I gave the link to the specific federal statutes oO
As for the case you're bringing, the criterion would be: it the website tyring to get people to believe it is actually endorsed by Apple to injure its reputation? In this case it is criminal impersonation, which is a usually a state criminal offense unrelated to trademark law.
Otherwise, if it's only criticizing the participation of Apple in a jewish conspiracy, to use your example, it is pretty safe on the trademark front (and even more if the webmaster was careful not to show ads or to link to a commercial website).
However, depending on the actual content of the website, it could still constitute defamation and Apple could thus sue, but again not in relation with its trademark.
I gave the link to the specific federal statutes oO
As for the case you're bringing, the criterion would be: it the website tyring to get people to believe it is actually endorsed by Apple to injure its reputation? In this case it is criminal impersonation, which is a usually a state criminal offense unrelated to trademark law.
Otherwise, if it's only criticizing the participation of Apple in a jewish conspiracy, to use your example, it is pretty safe on the trademark front (and even more if the webmaster was careful not to show ads or to link to a commercial website).
However, depending on the actual content of the website, it could still constitute defamation and Apple could thus sue, but again not in relation with its trademark.