MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

To follow their proven logic, Apple Inc legal dept should rewrite their defense from 2006 logo dispute with Apple Corps:
"Even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about the distinction between the computer company's iTunes online music business and a recording company like Apple Corps"
[that's why both can use an apple logo]

To:
"Not even a genious with plenty of extra time can tell the difference between a Mac Pro and a trash can".
[that's why both can't use an apple logo]

This is a bit silly. I've seen these ads running on HGTV for many weeks now, promoting things you can do to help create a green NYC. It never dawned on me that the greeNYC logo was similar to Apple's logo.

Apple has to protect its marks, and I suspect this will be about the last we'll hear of the case. They'll reach some agreement, and the case will quietly settle.

Apr 03, 08 - 09:32 pm Comment from: DogGone

I get why Apple need to protect their copyright. But the question is does Apple Inc have the copyright for any apple like image? This to me is weird since we are talking about a natural product that has been around for a wee bit longer the Apple Computer / Inc.

If all they need is for NYC to say they have no interest in Apple's trademark then all is good. Apple can give them permission to use the symbol within strict limitations.

Maybe this is just a gesture to 'remind' IT companies not to use Apple. Winning is optional although much prefered

"We sue New York for that bloody logo, we surely won't hestitate to sue you to bankruptcy if you use similar logos"

Apple's lawsuit doesn't pass the laugh test. The two logos are distinctly dissimilar in appearance, and I think any judge or jury will see that. This is a waste of the taxpayers' money, and Apple should be required to bear the cost of the respondant and the court. Also, I agree with comments that MDN is way off base, and its showing its blind allegiance to Apple (maybe not so blind, since they are a reseller). i enjoy the content on the site, but long ago thought of it as Mac Daily Opinion. I recommend a change of name.

Apr 03, 08 - 09:57 pm Comment from: Petey

Being a design consultant with over 18yrs experience I can say that I think Apple has take their obsession about protecting their logo a little too far in this case.

The 2 logos are instantly recognisable as different.

Apple should post the logos in colour then the difference would be even more obvious.

I understand why they want to protect their brand, but this is stupid.

What next?

Apple to sue anyone using the word 'Apple' (relating to the fruit) in body copy or everyday used in conversation?

Gee attorneys agreeing with lawsuits, that is a real head spinner. As usual MDN sucks up with aapl decisions. This one is a loser, get your head out of your butt. As to "business" courses above, you don't need those to realize you are behaving like a jack ass.

MDN- I think you guys have been on OsamaBama's bandwagon too long.

NYC is a city. - It's in the 'city' business.
Apple, Inc. - It's in the computer business.

Get it.

I would think removing the little leaf or attaching the leaf to the stem would take care of most issues that one might have with the logo.

Apr 03, 08 - 10:43 pm Comment from: iMacDave

"How many ways can you draw an apple, sans Picasso?"

Ah, Picasso! Where would we be if he didn't invent Cubism?

The world would probably be very boring indeed. All those wonderful angles and geometric shapes!

Apple must defend the logo. Silly as it seems, its the right thing to do to make sure that the brand is not dilluted in any way.

Don't look at all alike. Best resolution is to have the case thrown out before to much money and goodwill is spent.

That said, Apple probably needs to have a challenge on record for future use.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:09 pm Comment from: Macintosh

Apple should and will win this. In the world of trademarks, this NYC logo is too close to Apple's logo.

Take away the center part and you pretty much have an Apple logo. So it's OK to make the apple logo if you put a line through it? I think not. If NYC gets away with it, then other companies will try to do the same thing, and use NYC as an example of why their knock-off logo is passable.

And what's with the infinity tie-in? Isn't Apple's address One Infinite Loop?

What does infinity have to do with going "Green"? Life on Earth, as well as Earth itself is not infinite. Stupid logo in the first place.

There is no doubt in my mind that everyone involved in the process of designing this logo was constantly thinking "Damn, it looks like the Apple logo, do you think they will do anything??".

When you are designing a logo, and you are already hoping the other guy won't notice... you are usually wrong. And going up against Apple means you are either completely ignorant, or you have a death wish.

I've also had the unfortunate experience of sitting through meetings where the "suits" would have said things like "Maybe since it looks like Apple Inc., it will catch peoples eye so they'll read our slogan".

You cannot tell me that if you saw that logo on a bag somewhere that Apple, Inc. would not cross your mind! That's the point Apple is making in their case.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:15 pm Comment from: Big Al

Not only are the two logos very different, there is a 90% chance the greeNYC logo was designed on a Mac.

➪☝ɷɞ

Falkirk...

What do they call a bus-load of lawyers going over a cliff ?

Anser: -- A Good start !

Why isn't Apple Inc. all over Applebee's LLC as well?

http://www.applebees.com/

Now these logos ARE too similar. And do the Applebee's locations with wifi constitute an entry into computing, thus onto Apple Inc.'s turf? Again, where's the lawsuit here?

Are here I was thinking that April Fool's Day was supposed to be April 1st. I guess some one moved it to the 3rd and didn't tell people about it....

Apr 04, 08 - 12:06 am Comment from: mossman

@ Macintosh

Apple should not and will not win this.

