Jump to Most Recent Comment
erik skoglund’s comment is:
I really like this site, but I think it's a bit irresponsible of you to suggest that Apple is suing these people, when they've merely filed a formal opposition to the trademark. This article has some clear-headed perspective on the situation.
On Apr.03.2008 at 09:00 PM
Justin’s comment is:
I bit into an apple this morning. I think I'm next on their shit list...
On Apr.03.2008 at 09:00 PM
Armin’s comment is:
Erik, thanks for the clarification. Wording has been updated. I do take the blame for the misconstruction of the information. Should serve me as a reminder that posting after 9:00 pm is not the best idea.
On Apr.03.2008 at 09:05 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Give me a break, they don't look identical at all, they look completely different to me.
The only thing that looks remotely the same is the leaf part, but it's far from identical.
On Apr.03.2008 at 09:49 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
Not only do these logos not look similar, but since they compete in entirely different markets, Apple's argument is shaky at best. My non-expert understanding of America's broken copyright/patent/trademark system leads me to believe that Apple has no claim to an object as vague and ubiquitous as the apple. That would mean that companies like Apple & Eve, and perhaps even Snapple, would be subject to the same wrath from Cupertino. Lest we re-live the fiasco surrounding the word "Olympic" from a few years ago when the IOC got all persnickety.
While everyone loves the iPod, Apple sometimes gets too much wiggle room from the courts. However in this case, I reckon that any judge worth his robe will throw this out, especially if filed in NY State. This is certainly a below-the-belt shot from a usually-respectful brand. I'd expect this sort of thing from Wal-Mart, but not Apple. Then again, they did spend 25 years in court with Apple Corps records. *sigh*
btw, no one in New York calls it "The Big Apple," that's really the tourist moniker. We call it "Gotham," or simply "The City."
On Apr.04.2008 at 12:28 AM
Colin’s comment is:
Fuck off, Apple. Fuck the fuck off, really, dip-shits.
On Apr.04.2008 at 02:08 AM
Adam’s comment is:
Ha, I bet this is because they wish that they had an "infinite loop" apple. I can't imagine that they will win this battle, but a slight redesign wouldn't kill anyone.
On Apr.04.2008 at 02:20 AM
FJ de Kermadec’s comment is:
The logos definitely do not look similar or confusing. As far as I know, Apple has not used the Picasso version of the apple - which was kinda sorta in this style - in many years. They also no longer use any kind of green in their branding. Also, as others commenters have pointed out, the markets these logos cater to seem very different.
Of course, the question here lies more in the eyes of a court. Would failing to raise a big stink on this particular apple diminish their right to do so on other, more confusing fruits? I guess that is the real issue here since copyright holders are expected to defend their brands to retain their rights on them.
Controversy aside, the infinity-meets-apple idea is pretty neat and the design very recognizable. Well done!
On Apr.04.2008 at 04:12 AM
dani’s comment is:
I believe the question behind all this is that it doesn´t really matter if it´s similar to apple`s trademark or not, the point is do you really want to use an apple as your symbol? I think the design for greenyc is effective and well executed, but is also conceptually weak, because if you know that there´s someone so known out there using that symbol, why go for it? why not explore some other idea?
On Apr.04.2008 at 05:45 AM
dani’s comment is:
sorry for my english...
On Apr.04.2008 at 05:46 AM
Agus’s comment is:
Creo que las manzanas son frutas y Apple es una marca. No todas las manzanas son apples.
Siempre he sido Mac, pero creo que la marca de la manzana no es dueña de todo lo que a manzanos se refiere.
No es igual, no es parecida, es distinta aunque sea una manzana.
Esta batalla es tan absurda que espero que Apple la pierda. Creo que es una batalla que no representa el espíritu libre y creativo que la marca Apple ha defendido siempre.
Ian’s comment is:
I'm not normally one to defend Apple, but this article is seriously off the mark. Apple aren't suing anyone (so why the 'iLitigious' title?)
What has really happened is that the city of New York has filed a trademark application for their new green apple-shaped logo, and Apple Inc has simply filed an opposition to that application, as they are perfectly entitled to do, on the grounds that it's overly similar to their own existing logo. The Patent and Trademark Office will then look at the application, taking any objections into account, and decide wether or not to grant the trademark.
In this case Apple is just acting to protect a brand identity it's spent billions of dollars establishing. This is a far cry from the crazy 'all your magenta is belong to us' attitude of some corporations (T-Mobile, I'm looking at you!)
Chad Garrett’s comment is:
An apple logo of an organization located in the "Big Apple?" I'm pretty sure that expression's been along longer than...computers!
On Apr.04.2008 at 08:55 AM
EnergonCube’s comment is:
There's a great article in the latest Wired magazine about Apple's (very) evil side and how it's been so good for their business. Pick up a copy -- it's worth the read.
On Apr.04.2008 at 08:55 AM
richard’s comment is:
WOW! That is a huge withdrawal from Apple's karma bank!
