Slashdot Mirror
Apple, New York City In Legal Dispute Over Logo
Lemmy Caution writes "Apple, Inc. has filed a suit to prevent New York City's non-profit 'GreeNYC' initiative from using a logo that incorporates an apple in its design. Commentators have noted the substantial differences between the two designs, not to mention the irony of this sort of infringement claim. The city of New York has filed to have the claim rejected, and even possibly the cancellation of Apple's logo in light of the long history of the nickname 'The Big Apple' to describe the city."
I REALLY hope Apple wins and NYC's logo is thrown out.
There's no one better suited to start rolling back absurd property rights than a city full of pissed off politicians.
Hasbro sues Idaho over infrignement on Mr. Potato Head brand
god should sue them, after all they copied his design.
Or... fix your browser.
Next up: Apple sues every gay pride organization and person wearing a rainbow for their old (shitty) logo infringement.
After that: Apple will sue the Universe for Mercury, Silver, Nickel, Tin, Aluminum and Lead all using the colour silver, an obvious infringement upon their new logo.
I suppose Jobs will start suing anyone who wears a turtleneck while giving Keynote presentations.
Please someone (namely the judges), stop the madness.
Where's the problem here? It's not like NYC tried to call themselves "i(The Big Apple)" or "The Big iApple". I also wonder about all of those T-Shirts and bumper stickers that read "I NYC". Do you think people will start getting sued for wearing one or will it be the manufacturer for making them? "Next up at 10, supermarkets across the nation selling apples must pay licensing fees to Apple, Inc. for displaying them on their shelves and using them in their weekly advertisements."
Never argue with idiots, they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
NYC and Company(tm), Inc., the marketing arm of NYC(tm) has been very aggressive in trademarking. Just ask the locals. (tm).
Apple isn't going to win this one.
A twelve-year old boy posted on his blog that he really wants an iPod for his birthday, but is considering holding out for Christmas, hoping that the next iteration of the iPod will be out by then. Apple assumes someone broke an NDA on the release date of the next iPod, and they are suing the poor boy, and everyone he has friended on MySpace. Tom was not available for comment.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I am die hard Mac fan and the two are even close to the same. Actually, NYC's looks like a heart to me.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
the other extreme outcome (Apple's trademark rights eroded) might also cause some positive reactions and make potential future actors more cautious.
So I think it's likely we'll see an alloyed settlement. That's what's likely to benefit the lawyers, anway (and both parties, I suppose).
Tweet, tweet.
Wow. Apple may actually have a case here. One of the anonymous comments in TFA from a graphics designer is fantastic. I can't link to it, so I'll copy it.
Subject: Apples to Oranges, Image Attached!
Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:16 am
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..."
*image was posted here*
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.
http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=applestoorangesua8.jpg
I've seen this on several blogs by now (Slashdot seems a bit slow today), and mostly the usual comments. Lots of people commenting on Apple Records having an Apple logo (not knowing that Apple Inc. paid probably an eight digit sum for all Apple Corps trademarks). But a few graphics artists compared the shapes of the logos - and they are identical. That New York logo has exactly the very distinctive and recognisable shape of the Apple logo. And it seems that the designers also got a bit of inspiration from Apple's headquarters address and put an infinity symbol into their logo.
There are millions of ways to draw an apple shape. There is no reason to copy the shape of Apple's logo.
It's almost the case of comparing Apples and Oranges and saying they are so similar.
Sounds to me like people with way too much money are arguing with other people with way too much money. If there is a definitive difference in logos, then there is no problem (legally).
...bite my Big Apple!
signed,
NYC
...and I hope they get the daylights scared out of them by the judge in the case. This lawsuit is ridiculous on its face. I'd be shocked to see this thrown back at them and have their own trademark actually canceled, but if it did happen it would be well deserved.
I'm really surprised at a lot of Apple's moves lately. Pushing new Safari installs as an "update", and this idiotic lawsuit make it sound like there was some turnover in Apple's legal department. They've certainly always been bareknuckled, and unapologetic about suing over anything, but generally they at least have arguments, whether you agree with them or not. This is just stupid, though.
I always thought that you'd need to show that your trademarked image was reasonably similar which this is nothing of the sort. *or* that one could reasonably associate one brand with another effectively allowing the infringing brand to piggy back on the infringed trademark's notoriety. this isn't the case here either, no one's stupid enough to confuse greeNYC with Macs or any of Apple's products.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
For appropriating their rainbow color scheme. Confused the hell out of me the first time I saw that on a square sticker.
What shape do you want an Apple to have? a fucking Banana?