I did like you suggested, and mentally removed the center line. Oops, Apple's own logo still has a bite out of it, plus it's a solid colour.

The center curve is even extra-thick, to ensure a simple bordered logo would not be confused with our Apple.

Might an apple shape attract attention from association with Apple? Maybe--in any other city. But when you've been the Big Apple forever, anything apple-shaped is mentally associated with the city--unless you're Apple Inc, which people are smart enough to recognize.

What's next, Apple going after any company with apple in its name? How soon before we forget how we blasted Apple Corps for their ridiculous pursuit of Apple Computer Inc!

Your further illogic is evident in slamming the "infinity"-like loop in greeNYC's logo. It evokes infinity, but since it's not a closed loop it is not, in fact, infinity. And why take them to task; Apple's not infinite, is far less infinite than the life and Earth that you so mock, so why One Infinite Loop?

Whether greeNYC's logo looks good or not aside, I can and will tell you that if I saw that logo on the street before this story broke, I would not have associated it with Apple Inc, any more than I would for AppleTree Medical, or the Golden Apple Foundation.

Hey there.

I'm conducting a survey.

Does ANYONE actually read the comments once they get to the second page, or is posting a comment once MDN has run out of space on the first page a pitiful exercise in futility?

Please reply to this with something witty and acerbic; "screw you, you freaking nose picking jerko bag dufus idiot nancy boy" for example.

Or an obscure Joel/Mike reference from MST3K.

Apr 04, 08 - 12:40 am Comment from: psych

I think that is a little over the top, I don't see much similarity.

Apr 04, 08 - 12:50 am Comment from: nanisani

Funny - the Applebee's website even has a 'Dock' at the bottom with magnification turned on.

There's your lawsuit

Apr 04, 08 - 12:51 am Comment from: nanisani

http://www.applebees.com/

Im sorry guys but they are similar and apple has an obligation to protect its trademark. MDN take is spot on.

wtf??? Why doesn't apple sue the pants off of the iphoneys? Those are cases that can be win easily. I really want apple to do that. I can't wait for those to happen. Why this?

Apr 04, 08 - 01:32 am Comment from: Macintosh

@ Mossman

Everyone who will see those bags haven't been in the city forever. Nor will you or anyone else. Anyway, Apple Tree Medical, and Golden Apple Foundation? Yeah, those pop right into my head when I see an Apple logo (JK).

I'm sure that's the same for the hundreds of millions of people who own Apple products... Who are primarily younger, and from the USA (which I can clearly tell you are not either of those).

Apr 04, 08 - 01:35 am Comment from: Macintosh

@ Crooooooooow!

I usually only read the second page of comments if I intend on posting a comment myself. Sorry, guilty as charged.

well, since the Big Apple was coined in 1920, and Apple was founded in the 70's perhaps the city should counter sue for apple diluting their trademark.

Turnabout being fair play and all.

Some lawsuits are just stupid.

Apr 04, 08 - 01:48 am Comment from: Road Warrior

Naw, you have to stretch out that logo to get it confused with Apple Computers. I hope it is a knee jerk reaction.

Now the copyright owners of the infinity sign, that is a different story.

I love Apple, but I think it's time to fire some of their LAWYERS!!!!!

clearly no-one has a clue about the underlying concepts at work here. ie how advertising works, the purpose of logos etc.

If the Apple lawyers, design architects, marketing departments agree that the NYC logo is too close, who are ya'll to disagree with them? Anyone here got degrees in marketing psychology? Mythology? Symbology?

I'm sure, contrary to the cynicism expressed here, the Apple lawyers are not relishing being on the other end of a controversial, and as if they haven't got enough to do already. I think you'll find that frivolous cases come from law firms without anything better to do.

On the other hand, I'm sure the legal team would like to be on the offensive for a change instead of on the defensive all the time (the best defense being a good offense, notwithstanding)

... Controversial CASE

of course

I don't see the resemblance. Sorry.

They are actually very similar in legal terms!

The outer shape of the apple is practically identical except for the bite and the leaf has the same shape and relative size to the apple and are only mirrored.

And I bet that the ad agency who made it where very well aware of the Apple logo before they created this one...

The funny thing is that if Apple had kept their rainbow colours in the logo this lawsuit probably would not have been needed.

However any potential infringement (read the word potential) MUST be defended of you lose the right to exclusivity on the logo. The obligation is on the trademark holder to challenge as soon as they become aware of the competing design. If they fail to do so the trademark validity could be subsequently challenged and overturned. They do NOT have to win a challenge to maintain their claim to their trademark, just show that they are protecting it.

Yep Apple will have to blow money on this with some parasites... I mean lawyers...

Will anything happen, NO, because in no way would Apple win this...

A monumental cluster #*@$ - just proof that when you go to court it is just like two fighting zebras, you both loose and the only animal that wins is the vultures...

Interesting how so many posters on here are usually quick to cry foul when a company copies or imitates Apple's other intellectual property - such as the iPhone or Windows OS for example. But when the copying of Apple's trademark is so obvious it constitutes stealing, the same posters can see no problem with it and attack Apple for acting to protect its property.