On Apr.04.2008 at 09:05 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
In this case Apple is just acting to protect a brand identity it's spent billions of dollars establishing. This is a far cry from the crazy 'all your magenta is belong to us' attitude of some corporations (T-Mobile, I'm looking at you!)
Stole the words right out of my mouth. Pretty soon Adam and Eve will have bitten into an orange because the A**le will be banned.
On Apr.04.2008 at 09:25 AM
Doug’s comment is:
I hope the PTO approves the GreeNYC mark. There is no conflict of interests here and any consumer with a brain knows the difference. This country's litigious attitude has driven us into a horrible cycle that has devalued cooperation and creativity.
On Apr.04.2008 at 09:56 AM
Richard Earney’s comment is:
Remember that Apple Inc also hold the rights to Apple Corps (The Beatles) which while a photographic image is green as well, so it is closer than the Apple Inc logo.
Might be another slant on the explanation.
On Apr.04.2008 at 10:02 AM
Stan Grabowski’s comment is:
If the people that buy Apple computers or products can't tell the difference between the two, then they deserve to be confused...
On Apr.04.2008 at 10:23 AM
Adrian’s comment is:
Well, Apple is going down the toilet anyway in my opinion. Their products have significantly decreased in both quality and innovation over the past few years. They're getting too big and too mainstream for their own good in my opinion - hell, now they even start to sue anyone who ever used anything remotely connected to them commercially.
That sounds oddly like Microsoft, doesn't it?
On Apr.04.2008 at 10:40 AM
Joel32’s comment is:
I don't blame Apple for filing a formal opposition to try to prevent a similar-looking logo. At the same time, i don't think anyone is going to confuse the two logos. I think Apple may want to keep in mind that we're just talking about one city. Apple is recognized globally, and i don't imagine anyone outside of NYC would ever see or care about this new greeNYC logo.
On Apr.04.2008 at 11:39 AM
Chris’s comment is:
Stink Different.
On Apr.04.2008 at 11:44 AM
Monty’s comment is:
I think the logo looks like Apple's, at least a lot more than it should. I had to re-read the post because I initially thought the article was making fun of GreeNYC.
On Apr.04.2008 at 12:01 PM
Joe Ross’s comment is:
Lets stop comparing Apples to Apples here people, this logo is obviously similar in subject matter and form but where do you draw the line? I love Macs but I dont think they have a legit case.
On Apr.04.2008 at 12:19 PM
Andi’s comment is:
Apple is completely right to be taking legal action against these people. Why would a respected computer company want to be associated with people who are trying to clean up the environment?!
(sarcasm. much sarcasm.)
On Apr.04.2008 at 12:38 PM
jason parry’s comment is:
Apple's lawyers dont represent all of Apple as a whole (just the bite part :) Im sure they are tasked with 'defending the brand' just like the IP division of my employer and we all know how paranoid they can be. I dont think these logos look too similar to us designers... general consumers maybe... but green isnt too bad of a thing to be associated with. However as a mark, the GreeNYC logo doesnt say 'green' to me...
On Apr.04.2008 at 12:57 PM
Tom M.’s comment is:
According to the caption under the illustration in the Wired article, Apple says the GreeNYC logo is "causing mass confusion and ruining Apple's good reputation". Hysterical!
On Apr.04.2008 at 02:06 PM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
Idea: A+
execution: B
the bottom left inside curve of the apple does not match the nicely drawn upper right side.
Other than that this is a great mark I'm envious of. As per the "lawsuit" kerfuffle, it will surely be thrown out. Frankly I hope they keep it up. It will only bring more attention to GreenNYC.
On Apr.04.2008 at 02:54 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
This would be rotten core PR for Apple and a good excuse to illustrate a worm!
On Apr.04.2008 at 03:05 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Von, that's priceless
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
On Apr.04.2008 at 05:44 PM
Myles ’s comment is:
Pretty lame on Apple's part. They are probably scared that seeing any apple logo will make the viewer more creative... and in their mind they own creativity (anyone hear about that study?). Maybe their lawyers are just bored. I agree about the positive attention GreenNYC is getting as long as this nonsense is brought to close.
On Apr.04.2008 at 08:32 PM
yoel’s comment is:
Agus, estoy de acuerdo contigo -- Apple doesn't own the apple, and I don't think this logo comes close enough to bear any argument of infringement. I think Apple is not immune to having the same characteristics most of us mac lovers love to hate... though perhaps none of us really are!
On Apr.04.2008 at 09:00 PM
VonK’s comment is:
When is something different enough?
What do they seriously want? To own every single apple everywhere in all visual media forever?
On Apr.05.2008 at 02:19 AM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
People, can we PLEASE RE-READ this post (after Armin's correction, that is).
Everyone keeps referencing how evil Apple is, and "law suite" this, and "thrown out" that.
There is a lot of ignorance being spread throughout this thread.
