a single app (and it's "gold" version) from a library of tens of thousands of apps....

You know, that could be a lesson to other app developers to be careful when "borrowing" designs without having all the legal mumbo jumbo....

Just my two cents

In the UK, and elsewhere I believe, Apple's action might be worth challenging by the app designers. You are allowed to use someone else's design under the "fair comment" provision, or for use of satire etc.
This is the provision that allows comedians to tell jokes about religion without being tried for a hate crime (there was a big debate about this recently, with Rowan Atkinson taking a lead).
So if the app developer were to say that the app was an ironic piece that hinged upon the market for fakes and knock-offs, I think it would have a good chance of standing up in court. Trademark and copyright law doesn't infringe on freedom of speech or comment. In the UK and EU that's enshrined in law, in the US it's a constitutional issue.

Note however this doesn't allow general copying and a weak claim that it is "ironic".
Also, I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as advice!

I believe the decision may be poor from Cartier. This is more of a marketing choice rather than a legal one.

At the core, the app may infringe copyrights (name brand and design), however, the customer isn't actually benefiting from the actual product.

That is, the customer is not getting to a. Wear and reflect a watch nor piece of jewelry b. benefiting from the purposed practical and emotional benefits of owning the product.

Is there a difference with having a game app with sports cars from luxury brands riding in a racetrack or street? If the car's functionality in the app is apparently different from real life, yes sue and take it down. If not, it makes your product more aspirational, which is the intrinsic value of luxury.

What they should have done is supervise the app over approval, both in design and functionality.

If something, there is an iphone app for Swiss Army watches which shows you the range of products and benefits and I believe there is one for Zippo lighters.

They are actually marketing tools and pretty good ones. Are we to believe the app is actually buying someone a luxury watch, piece of jewerly or a niche ligther? Or that they actually can light a cigar or wear a watch over the fictional image of the product?

In some subways, top handles were tapered with IWC Big Pilot watches, so when you embraced your hand you would get a glimpse of the watch case and design.

Again, it is a choice of philosophy more than anything. A weak one in my humble opinion.

I'd like to find the likely Cartier customer who was going to buy, but decided not to because they got this app instead.

Now that there's no more Lincoln Town Car Cartier Edition, what's a fading luxury brand to do?

Cartier also nets from free press for their brand. Good work.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/05/luxury-vs-premium.html

Cartier is a Luxury brand - even though this App is simple, and funny - it still makes Cartier attainable, and thus dilutes the value of the scarce product. Plus they need to defend their trademark.

This is only going to make the poor smucks that do Apple's App Store vetting be even more punctilious. They are already leaning toward rejection as the safest, for them, option.

Now *this* is a headline you can really sink your teeth into!