Not a great week for Apple in the courtroom. This past week, Cupertino has been forced to settle a class action suit regarding the MagSafe adapters that start fires, lost a ruling in Germany which could result in a huge win for Motorola, and is picking a fight with a small cafe in Bonn.

We'll run through the highlights in this week's episode of Law & Apple. Cue the "dun dun."

MagSafe Owners vs. Apple 

In 2009, a class-action lawsuit was brought against Apple regarding the MagSafe connectors that are known for their potential to fray and start electrical fires. The case, No. C09-01911-JW known as In re MagSafe Apple Power Adapter Litigation, is being handled by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Apple has since redesigned the connector and now, according to MacRumors, has apparently has reached a settlement.

The court must still approve the settlement, in which Apple will provide a cash payment to original owners of certain MacBook or MacBook Pro models or separately purchased MagSafe Adaptors. There are, of course, specific requirements and limitations regarding who can claim damages in the suit, but cash payouts range form $35 to $79, and are limited to three refunds per computer. 

Magneto: "This is not the way that I would have designed it."

For many years Apple has offered a replacement program to users whose magnetic adapters have exhibited signs of "Strain Relief Damage," but this proposed settlement marks an acknowledgement of a more pervasive issue. Yesterday, Apple updated its website with new information regarding the settlement. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for February 27, 2012.

Motorola vs. Apple

Motorola has won a significant injunction against Apple in Germany, a ruling which prevents Apple from "offering and/or delivering, on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, any mobile devices [practicing any of the patents-in-suit]". At first glance, it appears to be a huge win for Motorola, but the situation is more complicated than that.

The injunction was won by Motorola based on a default judgement because Apple failed to present its arguments and evidence in a timely manner, and most likely failed to do so on purpose. The way European courts control the submission of evidence causes many defendants to use this tactic, called "Flucht in die Säumnis" ("resorting to a default judgment"), because they need to preserve the evidence for a later point in the trial. In addition, the injunction is against Apple Inc., a U.S. company, and not Apple GmbH, the German subsidiary that actually sells the products in Germany.

Let them win a couple first, it makes them overconfident.

So, if the injunction was something that Apple probably allowed to happen, and if it doesn’t prevent Apple’s subsidiary in Germany from selling anything anyway, is it really a win for Motorola?

It is, and Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents is in Germany and gives an detailed explanation why. In summary, the injunction prevents Apple from offering products in Germany, and this could cause problems because of the way Cupertino’s websites are organized. Also, there is a very real risk that Motorola will argue that Apple GmbH is until the complete direction of Apple Inc. Even if the first two points go Apple’s way, the injunction clearly prevents Apple Inc. from shipping new product to Apple GmbH, and it is tough to sell that which you cannot deliver.

Even if Apple allowed the ruling to go this way, the risk and the complications that stem from the injunction suggest it is a tactic Cupertino was forced to employ.

Apple vs. Small German Coffee Shop

The UK-based news outlet, Mail Online, is reporting that Apple has threatened to unleash it army of lawyers on a new intellectual property threat in Germany: a small coffee shop in Bonn called Apfelkind. Apparently, Cupertino feels that the Apfelkind’s logo, the one with the red apple and the child’s face, looks too much like their own trademark logo.

The cafe opened this past May, and owner Christin Römer recently made a trademark application to protect the logo on cushions, cups, chairs and a delivery bike. Apple, however, fired off a letter last month to the shop regarding its concerns about customers confusing the world-famous logo with Apfelkind.

Oh yeah. We can barely tell them apart...

"I’m not going to accept that," Römer decided when receiving the letter, and got a lawyer involved. "I wanted to do something like Starbucks, and have the logo as my trademark. I was even thinking of eventually expanding and creating a franchise business so other people could open up other Apfelkind cafés, which is why I wanted to register the trademark."

The case will be decided by Munich’s patent office. Römer admits that the scuffle with Apple has actually been good for business, with many new customers coming in to show their support.