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."
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Look at this example, too:
http://rgov.org/college-media-advisers-08
Comment of the year
actually I hope it goes the over way. Apple needs to be shown that not every apple is their's.
Good luck with that. Apple records tried to teach them that TWICE. First, Apple chose it's name and the mark even though Apple records was hardly unknown at the time. Then after wrangling in court, the two apples agreed they would stay out of each other's markets and businesses and all would be good.
Then Apple computers started distributing music... Apple records once again tried to show them that there are limits to their use of the apple logo.
Now they go after one of the best known cities in the world that has been the "Big Apple", complete with apple imagry since before anyone at Apple computers was born.
I suppose next they'll try to sue an orchard.
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?
What a lot of people don't realize is how aggressively lawyers are expected to defend a trademark. Apple's lawyers must show "due diligence" in cases like this, or else they are considered not to be doing their job. Their fear must be that Apple Records or some other preexisting "Apple" company may decide to sublicense their trademark to the makers of knockoff computer products and draw off some marketshare from Apple. Obviously, I think Apple would follow through with their suit and try to defend against borderline cases like this any way they can.
A long time ago, Apple got to keep their name only because they didn't sell records. That seemed fair enough at the time. Now it's not entirely clear who would win should there be a renewed dispute with Apple Records because the computer company has now become the #1 music seller. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Apple Records began their own iTunes equivalent or licensed their brand to the makers of cheap ipod knockoffs. That would be ironic, but if it never happens it will be because of the credible threat of red ink flowing as a result, created by the lawyers acting as they do, regardless of what seems fair.
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
It will be the "system working as intended" if they find against Apple. Likewise, if I sue you for something utterly ridiculous and it is thrown out, then the system is "working as intended."
That doesn't make the initial filing any less worthy of ridicule or critique.
I actually don't think Apple has a stake in each and every use of an apple in a logo or other iconic circumstance, any more than T-Mobile does with the color magenta or IBM with stripes.