Apple’s Legal Position
Apple’s legal team, led by Dale Cendali and Mary Mazzello of Kirkland & Ellis, argued the marks are unique coined terms that require a mental leap to connect with the products’ functions—making them suggestive, not descriptive.
They emphasized:
- No dictionary definitions or semantic links exist between “reality” and “composer” or “converter” that directly describe AR tools.
- No third-party usage exists for these terms in the industry outside Apple.
- Apple’s consistent branding practices—capitalization, use with logos, and presentation in promotional materials—reinforce the marks’ distinctiveness.
Apple also presented robust expert testimony:
- Professor Phillip Carter (linguistics) concluded the terms require metaphorical inferences and are not directly descriptive.
- Professor Itamar Simonson (marketing) conducted consumer surveys showing software developers overwhelmingly did not describe the products with the disputed terms.
- Professor Ashlee Humphreys (marketing research) found no competitor uses similar terms and that consumers overwhelmingly associate the marks with Apple.
- Garry Kitchen (software development) testified that the terms are not customarily used in the software industry to describe such tools.
Zero Density’s Counterarguments
Represented by attorney Jeffrey Greger, Zero Density pointed to Apple’s own disclaimer of exclusive rights to the word “Reality” and argued that the relevant audience—AR software developers—would recognize “Reality Composer” and “Reality Converter” as describing the software’s function.
Zero Density cited examples from industry job postings and marketing materials that use “compose” and “converter” in technical contexts, arguing the descriptive nature would be “immediately recognized” by developers.
