MicrostockGroup

Hmmmm,

I'm not sure why this was rejected - it might depend on the context or the exact image - you might want to reach out to support at service (at) bigstockphoto.com. They'll either be able to reverse the rejection or give you a better reason why.  You're always welcome to challenge rejections that you think are truly mistakes or in error.

Best,

Scott
Bigstock

Maybe they expecte dbuyers to search for "Malus domestica" when looking for the fruit....

Holgs, you cannot trademark a common word, that is why companies do long very intense searches to make sure that thier names do not mean anything in any land. Such as Kodak, Verox and Exxon. You may trademark the "Apple: if it is in a custom font or thier famous apple with a bite out of it. 

Well actually you can - and the Beatles had the trademark first

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.,_Apple_Corps_resolve_trademark_dispute

A trademark doesn't man that you can't ever use the word Apple again except referring to a computer - it just means you can't use the name in a way that someone would confuse your product or service with the holder of the trademark. In relation to computers or electronics, the word "apple" is meaningless, and so able to be registered as a trademark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

But your statement is incorrect and your example is not relevant here. Here is a link to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, where you can see that the single word "APPLE" is a registered trademark. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:gp36th.2.1 There are many more examples but I am not delivering an IP lecture here.

A generic term cannot be registered as a trademark only when it describes the product and service in the trademark application. For instance, an apple grower will not be allowed to get APPLE as a registered trademark,  because, if the government allows the application, the rest of the apple growers will be out of business and cannot call their fruit APPLE anymore.

That being said, it does not explain why the OP's keyword was rejected. OP wasn't in the business of selling competing products with Apple computers. OP's apple keyword is a generic term which describes the item in the photo.

Here is the eact ruling on trademarks

How do trademarks differ from copyrights and trade names?
Trademarks are identifiers of commercial products or services; business names, or trade names, identify a business for non-marketing purposes; and copyrights protect individual, original works of expression.

The non-marketing uses of trade names include uses on stock certificates, bank accounts, invoices, letterhead, contracts, i.e. uses which identify the entity. Trade names can also be trademarks when used to identify specific goods and services.

Copyrights do not generally protect individual words or slogans but will protect creative designs. Therefore, a logo design could be protected by both copyright law and trademark law.

A copyright does not exclude others from developing similar or even the same design as long as the creation is independent from and the creator has not had prior access to the other design. Similar trademarks, however, might not be permitted if the public would be confused or if the value of a strong mark would be diminished or tarnished (dilution).

The owner of a trademark is the first to use the mark in interstate commerce and requires continuous use in commerce to retain ownership. The owner of a copyright, depending on the circumstances, is either the creator or the employer and no publication, use or distribution is required.

The copyright owner has rights for a term of 50, 75, or 100 years depending on the entity owning the copyright. The trademark owners rights are indefinite as long as the trademark is properly used and protected by the owner.

well, even you are right, i don't understand why people want to point finger and call out name... isn't there a better way to communication?

Has something been deleted here? where was the name calling?

Hello,

I did a little more research on this, and it appears that the issue was our "Problem Keyword Alerts" and not an image rejection.   We provide feedback to users when they've entered a keyword that we suspect will be problematic.

In this case, the keyword alert uses language that's not specific enough. 

We're going to modify the language to:

Apple - Not allowed if isolated or artwork of Apple Inc. designed products. Apple Inc products are unacceptable for commercial use. Re-classify as editorial if newsworthy. Images of fruit (real apples) are acceptable.

As always - please flag these issues for Support, since they'll be able to track down the problem (and answer) quicker than the forums will.

Thanks!

Scott
Product Manager
Bigstock

Again you have it all wrong, you cannot trademark the word "Apple". You may use the word injuction with other words, such as Apple Computer or Apple Electronics.

APPLE is perfectly fine as a single word trademark.

However,  you cannot get copyright protection for a single word. For copyright protection to kick in, you need at least 3 words. Maybe that's where your confusion lies.

RT has gone very far out of his way to educate you on this. Why not read (and try to understand) the links? There's not a lot more to say.