The disclaimer in the window showing on the photo, "Not affiliated with Apple" would suggest to me that the school knows their logo is confusingly close to Apple's logo. They didn't even bother to turn the leaf the other way.

That disclaimer does not appear on the original photo posted on AI

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/07/apple_calls_on_lawyers_in_logo_spat_with_canadian_school.html

Very misleading photo to generate feedback in Apples favor.

I just can't go with Apple on this one.

The logo is a different color, has a stylized mountain and text inside it and has no bite. the schools name doesn't even have "apple' in it. Apple seems to be claiming the rights to any depiction of the fruit. Apple does nothing to help their reputation when they do this sort of thing. It just looks like bullying. The school will probably give in but I don't like it.

I agree with geoduck, it does seem like bullying. That being said, the school's disclaimer on the window clearly indicates to me they were aware that they were likely infringing on the trademark. Had they not had the disclaimer, I would be a little more tolerant of them and down on Apple for being a bully ( which they are in this case.)

There is something else about VSBT's logo. The stylized mountains look a lot like Adobe's logo. The "foothill" is outside of the A, but I keyed in it as take on Adobe's. You have technology school with a logo that looks a bit like Apple Inc and Adobe, coincidence?

Why does the leaf on a graphic of an apple always seem to lean to the right? Anyway had the school flipped the the logo design horizontal then it would have been 180 out, pun intended, and this may have been a nonissue.

There is so much that makes the school's logo remind me of Apple's logo. First, it is being used on a technology store next to Adobe's logo. Apple's logo often appears next to Abobe's logo. Second, the registered trademark is in the same place with both logos. Third, the stem points the same way in both logos. Fourth, both logos are related to technology. Fifth, the overall shape and coloring is similar.

Note that the photo above shows a sign in the window over the apple that says "NOT AFFILIATED WITH APPLE". Seems like someone there already therefore a violation. Case closed.

If they were a school not selling computer related courses, they could probably keep using it.

But since they obviously are selling computer training, the logo clearly violates Apple's trademark.

Quote

BanjoBanker wrote:
I agree with geoduck, it does seem like bullying. That being said, the school's disclaimer on the window clearly indicates to me they were aware that they were likely infringing on the trademark. Had they not had the disclaimer, I would be a little more tolerant of them and down on Apple for being a bully ( which they are in this case.)

Not necessarily, no. The notice in the window could be there as an honest attempt at being clear. I also can't support Apple on this one. Just look at the two logos, side by side (forget this 'on a computer store' drivel, it's irrelevant), and I don't see how a majority of people would see them as the same.

The simple fact is that people don't even pay attention to things like this. I'm a university professor, and on the homework assignment sheets I write out for my introductory statistics classes, I always put "Textbook Exercises" or "Study Guide Exercises" on the assignment sheets, clear as a bell, but yet I still get students asking me, even at the end of the semester when they're on their 12th assignment "Was that in the study guide or the text book? I couldn't tell which from the assignment sheet"...

I agree with geoduck and with guest. Isn't it just possible that someone is trying to be clear about this? Why is it that everyone seems "spring-loaded to the file a law suit" position. I think Apple is a bit overbearing on this one, but that is to say also that the school should have done better in its design. However, I do not feel that there is an infringement existing here.

I think companies have to defend trademarks or risk losing them. In other words, if Apple sees something that looks like it _might_ be a misuse of their trademark, they have to do something, or risk losing the trademark, even if they are not actually interested in that school at all. Since this is about a "School of Business and Technology" they should be aware of this and be able to handle the situation in the best possible way, which I think they are not doing right now.

Just a reminder, Trademark law requires that holders actively defend their marks, or risk diluting them. Basically, the more people who use an Apple logo in their products, the harder it is for Apple to claim that their trademark is unique to them.

http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/dilution.html

This isn't a case of apple being oversealous. It's a case of Apple acting as the law requires to ensure the maximum protection of a valuable trademark.

Course it infringes on Apple registered trade mark and even has the Adobe authorised and Microsoft logo attempting to line Apple with the school's business teaching.

Get a grip, they are not the same but your imagination can make it look that way.

Apple computer company have way too much time on their hands from what I can see.

Check the trade marks, there are hundreds of apple look alike trade marks, now you have just seen two of them!