I bet if you replace Apple by Microsoft and the Apple logo by that wavy Windows logo, you'd have Slashdot throwing flaming paper towels at Microsoft for suing.
My apple looks like an orange. All man are in danger of future lawsuits for infringement. Surgeons making a fortune.
"History is the realm of the true lie." A.Szerb
quickly, to the imobile to defend apple against anyone who points out the companys glaring flaws or money grubbing attitude!
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It's shitty in Firefox as well.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I am sure this will all be sorted out once Tony & Vito go over and break Steve Job's legs.
I think I read somewhere in the fine print that Apple is also claiming that the i 3 NY logo is too similar to their "i" logos (iTunes, iPods, iMacs, etc), or are they saving this for the next bunch of law suits?
Seriously, talk about one bad Apple soiling the bunch.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
TFA is mistaken about whether the use of Apple's old logo on busses and vans is a "clear case of trademark infringement." The essence of trademark infringement is the likelihood of consumer confusion. It's possible to make the case that tourists in Vietnam would likely think Apple Computer (as it was called then) was running van and bus lines in Vietnam, but it's hardly "clear."
It is clearly copyright infringement. It also might be trademark dilution, but that's a far harder case to make than trademark infringement (meaning it's not really "clear"), and it's not widely enforced outside the U.S.
You can't copyright a fucking fruit, Steve.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Apple wants to sue NYC for a logo they STOLE from The Beatles. Just like when they sued MS for a GUI they STOLE from Xerox.
that the article was referring to Apple Records.
...who knock up some chick and then refuse to pay child support and spend years denying that he fathered the child?
That's why he was so determined to kill the Lisa computer: Lisa Brennen was the child that he fathered and tried to deny for years.
Total scum.
Every company tech or not are going green. They all try to come up with some kind of product that related to green. If Apple were to come up with a green computer or gadget, they could easily just use "Green Apple" to market their new green product line. If that is the case, they definitely need to do something regarding this logo. So their future "Green Apple" line won't get mix up with this green NYC logo. Possible? Maybe..
It's the same in firefox 3, but not in firefox 2... go figure.
What version of firefox? Works fine for me in both 2.0.0.13 and 3.0b5
The apple logo is a solid apple with a bite out of its side, in a variety of color schemes (rainbow (original), red (early variant), black (on white paper), white (current logo), and blue (in the OS X title bar)). It has no stem. The leaf extends to the left. The bottom is rounded, and it is noticably "chubbier" than the NYC logo.
The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the left. The bottom is a sharp indent, and the shape is slimmer than the Apple logo.
The "stem" is a distinctive difference, it has never appeared in any Apple logo, and it has appeared in other NYC-related "big apple" artwork (for example the "Big Apple" sculptures that decorated NYC in 2004).
Different colors, different shape, consistent with previous NYC "big Apple" icons and logos. The only difference is that the apple is more rounded and less "pear shaped", which is most likely simply due to the need to accommodate the yin/yang/infinity symbol.
A rare case where no other term will quite do.
In a perfect world, not only would Apple lose, but they would also lose their right to do business in New York, their stores would be confiscated and turned over to the homeless.
I wrote: The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the left.
That should read: The NYC logo is an outline of an apple, with no bite, and with the outline extended into a stylized infinity or possibly a "yin/yang" symbol, in green or white, with a stem and the leaf extending to the right .
I must confess that as an avid Macintosh user/owner/fan, even I find it a bit over-the-top suing a non-profit organization of New York if the logo doesn't bear the distinctive aspects of the Apple logo (like the bite taken out of the right side of the apple).
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Apple Records would have a bit more of a reason to object, but even still New York really is synonymous with the 'Big Apple', much in the same way that the Blue Crab is the logo for Maryland, and the other states with similar things.
Additionally, I think the GreenNYC logo is actually much cooler than the Apple logo.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Or sell downloaded music, or music players or anything else Apple markets under its logo.
This suit is frivolous. Trademarks aren't vague references just to a corporation in a vacuum. They are the mark under which a mark holder markets its product, which is in a specific business sector, under which the holder registers the mark. The test of whether someone else is infringing the held mark is whether the other use would cause confusion to a consumer looking for the first mark holder's product, who would be confused into thinking that the other mark's product is the one they're looking for. There's no way someone looking for any of Apple's products would think that the GreeNYC offerings are what they were looking for from Apple.
The trademark laws are very simple, clear, and probably the most sensible of all the intellectual property laws. There is no way that Apple's lawyers pressing this claim could possibly be unaware that they have no legitimate claim. They are just hassling a City government hoping to intimidate it.
