Apple Inc. is not at all sanguine about New York City's efforts to go green, at least when it comes to the logo the city is trying to trademark. Cupertino, CA-based Apple Inc. has filed a challenge against a federal trademark registration effort by GreeNYC, saying the logo (see below) the nonprofit is trying to trademark is too similar to Apple's own logo, which has been in use since 1977.
Apple Inc.'s logo
The GreeNYC logo
The International Business Timesreported that GreeNYC's position is that the infinity apple symbol and the group's environmental approach were unique, a key word in the area of registered trademarks, and that there was no infringement.
There are many and sundry apple elements in logos for just as many and sundry businesses throughout the U.S., some of which operate and compete on a national level, and many more which compete and operate on a local or regional level. One of the testing areas for trademarks is often whether or not the businesses compete in the same market, and whether or not a logo could cause confusion in the marketplace.
Apple could have a tough challenge on its hands for that test, and the differences in the logos themselves could be an issue. While both the GreeNYC and Apple Inc. logos share a single leaf element, which point in different directions, differences between the two include the infinity element, the bite, and the stem.
On the other end of the spectrum is the tourism company in Vietnam featured in the photo below. That company, whose name this reporter was not able to find during a trip to Vietnam in 2002, was all over the roads of central and northern Vietnam, and all their vans and tourist busses featured Apple Computer's (as Apple Inc. was known then) original six-colored rainbow logo. In any event, that was a clear case of trademark infringement, but in a country where protection for those trademarks was (and is) largely nonexistent.
On the back of tourist bus is the logo of the Vietnamese tourist company, a logo stolen in its entirety from Apple. Inc.
Once again Apple Inc. trys to impose its views of the world on others. Next thing you know we'll be going to the store and buying "The Bible Fruit" because we aren't allowed to call it an Apple anymore because of all the pending suits from Cupertino. What's next? A licensing fee will be demanded by Apple for anyone growning Apples?!
You'd think they'd be more worried about their new Mac Air getting hacked in 2 minutes by a 0 day hole found in Safari.
A Tip for you Mr. Jobs -- try making AFFORDABLE products and quit picking on the little guy for "maybe" having a logo that looks possibly like the stupid Apple logo but doesn't even compete in the same business realm as your beloved Apple Inc.
CloseViewName:LaurieF- TMO Forum ModPosts: 3468Joined: 15 Jun 2001 Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:51 amSubject:
Guest number - oh I can't remember - it was about three messages ago - who thought that the plural as busses was a synonym for kisses. Well, you're right. But busses is also an alternative plural for bus.
So if you're getting confused in that area, don't try blowing up a bus: you'll burn your lips on the exhaust pipe.
As for the previous - well I can't stop myself - idiot: you know nothing. If nothing else, you think that New York City is "the little guy"? Upoko kohua!
as much as i respect Steve Jobs, and Apple. this is a pretty arrogant move. EVERYONE knows what Apples logo looks like and wont ever confuse it with another. but considering Apple fought against Apple Records, who sued them for the same exact reason including Apple Records having there name since the 70's. bull. Apple should just grinn and bear with it as they made Apple Records do. what goes around comes around.
I worked for many years as a graphic designer and found that most artists "borrow" good design. That is what we are taught to do. It's not blatant plagiarism, but used as the root in preliminary design and eventual fruit in this case, of the final design.
After comparing the two side by side, or rather overlayed one atop the other and turned into transparencies, it is clear the original apple logo was used as the basis for the design in question.
If you look closely you can see the greenNYC logo follows the exact curve of the apple and in fact may have been "cookie cut" from an actual Apple Inc. logo using special image editing tools.
You can go through thousands of clip art and dingbats and not come across the same curve. However, I have seen the Apple logo as a symbol in a couple typefaces presumably placed there by a dedicated fan.(???)
It is not uncommon to paste dozens of similar logos and symbols all over the work area to help along the process.
This artist took it a little too far and figured no one would notice. Some of us hear myths about changing a design by a certain percent makes it okay...well not quite.
The designer probably put a stylized letter "S", squashed it, flopped it, and punched it out of the Apple Inc. logo. Then tweaked the ends of the "S" and fused on the stem.
Then they grabbed the Apple Inc. leaf and flopped it and moved it slightly down and to the left.
"Down, and to the left. Down and to the left..."
I've been guilty of similar blunders, and was surprised when my client caught it...even though it had a different typeface, different colors, different markets AND my own Icon built from scratch!
Too similar he said...no go.
That's when I learned just placing elements the same as another can make you out as a copy cat even though the artwork is your own.
Go easy on the designer...
Probably up way too late, from way too many lattes for way too little money.
I guarantee you Apple Inc. paid more to challenge the design than the actual designer got paid in the first place.
There's just no money in it.
Sad but true.