I have to laugh when such posters line up to declare themselves to be a 'designer'' or an 'attorney' and then go on to show their total visual and legal ignorance on this issue. The examples they give of other companies who use an apple device for their logo look nothing whatsoever like the Apple Inc logo showing they completely miss the point about Apple's action against the users of the greeNYC logo. Apple is in NO WAY acting to stop anyone using an apple device for a logo because they use one - just as Apple would never try to stop anyone making MP3 players because they make one.

What Apple is doing is acting to stop a very large organisation publishing a trademark which millions of people will be exposed to (on other companies' sub-branding, on advertising, on litter-bins, dustcarts, taxis, store-fronts etc etc etc) because that image has been stolen from Apple and will, in the minds of the millions of people who see it, be associated with Apple - either consciously or subliminally.

It is of no importance what goes on within the boundaries of the GreeNYC device - Apple often render their logo with variously different internal imagery, from a flat solid colour to rainbow stripes to several 3D shaded and chrome effects etc. What matters is the boundary which forms the identifiable shape of large areas of the GreeNYC logo is identical to that of the Apple Inc logo (and the position of the organisation name is set to a similar size and in an identical position the that of the 'Apple Inc' name in relation to the logo device.

All Apple has to do is arrive at court with a 3 foot image of the GreeNYC logo and overlay it with a 3 foot red outline of the Apple Inc logo and they've won their case. It wouldn't surprise me if the originator of the GreeNYC logo stole a vector outline version of the Apple Inc logo and used large parts of this - unchanged - as the base for his/her motif.

At first, I thought this was frivolous and agree with consistent and others about other apple logos like Applebees. But that made me think, what's different about this one.

Trash and recycle bins a.k.a. 'garbage'

I wouldn't want something resembling my logo on a garbage can when there are anti-apple zealots out there grinning at the possibilities. Put my logo on a luscious, yummy cheeseburger, but don't put it on trash.

By this standard, any graphical display of an apple is now an infringement on Apple's trademark.
We won't be able to use apples in graphic design anymore.

What's next?
No oranges?: http://www.orange.co.uk/
No lemons?: http://www.lemon.com/
No fruits?: http://fruits.com/
No food?: http://food.com
No things?: http://www.43things.com/

Bullshit. Utter Bullshit.

Apr 04, 08 - 06:54 am Comment from: MacRaven

Design advice here. The designer should have strived a bit harder to think different and avoided this.

Make the stem bigger, and facing the other direction. Make another leaf on it, on the side Apple has the stem pointing, maybe slightly bigger. Make the leaf look more like a stylized leaf, and less a clone of Apple's stem. Throw a couple well placed dots in for seeds. Divide the box it's in in half vertically, and reverse out half the box and half the apple for a negative/positive look.

At least it didn't have a bite out of it.

Apr 04, 08 - 07:06 am Comment from: MacRaven

@Me in LA

Yes, look at the Beatles record company logo. The Beatles used an Apple before Apple. And where have YOU been all these years when the Beatles have been regularly suing Apple Computer for all things Apple?

Gosh, can't believe it, I wrote my previous comment on a windoze machine and looked through all the characters for an infinity sign.
Found it on my mac right away
∞

Now the symbol could be a variation of a Moebius strip. I wonder how Moebius would feel about it. Well better watch the 5th element or Tron again, that frenchman can be confusing.

What nonsense! the logo is vaguely similar, this is very dumb of Apple. and its hardly a negative connotation either, they could come out of this with egg on their face, unless of course that too infringes a copyright somewhere.

@lars
right, apples do look like apples. nyc is imitating aapl. you are confused.

Looks closer to the Infinity brand of cars than Apple's logo.

Come on Apple wake up. NYC is one of your core markets. Back off.

THe bottom line with this is, when you look at the NYC logo, do you say, "Hey is that Apple Computers? THe answer in this case is no. That logo may be an apple, but it is not similar enough.

@ MBA

oh so sorry. let me bow down to you.

Sorry, bad take MDN. I am an attorney and a graphic artist AND owner of many Macs, iPods, even the Newton, etc. and infringement is MORE than simply looking alike. In this case they don't --- after all how many different ways can you show an apple? --- plus, and this is major, are people likely to confuse Apple the company from NY's clean campaign? I do not think so.

Apr 04, 08 - 09:14 am Comment from: Cubert

Steve Jobs needs to step up today and make a public announcement saying he's sorry and state that Apple is supporting this New York campaign somehow.

This is VERY BAD publicity for Apple and is a case of lawyers run-a-muck.

Reign 'em in, Steve-O!

@MBA I totally agree

I don't think people understand here that it is an apple logo... It doesn't matter if it really does look like it or not and I am a graphic/web designer/animator/programmer/IT support etc..

No matter the title it's common sense and it's the principle of the matter. You associate yourself by an icon of symbolism.. In Apple Inc. case.. that would be a small apple with a chunk taken out of it. Now someone else comes out with a small logo of an apple which isn't completely the same but dimensions are very very similar despite what others are saying.

Take a business class or maybe two or three and you will see why they must take them to court.

my $0.02