Well, they picked the wrong city. Our city will kick their corporation's ass. Besides, we've been using an apple as our logo for centuries before Apple ever put sandals on its feet.
The court should not only immediately dismiss this frivolous suit, but it should sanction the lawyers, putting a "frivolous" mark in their lawyers' licenses. After a few of those, they should have their licenses shredded.
And then recycled. I'm sure NYC would be glad to dispose of it for them.
--
make install -not war
Mainly when the border is showing, the rounded corners aren't where they should be.
Here's a screenshot comparing Opera 9.26's correct behavior with Firefox 3b5's.
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
Is this even a surprise? Haven't we at Slashdot endured enough of these stories to know that lawyers have to be a little more trigger happy when it comes to trademark issues? I know it's still quite stupid, but I doubt this will go anywhere. And until it does, why even bother with it?
How very Microsoftian of Apple. Sucess in the computer industry seems to cause suicidally stupid business decisions. Vista, Gateway Country Stores, Apple getting silly over logo, etc.
And the microsoftification begins.
Ah. For some reason my firefox 3b5 isn't showing _any_ rounded corners, so of course I didn't notice. lol. But yes, the gray does extend all the way up on mine as well.
He said that it was shitty. Not that it didnt work. ;)
This information is killing my brain cells! Next in line, apple farming companies across the globe! SUE SUE SUE!!!! "THE BIG APPLE" "WHAT DID YOU SAY MY MAC IS BIG??" "HUHH??" oh snap we're gunna sue!
For the record, it looks awful in Konqueror as well.
Since when does the Slashdot-crowd support websites designing for specific browsers instead of writing standard-compliant code that is compatible with any sane browser? That it renders OK in Firefox is a lame excuse; the same excuse is used by people who write crap that only barely renders in Internet Explorer, and then it is rejected fervently (and rightfully so). Can we have a little consistency here?
"Filed a challenge" IN NO WAY = "Filed a suit."
lrn2legalterminology.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2008/04/apple_vs_apple
One is in computers / software / consumer electronics. The other is... well, it's a city.. and they're using it as a logo for a city and community effort to make NYC greener.
I'm sorry, but no - Apple's trademarked logo does not stand to be diluted from this any more than most of the other apple logos out there.
That said, I'm sure their lawyers feel differently and are erring on the safe side; defending their logo just-in-case... if they don't, they're screwed anyway. If they do.. at the most they're out some cash for the claims/judgment/etc. Just sad that they feel the need to feel differently in the first place.
but when I see the greenNYC logo I immediately think of Apple. I don't understand any of the legalities of this situation but Apple is a company that has always been very strong on branding and greenNYC will be a substantially public logo that from Apple's point of view could jeopardize their image.
The logo of the Dutch supermarket chain Albert Heijn looks as similar to Apple's as the GreeNYC one. They should sue Apple.
This is what happens when you let the lawyers make the decisions. Never, ever let the lawyers make the decisions--they rarely have a strong grasp on reality. Take their advice, sure, but then use some judgement. There was no need for Apple to be a baddie actor, here.
expandfairuse.org
infringing on His trademark. All proceeds go to the Adam + Eve divorce fund.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
The point of your parent post was that slashdot *shouldn't* write non-compliment CSS to fix IE's failures to render even basic CSS correctly. The parent post wasn't aware that it looked crappy in Konqueror as well, or you might have a point. But they didn't say "it looks fine in firefox, get firefox." They said "it isn't slashdot's fault IE fails to render CSS, try one of these three other browsers that typically render CSS correctly."
Of course, my personal opinion looking at it in firefox is that it probably renders as intended in IE, Konqueror, and firefox. It's just a crappy design. Though not as bad as the "idle" theme, of course.
Doesn't steve jobs have anything better 2 do than fucking harass people who r trying 2 do good? fuck him
This is an extremely good point!
Apple takes number one music retailer position, and turns around and sues a "feel-good", not-for-profit organization for the use of the image of an Apple.
Apple Computer gave Apple Records the finger of this thing for years. What gives? This is an uncharacteristic (read "Microsoft-style") go-for-the-throat business maneuver.
If Apple hadn't balked, nobody would have noticed. There's only one bad Apple, here.
God forbid NYC would hold some kind of massive easter-egg hunt and make the logo temporarily multi-colored. How would Apple react to "infringement" on a logo that has been retired?
