MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Maybe the Apple Corps will NYC, too.

An apple is an apple is an apple. The two logos don't look alike, and the Apple logo is so well know that obody could confuse the two. The visual impact is not comparable at all.

Apr 03, 08 - 06:47 pm Comment from: Murasaki

Sorry. I'm a hardcored applefan, but they don't look alike to me.

It looks nothing like the Apple logo. It doesn't even really look like an apple.

Apr 03, 08 - 06:51 pm Comment from: TowerTone

How many ways can you draw an apple, sans Picasso?

Apr 03, 08 - 06:53 pm Comment from: John Gee

They are alike. Why would anyone want to associate Apple, Inc. with clean?

A professional with common sense wouldn't play games like that.

Geez..that is waste of money.

Just my $0.02

What people must understand is that Apple Inc. has no choice in the matter, they must defend. They have little choice in the matter.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:06 pm Comment from: OllyW

You go out for a new Mac and get back home and realise you have bought New York City.

I hate it when that happens......

Apr 03, 08 - 07:07 pm Comment from: ken1w

Maybe NYC should have drawn the apple up-side-down.

NYC has been the "Big Apple" for a long time. I'm sure it can show that they have previously used a logo with an apple on it.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:08 pm Comment from: ron

Apple is going to sue Eve also.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:10 pm Comment from: Spark

Igads is right. Even if Apple loses the suit, they have no choice but defend their logo against any that are similar. If they don't they will have a harder time addressing logos that are VERY similar. This isn't being pushy on Apple's part, they are just following standard operating procedure for any strong brand. This is not uncommon.

Apple is going to lose this one. One logo is solid, the other's an infinity symbol. One logo has a bite out of it, the other does not. Yes, they are both apples, but that's where the similarities end.

Plus, it's not like the NYC logo is going to create any sort of marketplace confusion. One logo appears backlit on high-end retail stores while the other will appear on the side of trash cans, recycling bins, and garbage trucks.

Sorry, MDN, but your perspective on this one is off-base.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:12 pm Comment from: nanisani

But what's 'gree' ? greeNYC .. It reads as 'gree - en - why - see'

Aside from being a bad logo - it really doesn't look so much like the Apple logo - other than being an Apple. What's with the squiggle? is it supposed to be an 'N'? For New York?

Dumb lawsuit if you ask me. I can picture the testimony;

'You honor - their logo doesn't have a stem'

'Yeah, well it has a leaf!'

'True - but ours points the other way - and besides - yours has a bite out of it'

etc....

Apple inc. does have the right to protect their logo, but this is just silly. This kind of thing does more to tarnish Apple's image than the greeNYC logo ever would have on its own. It makes it look like Apple is really more about $$$ than concern for the environment - which might be true after all - but they are also trying to project an image of being concerned citizens.

Now the City has to waste its resources on fighting this sill lawsuit instead of dealing with the environmental issues the logo was designed to raise awareness of.

It may also be true that the bureaucracy of NYC wastes more money on a daily basis than this lawsuit will cost them - but it's all about image in the Big Apple. After all - New York was the Big Apple long before the first computer and has been using apples in various promotional campaigns for many many decades.

It's unlikely that Cupertino will beat Gotham if this ever goes to court. There's ample precedent for NYC using apple logos.

Just my 2¢

As a professional designer, IMO this is without merit. This smacks more of Apple Corp than Apple, Inc.

Apple's apple is a silhouette with a distinctive bite, and the NYC apple is clearly a mark that possesses a letterform appearance rather than a purely graphic look.

Has Apple sued everyone that uses an apple symbol as an identifying graphic element.

No, they haven't.

A few years ago I did some informal research and came across nearly 200 companies using an apple image of some sort as an identifying mark. Some of those companies predated Apple.

For those who don't get why Apple HAS to do this, you should go and take some business classes.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:14 pm Comment from: R5D4

I'm not a copyright or trademark attorney, so I don't really know if Apple faces any real threat such that they must file this suit against NYC or risk dilution. My guess is they lose this suit, regardless. The logos are markedly different.