Many so called design firms hire freelance that are often out of the country like India for mere pennies compared to established firms in the U.S.
You have a better chance of being a movie star than getting rich playing designer! Find a friend in the business and latch on, otherwise you're just another pretty fish.
My 2 cents anyway.
If you can't access the link above just click here or copy and paste the address into your address bar to view the image.
Apple stole the logo from Apple Records to begin with, then had to pay them a second time when it went into the music business. Apple respects NOBODY's intellectual property; why should anyone respect their's?
This is just like when they tried to sue Microsoft for using a GUI in Windows and Xerox stepped in to remind everyone they invented the GUI.
As I recall, Apple ran into trademark trouble with the group that now owns the Beatles' Apple Records trademark. They worked out a deal, based in most part on the differing types of businesses (one a music record company, the other a computer company), but then they ran afoul of the trademark again when they got into the recorded music business with iTunes.
NYC has nothing to do with either type of business, and their proposed trademark isn't near as similar to either of these two predominant Apple trademarks as they are to each other. Apple Inc. would do well to remember that they weren't the first to use the Apple trademark, and if anyone's infringing on it, it's them!
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:36 amSubject:
I don't know if you missed that, but since last year Apple Inc. owns all the trademarks that Apple Corps (the company owning Apple Records) used to own; Apple Corps has a non-exclusive license to the Apple name. Of course Apple Inc. had to pay a lot of money for that.
And I don't know if you missed that either, but no matter what Xerox invented, Apple bought a license for that as well, paying with a significant amount of Apple stock. If Xerox had sat on that stock and not sold it, it would probably now be worth more than the rest of the company.
So Apple Inc _does_ use the intellectual property created by others, and _they pay_ for it. GreenYC apparently doesn't want to pay. A nice touch that the designer from a few posts above who matched the outlines of both logos didn't notice: The GreenYC logo shows an "infinity" sign, while the address of the Apple Inc. headquarters is Infinite Loop 1 in Cupertino. Coincidence?
The question of the logo being to similar is a matter for lawyers, but I think that Apple Computer is missing an opportunity to work with NYC for mutual benefit. As the old saying goes "You can't buy publicity like this." Something like Environmentally friendly computers for an environmentally conscious city, something like that.
I suspect that there are a number of logos out there that are remarkably similar to Apple Inc.
Speaking of legalese, I request a sidebar with the Guest who worked as a graphic artist. You sound like a very knowledgeable graphic artist and it would great to have you has a regular poster on this blog.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:57 amSubject: Apple
The Green NYC initiative is a total joke. Bloomberg is a total hypocrite. Congestion pricing will only bring more pollution and cars to neighborhoods just outside the pay zone (but not the Mayor's hood of course). Also Bloomberg supports large unwanted mega-development like Atlantic Yards which is located at the busiest intersection in Brooklyn and will be an environmental and traffic nightmare. There are alternatives. And promoting mercury-laden toxic CFL bulbs is not a revolutionary concept.
What is Apple's point here? What possible impact could the NYCGreen campaign have on Apple? Anyone who cannot differntiate NYC's intent from an Apple product and therefore associate one with the other is too stupid to operate a computer or any other product for that matter. Even headphones!
It wasn't too long ago that Apple was defending its use of the Apple name and logo very similar to that of the former Beatles' record label. I'm not quite sure how a program for environmental consciousness and computers can get confused, but it was pretty clear that iTunes and the Apple Records brand might get confused. This is simply ridiculous and a prime example of how a medium-sized California company has turned into a Neo-Microsoft. The bundle of Safari with iTunes to PC users reinforces that notion. Shame on you Steve Jobs.
CloseViewName:daemonPosts: 305Joined: 17 May 2007 Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:02 pmSubject:
New York City is known as the Big Apple, using apple elements in a New York City based environmental group's logo seems perfectly acceptable to me. I hope the judge agrees with me and orders Apple Inc. to pay greeNYC's legal fees and Attorney costs.
I don't agree that the designer 'probably' copied Apple's logo. The leaves are distinctly different. The stem is nonexistent in Apple's logo. The base of NYC green is more indented and the outer shape is less top-heavy than Apple's logo. Apple's logo is solid, NYCgreen's is a complex line.
There's also no bite in NYCgreen logo - and everybody knows about Apple's bite.
New York has been knows as The Big Apple since long before Steve Jobs was born. The infinity sign is an elegant 'recycling' logo symbolizing sustainability forever.
People are not so stupid as to 'be confused' by these two logos, which are actually very different and which do not overlap in categories (computer equipment, city identity).
As a long-time graphic designer, I for one do not bring other artwork onto my page when developing a logo.