They're clearly not in the music producing business, which is why Apple Computer and Apple Music have coexisted once Apple Computer quit trying to assert that they were the only Apple in the world. Hasn't The Big Apple been around longer than Apple Computer? So unless Apple is suddenly in the City Business (along with the computer, iPod, and iPhone businesses) as a competitor, it should simply go away and shut up!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Applesauce.
I can't believe Apple would make such an absurd move. Didn't they think one moment ahead and realize then when filing a suit, the other side would probably fight back? Now there is some possibility (no matter how small) that Apple might lose their logo and the brand recognition associated with it. The bigger problem here is that they're not fighting a company, but a government. Governments by definition have an infinite amount of money to use in legal fights. Not enough money? Add some new tax and voila! Enough money. Governments also never forget. Piss off a government and they'll hound you forever, until you're dead and gone. So Apple can't just keep filing motion after motion to drag the case out forever until the other side loses. In fact, it's quite the contrary. Chances are that the case will be thrown out of court, or that Apple will somehow come out the loser in this one, even if New York loses as well. This is a lose-lose situation. Not good. Now why can't New York use a logo that is a combination of a big huge apple with a New York skyline, complete with WTC, and in so doing, completely avoid this meaningless fight? And speaking of the WTC, why don't they build a new one, with triple towers, identical to the original two, but ten floors higher? And a big huge middle finger facing the Middle East.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Wasn't there a dispute about Apple's logo vs. the apple logo used by the Beatles?
Would New York's logo possibly be closer to the Beatle's logo?
Wasn't the eventual outcome that there was no trademark confusion between Apple and Beatles's apple use because they were in different fields at the time (computers vs. music). Of course with the iTunes store, that issue has come up again...
But for NYC vs. Apple, wouldn't similar principles apply -- i.e. they are separate entities that are not likely to be confused?
Hasn't an apple been used in NYC logo-material since before Apple-Computers even existed?
Firstly, who the hell is going to mistake the GreeNYC logo to represent Apple, or vice versa? Apple has no more claim to the use of apples in commercial logos than Apple Records does, who pre-existed Apple Inc by over a decade (the label for The Beatles).
Ironically, Apple Records has filed numerous trademark/copyright infringment suits against Apple Inc, and as a result Apple Inc stayed out of the music industry entirely, even long after Macintosh became the prevalent computer platform used in recording studios in the early 90's. Obviously that's no longer the case, since Apple introduced iTunes in 2001, and numerous infringement suits ensued.
I imagine Apple Inc is just trying to head off any possible interference by any logo ressembling an apple, and is bullying GreeNYC into a strict trademark agreement. Apple Inc learned their lesson when they spent millions in legal fees to gain the position they have in the music industry today. But somehow I doubt Apple has to worry about GreeNYC making computers!
The suit is very inconsistent with Apple's public image, especially to attack a non-profit environmental organization in today's political climate (pardon the pun). And they sure could have picked a smaller consumer base to pick on! How many computer owners do you figure are in the NYC metro area?! 50 million?
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
This shit was on several other blogs about three days ago - hell, I even covered it for The Daily Cougar (University of Houston's newspaper)
#include <disclaimer.h>
#include <beer.h>
Please cite a reliable source that says Apple has 'filed suit' against anyone regarding this matter. You can't? I didn't think so. Apple has filed a formal opposition to a trademark application, which it must do in order to actively defend its trademark. Whether it's successful or not is irrelevant. Engadget explains the issue in detail here: http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/ I'm not sure what disappoints me more - the sensationalist tone of the submitted piece, or the overwhelming knee-jerk reaction of folks jumping on Apple for something they didn't actually do.
Like Apple should trademark apples with a bite out of them (especially on the right hand side). Rather than every possible form of a fruit that has existed long before Steve Jobs.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I'm not being nice; I think you're an asshole.
FWIW - I don't think you're an asshole.
You're just not particularly intelligent & besotted with a company that's almost certainly embarrassed by your fawning sycophancy.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Creating a trademark and a brand based around an every day object is a nice ploy for broadening the scope of infringement claims: they can sue anyone who makes a logo with an apple in it. I don't think it should be allowed; companies should come up with original names and logos, thus keeping the scope for infringement claims at a fair degree, and reducing the likelihood of accidental infringement. The downside is logo designers will need greater imagination.
Why isn't the homosexual community suing Apple over the use of a rainbow of sorts in the Apple logo? Or is that a marketing ploy of theirs?
Just thought you might like to know.
Come on. Saying they are nothing alike is just as biased as saying they are identical.
