## Facts

- Apple Computer, Inc. developed and marketed the Apple II home computer and held registered copyrights in certain computer programs, including ROM-based operating system programs.
- Formula International, Inc., a wholesaler/retailer of electronic parts and kits, entered the computer market in 1982 by selling a computer kit under the trademark “Pineapple.”
- The Pineapple kit was designed to be compatible with application software written for the Apple II.
- The kit included two ROM-based programs that Formula conceded for appeal purposes were substantially similar to Apple’s copyrighted programs.
- Apple presented evidence that Formula also sold copies of three additional programs copyrighted by Apple.
- Apple sued for copyright and trademark infringement, patent infringement, and unfair competition; Formula counterclaimed alleging antitrust violations, unfair competition, and sought declaratory relief regarding the validity of certain Apple patents and copyrights.
- After limited discovery, the district court granted Apple a preliminary injunction barring Formula from copying or distributing Apple-copyrighted programs and from using “Pineapple” or any confusingly similar mark.
- Formula appealed the interlocutory order granting the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether Apple’s ROM-based operating system programs were protectable by copyright (as expression rather than unprotectable ideas, processes, or methods of operation) such that Apple showed a likelihood of success warranting preliminary injunctive relief.
2. Whether use of “Pineapple” for a compatible computer product created a likelihood of confusion with Apple’s trademarks sufficient to support preliminary injunctive relief for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion or applied an erroneous legal standard in granting the preliminary injunction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion or rely on erroneous legal premises.
- The court agreed Apple demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its copyright claim, supported by registrations and evidence of substantial similarity and copying.
- The court agreed Apple demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark and unfair competition claims because “Pineapple” was confusingly similar to “Apple” in the relevant market.
- The court accepted the district court’s finding of irreparable harm supporting injunctive relief for both copyright and trademark claims.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction may issue upon a showing of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury (or, alternatively, serious questions plus a sharply tipping balance of hardships).
- Computer programs, including operating system programs embedded in ROM, may constitute copyrightable expression even if they perform functional tasks; copyright does not protect ideas, processes, or methods of operation, but can protect the particular expression embodied in code.
- Copyright registration certificates constitute prima facie evidence of copyright validity and the facts stated in the certificates; the opposing party bears the burden of rebutting that presumption with sufficient evidence.
- Conceded substantial similarity and evidence of copying support a finding of likely success on a copyright infringement claim at the preliminary injunction stage.
- Likelihood of confusion can be shown where marks are closely similar and used on related goods in overlapping markets; incorporation of a senior mark within a junior mark may contribute to confusion.
- In trademark cases, likely confusion may support a finding of irreparable harm due to loss of control over reputation and goodwill, justifying injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction preventing Formula from copying and distributing Apple’s copyrighted computer programs (including ROM-based operating system programs) and from using “Pineapple” as a mark confusingly similar to Apple’s, concluding that Apple showed likely success on the merits and irreparable harm and that the district court acted within its discretion.


Apple Comput., Inc. v. Formula Int’l, Inc., 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1984)