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.
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.
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/
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).
That's like saying that cars look alike because they have a hood, driver/passenger doors, trunk, and 4 doors. There are only so many ways to draw an apple before it stops looking like an apple. These logos are clearly nothing alike in the ways that matter.
What the hell is that designer on? The curve of the Apple logo isn't even close to the curve of the NYC apple!
If you were to remove the Apple logo, I wouldn't even see the resemblence (because there isn't one). I hope Apple gets crushed in court.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Look at this example, too:
http://rgov.org/college-media-advisers-08
Comment of the year
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.
Uh, did you look at the image that you actually link to? The right side of the logo is much further out than the Apple logo, even ignoring the bite that would still be there if the explanation were true. The leaf is a completely different shape and relative size, so even the cut and paste claim there doesn't hold water.
The very example that is supposed to prove it shows it isn't true.
Is it just me, or am I the only one who thought the overlayed images would have matched much better in terms of the curvature? After looking closely at the edges and how the edges of each of the apples curve, particularly noticeable near the "bite mark" where Apple's bite curves in "substantially" more than NYC's version.
Those look totally different, it doesn't match the shape on the bottom left, the indentation on the bottom, and most of the right side. The only place it appears to somewhat match are the top left curve, and there are only so many ways you can draw an apple.
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."
Only reason they appear 'close' according to that 'designer' is because of the limited resolution and a big slice of wishful thinking. There's a lot of differences in the curve outline between the two;
* the right hand bottom/mid side where the infinity symbol bulges out
* the right hand top side the infinity logo again is on the inside of the apple logo
* the left hand side the curve infinity symbol is on the -inside- of the apple logo
* the bottom bumps of the infinity curve have a lesser curvature
Sorry, but that guys reasoning of similarities is about as useful as saying "If you squint, then this Ford car looks clearly like this Chevy, see, it even has 4 wheels!".
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
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.
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/