I oppose the Apple Computer.

according to VSBT, they have been using this logo since 2005 as a combination between a partner company (the internal picture) and the association of the apple fruit with education

now, there reasoning is moot to me, but if they have been using this logo without incident for three years, i cannot agree with apple inc. on this decision

now, i have little respect for VSBT and how they have decided to be chippy with their snide and condescending remoarks in response to apple, including the website created to juxtapose the images

if the school had been using this logo for less than one year i would side with apple

since the school has been using it for three years, i side with the school but personally do not approve of the snide tones of their retorts

TRO

Since the school claims a technology link, Apple is right that the logo is confusing. A day care might not have the same problem, but a company that has ANYTHING to do with technology, like a school of "business and technology" should not have a similar logo. Also the Adobe like mountains inside the Apple should also cause Adobe concern.

There are two points here: if Apple doesn't do something about this, then similar cases can be harder for them to defend. Also, it appears that a smaller institution is using a intentionally confusing logo to imply a relationship with Apple and Adobe that goes beyond what is actually happening.

This headline should read "Small Canadian technology school gets free advertising by having a similar logo"

This is genius! This strip-center school gets free advertising worth millions of dollars and in the end will just have to make slight alterations to the logo and maybe throw out about $200 of stationary.

The question I ask is who registered their logo and when and have they kept their TM registered?

The following is from The Canadian Intellectual Property Offices web site an arm of industry Canada Your Canadian Government

" Five-step examination process

When the Trade-marks Office receives your application, it does the following:

1. Searches the trade-marks records to find any other trade-mark that may come into conflict with the one you've submitted and, if one is found, informs you of it.
2. Examines the application for compliance with the requirements of the Trade-marks Act and Regulations and informs you of requirements which are not met by the application.
3. Publishes the application in the Trade-marks Journal, which is issued every Wednesday.
4. Allows time for opposition (challenges) to the application. Anyone may, upon payment of $750, file a statement of opposition with the Registrar. After considering the evidence filed by either or both parties, the Registrar decides whether to refuse your application or reject the opposition. The parties are notified of the decision and reasons why.
5. If no one files an opposition to your application, the mark is allowed. Upon payment of the $200 registration fee and the filing of a declaration of use in the case of a proposed use trade-mark application, your mark is registered."

So in my opinion Apple had its chance at complaining.

When I first heard this story I seriously considered telling Apple I would seriously NOT think about buying their products again. Then what came to mind is a few things
1: it is some dim wit mid level manager who had to create some work for him/or herself before getting laid off or put out to pasture

2: it is the Law firm of Baker & McKenzie who needs more billing dollars to keep them in the life style they have become accustom too.

3: The part about Microsoft lets not kid ourselves if it hadn't been for Bill Gates bailing out Apple they would have been in the grave yard years ago even though their products were way superior ( I think Bill knew that, and thats' why he put a bit of his poker money into the pot and got great return ) Maybe you are all to young to remember that, and not to mention also helped with anti trust law regulations proceedings
4: when I saw the logo I thought the school was sending a subtle message that they thought Apple systems were the ones to use. Was not Aplle's original logo rainbow colored and were Apple not the first computer company to put computers into schools for free or at least cost
5: I think Apple has lost sight of were they stared and maybe this will be a reminder. Or will It? maybe the Wisconsin Apple Growers Association should accuse Apple of lifting their Logo Apple should also remember this is Canada and we don't like bully companies. That aside I think the school should probably not think about opening to many other locations especially in the U.S.A.

Wow John, where did you get this image from? The "Not Affiliated with Apple" ss a blatant photoshop job, I'd like to know who altered the above image from it's orginal without the "Not Affiliated with Apple" lettering and what reason they had for blatantly changing the photo. This story is supposed to be about the way a school employed it's own trade marked logo.

Quote

geoduck wrote:
I just can't go with Apple on this one.

The logo is a different color, has a stylized mountain and text inside it and has no bite. the schools name doesn't even have "apple' in it. Apple seems to be claiming the rights to any depiction of the fruit. Apple does nothing to help their reputation when they do this sort of thing. It just looks like bullying. The school will probably give in but I don't like it.

There are quite a few differences: (1) no bite (which is the main visual pun in Apple's logo), (2) the leaf is fatter, has a spine, is at a slightly different angle, (3) the contours of the Apple itself are different - sharper at the bottom, and three ridges, not two at the top, (4) TM and R are usually top right, and they are not position exactly, (5) although it is an Apple and anyone in the computer industry associates apples with Apple, can the company be allowed to wholly own the fruit? If so, can MS own all images of Windows associated with computers - does the window need a sticker saying 'Not associated with Windows or MS'?

Quote

daemon wrote:
Wow John, where did you get this image from? The "Not Affiliated with Apple" ss a blatant photoshop job, I'd like to know who altered the above image from it's orginal without the "Not Affiliated with Apple" lettering and what reason they had for blatantly changing the photo. This story is supposed to be about the way a school employed it's own trade marked logo.