Of course, the MacDailyNews take is kneejerk and unthinkingly and blindly pro-Apple, and thus helps us get to the bottom of this issue not at all. Instead of "where mac news comes first", maybe they should change the tag line to "as fair and balanced as Fox News".

This is a great site as long as you keep in mind what it is a great site for: the centralizing of Mac news.

Sorry Apple, but the resemblance of these two logos is like saying a PC looks like a Mac.

I am a logo designer, and the two are not even closely related.

Maybe they should have added a worm.

Good thing Apple has plenty of money to throw around to fight this losing battle.

So Apple's gonna file suit in a city FULL OF LAWYERS?!?!

I'm the hardest of hardcore Apple fans as well, and even *I* don't think Apple has a case here. The logos don't look anything alike, and last I knew Apple Inc. didn't have exclusive rights to everything "apple".

Apple is right to zealously protect their logo.

Within reason, MDN.

@MBA

Perfect!

That's just bloody ridiculous. The two bear little resemblance and Apple didn't invent the Apple.

Why is it that when Coca-cola sues people for using the color of red that they have patented, nobody says a thing. They all think that coke has spent the time and money into making that color especially with the shape of the bottle, a unique thing that distinguishes them from anybody else. Or even McDonald's with the "golden arches". If people even come close to anything that could in the smallest degree possibly look like the golden arches, they get sued from McDonalds. So now that apple has done the same, they are just being stupid. I agree with MBA. All you morons out there who think this case is simply about this case alone, go take some classes.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:31 pm Comment from: MacFhearghaile

It's a waste of money, in a few years when the ice caps have melted NY City will be under water, and so will California. In my opinion the world will then be a better place.

The outlines are almost identical - except for the Bite. Their stem appears to be exactly the same size and angle as apple's leaf.
It appears the only difference is a cris-cros in the middle, removal of the bite, adding a leaf and changing the leaf to a stem.
Yes many other companies use apple logos - but none this close.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:36 pm Comment from: donnie

So, scum bag lawyers have infiltrated Apple. Not a leg to stand on. Steve Jobs, tell your lawyers they can bite me.
Get real. I love Macs but not much room in my heart for lawyers.

Apr 03, 08 - 07:36 pm Comment from: alansky

One could also look at the NYC logo as free advertising for Apple.

What people must understand is that Apple Inc. has no choice in the matter, they must defend. They have little choice in the matter.

In another era, such acts were called "tilting at windmills".

What happens when Apple loses, and precedence is set? Will that make it easier for people to dilute the market with apple-shaped logos?

For all of Apple's 32-year history, there had've been more serious branding-affronts worth fighting....

MW: reaction

Apr 03, 08 - 07:45 pm Comment from: The Dude

igads
"What people must understand is that Apple Inc. has no choice in the matter, they must defend. They have little choice in the matter."

Make up your mind.... do they have "no choice" or "little choice"?

Just messin' with ya.

They really do not look alike, but Apple is showing they are going to defend their logo.

The Dude abides.

the truth is since apple, inc settled the lawsuit with apple records, or what ever the beetles label is, they have to do this. you can't come a head after being sued and not be put in a position of having to protect the logo. apple should give them a license to use the apple, ink likeness but not actual logo.

Apr 03, 08 - 08:00 pm Comment from: mossman

Mac fan since my first computer in '92. The logos are nothing alike aside from both being stylized apples, and they're both monochrome.

This is a stupid lawsuit, and will damage Apple's image (ironic pun).

This organization has a logo *far* more similar to Apple's; even the leaf goes the same way:
http://www.issaquahschoolsfoundation.org/

Are you seriously suggesting that Apple *must* sue a school foundation!? Or that any confusion is even likely?

Apple doesn't "have to sue" to protect its trademark, they could have licensed its "likeness" for nothing, even had a joint press release to indicate their support for the green effort. Then again, I can imagine getting laughed out of the boardroom for suggesting a license was even necessary.

MDN, Apple's on the massive upswing, we don't need the same degree of rabid fanaticism that was necessary to survive 10 years ago. Use some common sense and unleash the hounds only when it's warranted (e.g. against MS or any of its lapdogs). Some of your recent takes are downright embarrassing; attacking our brothers-in-arms (Firefox, Linux) against a common cause is no way to win or keep friends.