In particular the leaf gives immediate associations with Apple Computers. Just because it is mirrored to extend to the left instead of the right doesn't mean it isn't inspired by the Apple logo. The leaf is drop shaped, extending approximately 45 degrees and it is even detached from the body of the apple, just like in the Apple logo.
The leaf is completely unnecessary to make it look like an apple, and it was completely unnecessary to make the leaf detached from the shape of the body (hell, no real apple actually looks like that)
Personally I don't agree with Apple in this case, but it should be easy enough to see their point. The graphical artist (probably out of laziness) made some design decisions that area clearly inspired by the Apple logo.
Hasn't anyone heard of PRIOR USE?
/.
Big Apple, Apple of My Eye, Apples and Oranges, Apple Jack and juice,
lest we ever forget Eve and the Creation Theory and on anon.
Are they gonna sue the churches, the bible and then God almighty?
Oh, I forgot.
This is
Everybody knows there was NO HISTORY BEFORE THE INTERNET.
RR
Bravo!
Brrrrrrraaa-VOOOO
Bravo!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
The graphical artist (probably out of laziness) made some design decisions that area clearly inspired by the Apple logo.
Right, nobody but apple ever did that.
or the overwhelming knee-jerk reaction of folks jumping on Apple for something they didn't actually do.
I'm not jumping on Apple, I'm jumping on the people who are automatically defending what they think Apple has done, presumably because it's Apple.
Wouldn't NYC win, due to the fact that Apple's logo is in a different industry, and it's not carved the same.
I can't see where Apple Computer, Inc. would be threatened by NYC's apple logo.
The leaf is completely unnecessary to make it look like an apple, and it was completely unnecessary to make the leaf detached from the shape of the body (hell, no real apple actually looks like that)
I agree, it all hinges on the leaf. If somebody knows about a stylized detached leaf like Apple's that predates the 1976 Apple logo, please post here to disprove this idea.
On the other hand, I bet the Apple logo borrowed from previous designs.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
IN a perfect world? Really.
Apple is in a trademark dispute. It happens. It's part of the system. In a perfect world, you'd understand that, and wouldn't troll forums in a vain attempt to "stick it to the man"....
-Stu
I guess you all forgot about the landmark case in the 90's. When Jobs first got back on at apple he proceded to sue Sunny Valley Apple Orchard in Cupertino's suburbs. There's even a video of the court procedings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 I am not shocked in the least to see this from them, given their past behaviour. Towards the end of the video the orchard owner is asking "But what shall I call my fruit" to which Jobs said he could care less, just don't call them apples. That is how the grape flavored apples got started http://www.grapplefruits.com/
I guess you all forgot about the landmark case in the 90's. When Jobs first got back on at apple he proceded to sue Sunny Valley Apple Orchard in Cupertino's suburbs. There's even a video of the court procedings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 [youtube.com] I am not shocked in the least to see this from them, given their past behaviour. Towards the end of the video the orchard owner is asking "But what shall I call my fruit" to which Jobs said he could care less, just don't call them apples. That is how the grape flavored apples got started http://www.grapplefruits.com/ [grapplefruits.com]
Three months later, she gets back a letter from Mark Aaker, Senior Council of Apple's Law Department, telling the third-grader that Apple doesn;t accept unsolicited ideas, so she should not send them her suggestions and if she wants to know why, she could read their legal policy posted on the Internet.
The girl's mother said, "She was very upset, and kinda threw the letter up in the air and ran in her room and slammed her door."
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Do you mean the lawyers? I can picture something involving cement overshoes and the East River...
Mack the Knife Rulz!
So the NYC green group wants to get their message out as widely as possible about reducing, reusing, and recycling. Why does it need a registered trademark?
... with an Apple logo on it. Or get a 7inch Windows XP EEE PC ... with an Apple logo on it.
Oh right, it's a revenue stream which they can sell their endorsement to others and say "The NYC Green group approves of this TV set." Once you've paid NYC, you can market your products with our endorsement. You don't think NYC is making a cool apple-like logo precisely because it's a popular brand? I can't wait to go into Beast Buy and get my Green Zune
If this was just about branding their billboards with a cute image to promote green habits, the chance of brand confusion would be minimal. But if this wasn't about brand co-promotion, advertising and selling endorsements, NYC wouldn't need a registered trademark for their green campaign in the first place.
... logo.
The summary of this article is wrong. Apple has not filed suit, Apple has filed an objection. There is a difference!
Maybe this is just the way large corporations with iconic logos have fun. Like, they try and one-up each other by seeing who can file the most inane lawsuit. Big money requires expensive fun.
"Taboo, like anything else, goes in and out of style."