The school made the change here is the original still sitting on their website (unused) that Appleinsider first had: http://www.schoolvictoria.com/files/0064-web-VSBT_day_2007-11-20OFS_0045.jpg

and here is the new one on their homepage: http://www.schoolvictoria.com/files/VSBT2.jpg

Wow, as far as CYA goes, that's lame. Get sued for trade mark violation and photoshop a phrase twice on to a single pic in tiny script saying that the school wasn't affiliated with Apple?

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

daemon wrote:
Wow John, where did you get this image from? The "Not Affiliated with Apple" ss a blatant photoshop job, I'd like to know who altered the above image from it's orginal without the "Not Affiliated with Apple" lettering and what reason they had for blatantly changing the photo. This story is supposed to be about the way a school employed it's own trade marked logo.

The school made the change here is the original still sitting on their website (unused) that Appleinsider first had: http://www.schoolvictoria.com/files/0064-web-VSBT_day_2007-11-20OFS_0045.jpg

and here is the new one on their homepage: http://www.schoolvictoria.com/files/VSBT2.jpg

If you take the image from this page and the one from the AppleInsider link and put them in Photoshop, overlay them, and compare, they are the same source photo. It just looks like the one on this page has been Photoshopped to add the line about not being affiliate with Apple. And I don't just mean they are that similar. EVERYTHING matches up. I would like to know which one is the original, and which site has a doctored photo. I would hope that it was not done by the individual site, but perhaps someone supplied them with an erroneous pic.

There are 2 marks to use for trademark: TM meaning that the user claims trademark status and announces that to the world. BUT it does not have to be registered with the government. IF a trademark is properly registered, then the sign to use is the R in a circle.

If you look at the 2 logos in one of the comparisons we have seen here, Apple uses the R in a circle, because they registered their trademark. The school uses TM, suggesting to me that they have not registered their trademark (or are in the process of doing so). Again, basically anyone can slap a TM on their logo to claim trademark status (and if you value your logo, you should do so).

So to the person who said Apple had a chance to object during a registration process, that may not at all be the case, as there may never have been a registration process to start with.

yes, I think it could be considered very likely the logo would give the wrong impression that the School may be associated with Apple Computers...

they could have designed the logo in such a way the confusion was unlikely... two leaves could have been used for example... the apple could have also been rotated to a different angle... there are many ways they could have changed it... but no they chose to make it very similar...

as the school is Computer related, they could have changed its design so the confusion was less of a problem...

I hope the school does not give in to the pressure from Apple.
True, they are very similar apples, but they are different enough that one does not confuse themselves over schich is Apples apple, and which is the schools apple.

I hope the school does not change it, thats just giving in to apple. and I believe apple is a douchebag for even trying to say its their apple trademark when the color, the leaf and design is different. Apple does not actually own the image of an Apple besides the one with the bite taken out.

Really, I'm a big fan of Apple, but there is no way that I can agree with them on this one. Heck, the apple doesn't even have a bite taken out of it!

This is the kind of behavior from Apple that I hate (I have written about several others), and that thoroughly disheartens me about being an Apple fan and user (which I am). Let's stop beating about the bush. The only way one can be assured that they can never be confused as using Apple's trademark, is to forever give the caricature of an "apple" to Apple and never use it in any form. The form of an apple is widely used for many purposes, including education and health issues just to name a couple. I really hate it when Apple does this kind of thing. Did anyone look at the New York City "apple" logo that Apple went after (in an earlier post)? If you think that is justifiable, then I give up.

Regards, Art in Baton Rouge, La

If you own a trademark, you are obliged to defend it! Or you can lose it by not defending it rigorously.

Or that's that's what little I remember of IP law. So apple isn't evil, they are doing what they have to do to maintain their trademark.

Actually, it looks like Apple and Adobe should file a class action, since the logo looks like a hybrid of the two.

I used to work closely with a graphic designer - they were completely clueless about computers until I taught them and lost a client.

Anyway, it is readily apparent to me that the school merged the Apple and Adobe logos with a few relatively minor mods. I would bet other graphic artists would agree that is what they did.

If it is readily apparent that one logo was used in the creation of another, then there is the potential for infringement. That is what happened with Apple records and Apple Computers, which was originally resolved because Apple computers would not be confused with Apple records being they were in two completely different fields. (then was reopened when Apple computers opened a virtual music store...)

The school is affiliated with technology ans computers - therefore there IS the potential for confusion about affiliation, etc. That, plus it being evident Apple's logo was used as a base in creating the school's logo, make for infringement.