Yes, Apple needs to defend its logo... except the two look nothing alike. It is a waste of money.

Oh come on! I'm a NUT for Apple and have evangelized for them every day for the last 20+ years (just as other admirers have)... but the MDN comment just reeks of corporate shilling--- I didn't want to believe it, but either you're on Apple's payroll or your senses are totally out of whack.

As a daily- nay, hourly reader of this blog, I'm starting to wonder about its credibility.

YES! First I told those Beatles they where stealing from us and now the Big Apple... BBAAAAWWWWW!!! All hail the might of me!

Next, actual apples... they have had it too good for to long! Those apple growers and pickers and apple trees will be paying out of their a$$!!!!

iRock... thanks MND for believing in me and my desperate attempt to control everything apple.

Side note: I wonder if I, umm, we here at Apple Inc. Own Johnny Appleseed... must get lawyers onto that one too!

I'm a huge Apple fan and have used Mac's almost 20 years now. I'm also a design professional who has worked with Fortune 500 companies and this is a bit over the top. The greeNYC logo is different enough, isn't being used to promote hardware, software, tech and/or music. It looks more like the Apple Corps logo than Apple, Inc. logo as pointed out above. I doubt very seriously they could win this in court.

Those claiming Apple MUST do this and recommending those who don't agree should take a business class, should take a copyright or a design class themselves.

If NYC took the leaf out at the top, I think they'd be OK.

opps, I said MND, not MDN, but hey, I am a busy guy! You can't expect me to remember some little Apple worshipping website. Gosh, I think I should maybe control those too, oh, yeah, I forgot, I do... can you say think secret!

This has "April Fools" written all over it, even if it is a couple days late. Any other independent verification of this lawsuit?

now, which one is the real apple logo?

What's Apple's problem? The New York apple, nice looking artwork, looks more like the infinity symbol than Apple's logo, in my opinion.

What Apple is suing over is the shape of the apple device. It is perfectly identical to the Apple logo - so much so that the originator of the NYC logo has clearly traced around the shape of Apple's device, flipped and tweaked the leaf and added a stem to make the 'ny' letters possible.

There are hundreds of ways to draw an apple and the Apple logo (like its products) is iconic... that's no reason to blatantly rip the company off.

There must be one *very* embarrassed 'designer' out there. This is pure plagiarism and Apple will win this case.

While they are at it, take down the yankees!!!!!!!!!! they are just evil also

Apr 03, 08 - 08:48 pm Comment from: Rich Apple person

Mac Daily News take = nose far up steve jobs ass

Apr 03, 08 - 08:48 pm Comment from: MacLovin

where is ZuneTang, and his great take on all things apple, when you need him?

The BIG APPLE can't use an Apple as their Logo! That's a little too much.

Apr 03, 08 - 08:59 pm Comment from: iDon't

Glad SJ can't see the tattoo on my butt.

Apr 03, 08 - 09:16 pm Comment from: The Other Steve

I'm usually the first to defend Apple on just about any subject, but . . .

Sorry Apple, this is just pure evil!

I gotta say it's a bit overzelous. That case better be in California court cuz no way it has any merit out here. I think all of NY can tell the difference between the 2 logos clearly, but nice love tap Stevie J. As they say in Brooklyn Fuggedaboutit.

I AM an attorney so I can say that Apple has to zealously defend their logo or they risk losing control over it. So I'm fine with the lawsuit.

What I'm not fine with is MDN's take: "GreeNYC's logo is too close to Apple Inc.'s...." You've got to be kidding me. If those two logos are too close then NO apple logo will ever be allowed. Honestly MDN, stop being such a lapdog. It's most unappealing.

@ MDN: Your take is assPod™

Look at Apple Records logo.
Look at AppleOne temp agencies logo.
Christ, lots of apple logos out there - Apple, Inc. needs to chill.
This one's crap.

The logos look nothing alike. Sorry Apple, this is totally frivolous.