I been thinking of buying an apple computer for a while. Apple suing NY for use of their well know name "the big apple" is just against common sence. I will NEVER BUY an apple product, to include ipod, iphone, imac, ianything. i always rooted for apple when they were struggling. But not, I think they forgot where they come from. It's like the old saying "give someone power and you know what kind of people they really are"
Steve job, do the right thing. Everything is not always about money. Find one of your super bright marketing people to think of ways to get more free publicity from this great opportunity with NYC.
remember, you are not the only company that makes: computers, phones, music devices, etc.
This absurd!! The logo that NYC wants to use looks nothing like the Apple logo. Never in a million years would anyone form anywhere mistake one for the other.
The logos or not even similar. NYC is known as the BIG APPLE so it's not like NYC decided to adopt the "APPLE" to garner publicity thanks to Apple Inc. This is just one more reason for me to avoid anything Apple. IPod...IPhones...MacBooks.... all over rated and over priced!!!!!
In the picture, the apple is not a logo of Vietnamese tourist company. The driver just found some decal and think it would look good on his bus's window.
How do I know? I am the driver.
How utterly stupid of Apple to protest a totally legal use of the apple in a different market, a different design. Clearly apple will lose, will lose honor in public, and apple should be ashamed of their lawyers for wasting time, money and honor fighting a battle that can't be won, and that shouldn't be waged... maybe George Bush is advising apple on battlefield strategy.. giving them his gems gleaned from mis-adventures in Iraq..
"There's also no bite in NYCgreen logo - and everybody knows about Apple's bite."
Good point about the bite, or is that bight?, freaking homophones will drive you nuts. Anyway it is what makes the Apple Inc logo distinctive from other apple themed logos.
Nothing like a little controversy to stir up interest in NYC's program, Apple Inc products, and to sustain the existence of blog trolls.
Much ado about nothing by Apple, Inc. I think Apple, Inc. should be sued by the Big Apple for using an apple as a logo. After all, which came first? Big Apple or Apple, Inc. Besides that...I don't think the Big Apple plans on selling Computers, Cell Phones or MP3 Players. LOL
Apple Inc. is crazy. Im sorry i am a HUGE apple comp fan, I've given that company thousands of dollars, but this is too far. I could see if the "infringing" apple logo was to sponsor porn, but it's for the environment! Does apple really care if there is confusion with "clean environments" and "computers?" wow, thats all i have to say!
I think these guys really have just too much time on their hands. You can clearly see the two logos are very different. What's with Apple going after every little thing? It's obvious GreeNYC's logo isn't going to hurt iPod sales. http://www.espressoreport.com
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:54 pmSubject:
Compare the shape of the Apple logo and the New York apple design. Shapes are identical. Now compare the shapes of the Apple logo and those apples on the webpage you are linking to: No similarity whatsoever. I hope that explains why one gets sued and the other doesn't.
Guest wrote: Hey the GreeNYC logo looks like butt cheeks!!
Hmmm, I saw a saddle in the design, with the stem as the pommel. There is a "connection", butts sit on saddles. Lots of great word play here, pomme is French for Apple.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:20 pmSubject:
So, your standard for making decisions about appropriate behavior are based on the precept that so long as someone else did it first, then it is ok to do?
Apple is just a greedy self-absorbed self-serving corporation. The companies are NOT in the same industry at all and the arguments that Apple Computer had with Apple Records would work to prove Apple Computer wrong this time.
And, BTW, to the Microsoft basher up above... just because one company does something bad does not mean that another company's bad cannot be pointed out. Douche.
I worked in the patent and trade mark business for a while, some years ago. I recall one dispute which concerned a registered design for a lettuce crisper. I was impressed by the ability of the presiding judge to get at the nub of the matter.
Tupperware, I think, objected to the registration of a design by a local company for a lettuce crisper which had essentially the same shape as a design registered by Tupperware.
The judge dismissed the objection because lettuce crispers, being designed to hold lettuces of a certain familiar shape, necessarily took on the same shape. The conclusion was (I think) that the original registration by Tupperware had to be more narrowly construed so that infringement had not occurred.
Now Registered Designs are not the same as logos, but I think there's a reasonable probability that a judge will conclude that an apple is bound to look like an apple and the parties should just get on with their lives.
CloseViewName:Guest Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:08 pmSubject:
Macinerd, who was talking about Microsoft. You can't just throw that into here. All the other guy did was say that Apple does not respect intellectual property. He never said they were the only company that did that. So why don't you get off Steve Jobs' dick and pay a bit of attention. Any way you slice it Apple seems to be in the wrong here. I'm tired of everyone thinking that Apple is the little guy who is infallible. Apple is a business that is run by smart self-serving businessmen looking to make a buck.
I used to have an Apple on my band website, nothing like Apple's logo, and I got a message telling me to take it down of they would sue me. Basically. So now my site is basic, and I took it off my MySpace band site too...
I guess Apple owns all the Apples. And he who owns the apples makes the rules..