Apple is NOT suing. They have filed an opposition against the trademark with the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). This has no legal ramifications at all. The USPTO publishes newly filed trademarks within its journal, toward the end of the trademark filing process. This gives other "brand stewards" the chance to see what is being filed, and to act appropriately.
I realize others have stated this, but everyone seems to have this "lawsuit" idea stuck in there brains.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not really an Apple supporter (in fact I'm one of those "crazy" designers that actually uses a PC, can you believe it!?).
And to the people referencing "classes", or "within industry":
This would be more of a case of "dilution". When brands are as big as Apple, their reach extends across all classes, and this becomes more of a case of "dilution" than of "class confusions". (hard to explain briefly).
As Erik pointed out originally, lets get our shit straight.
Hildebrant.
On Apr.05.2008 at 02:53 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
@Armin:
Can you add a footnote that says this is "not a lawsuit" or something of the like?
On Apr.05.2008 at 02:56 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
I heard Steve Jobs doesn't eat at AppleBee's. Not sure why?
Matt Kelm’s comment is:
I'm certain that none as savvy as we are would be confused about GreeNYC's logo and whether it's afiliated with Apple, but to say that these two have little in common is a little blind.
A person who didn't know better could easily come to the wrong conclusion about the origination of the new GreeNYC logo, and Apple is in no way in the wrong for what amounts to raising its hand and making an objection before the thing becomes official. This is a completely reasonable and non-evil move on Apple's part.
On Apr.05.2008 at 06:08 AM
fred autechaud’s comment is:
Counting Apple's brand name citations in comments, I can see that even the most stupid copyright infrigment claim does good buzz. The "fruit" turned black on the front of my new iMac... either rotten or evil 8-))
On Apr.05.2008 at 02:00 PM
handsofaten’s comment is:
You all really need to read the Engadget article posted at the beginning of this thread. Filing opposition to similar trademark designs is standard operating procedure for corporations. In fact, if they don't oppose trademarks like this, it can cause legal problems down the road when there is a more significant violation. Apple has some questionable business practices, but this is far from being one of them.
Armin, it would be cool if you actually did what you're good at, i.e. writing about the design itself. Leave the legal and moral commentary to those who know what they're talking about.
On Apr.05.2008 at 04:29 PM
Armin’s comment is:
Yeah, yeah...
On Apr.05.2008 at 05:38 PM
Sebhelyesfarku’s comment is:
Jobs is a smug scumbag just like all the Mactards.
On Apr.05.2008 at 05:40 PM
Fredrik Broman’s comment is:
Actually I believe that the opposite of "seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services." would happen. The GreeNYC logo would associate the apple symbol with "eco-friendly", which would rub off on the Apple brand. Maybe it would even wash away some of the negative publicity that Apple got from Greenpeace a while ago.
On Apr.06.2008 at 09:45 AM
Bart’s comment is:
If Apple makes them re-think their identity, maybe this isn't such a bad thing? I've been confused by that logo every time I've seen it. Is there a 'G' in there that I'm not seeing? Why is there an S even though the name is GreeNYC? I'm also not reading "Green NYC" from "GreeNYC", especially with the text underneath the apple that's at the GreeNYC website. Looks more like "Gree NYC".
On Apr.06.2008 at 08:01 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
This sounds like Apple lawyers doing what they are paid to do and that is to perform all of the formalities that our current USPTO requires of them to do from a legal standpoint.
This is less about Apple being evil and more about our legal system being woefully out of date/mired in legalities in terms of IP concepts.
On Apr.08.2008 at 04:38 PM
XPADREX’s comment is:
This is a stretch- far less so than the apple Armin unveiled as part of the Applebee's new logo.
That said, indeed- I think an "apple" is hardly an original choice. There are indeed better choices.
christopher’s comment is:
Who will be next? Perhaps this innocent bystander...
Lord, help us.
On Apr.11.2008 at 11:34 AM
christopher’s comment is:
dani,
NY is the Big Apple, it was long before Jobs came along.
nate’s comment is:
repeat alert!!
who cares if it is different or not...not the point
apple has established it's brand as "apple" this being america and the home of capitalism...they should oppose any other apples out there....
now fyi...in the bible it does not say "apple"
it says fruit...so apple's logo bite from the tree of knowledge is not so correct.
calling my lawyer...filing on the behalf on adam and eve for libel! their street cred has been ruined.
On Apr.16.2008 at 10:16 PM
Dave Klonke’s comment is:
Maybe this means Apple is preparing to launch some new, environmentally-friendly products.
Perhaps a nice green MacBook Fresh Air?
On Apr.18.2008 at 06:30 AM
Ignacio’s comment is:
Maybe Apple would want to start sueing trees in the future, for using their logo shape to produce a fruit...
On Oct.11.2008 at 05:25 AM
Mark’s comment is:
I'd wish they'd switch to the name Macintosh or Apple Computer, so all this stupid nonsense would be over.
On Oct.11.2008 at 01:04 PM
