FOLLOW US

• 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.

The Court’s Decision

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a 20-page memorandum opinion siding with Apple on all substantive points.

“Although the term ‘Reality’ is likely descriptive of augmented reality software to the consumers to whom Apple advertises this product, the term stretches beyond its descriptive meaning when combined with ‘composer’ and ‘converter.’” — Judge Leonie Brinkema

The court found that Apple’s marks are suggestive because they require imagination to connect with the software’s functions. Even if they were descriptive, Apple provided overwhelming evidence that the marks have acquired secondary meaning:

• Five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce, which under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) is prima facie evidence of secondary meaning.
• Widespread media coverage linking the marks directly to Apple.
• Millions of downloads for Reality Composer and tens of thousands for Reality Converter.
• High consumer recognition across online platforms such as Reddit and Stack Overflow, where the terms are almost exclusively used in reference to Apple.

Implications for the Tech Industry

This ruling could influence how courts and trademark authorities assess the registrability of technology-related marks that combine descriptive elements in novel ways. It underscores that: