Sometimes you have to think that we'd all be better off if Apple's marketing and trademark folks just dropped the corporate legal department out of their Rolodexes. Last week Bloomberg & Wired reported that Apple is still challenging the New York City environmental initiative GreenNYC's logo, which does look like an apple but not all that much like this Apple's apple. The trademark dispute hinges on the likelihood of public confusion and the possible dilution of Apple's mark, both of which seem to fail the silly test -- but you never do know.Considering that Apple was on the receiving end of a trademark fight with the Beatles for decades, it's not clear why it's prudent or necessary for the company to pick a fight with a city known as "the Big Apple" since before the invention of the vacuum tube. I guess once you stake out your orchard, you have to make sure those darn kids don't steal the fruit. More on this story from BloggingStocks and the NYT.
Update: Nilay Patel at Engadget (who is a lawyer) describes the opposition filing as a normal part of the trademark process. Still seems kind of petty.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
4-06-2008 @ 4:27PM
obtusegoose said...
This falls under the category, "What were they thinking?!" Apple just looks petty and stupid doing this. That logo looks NOTHING like the apple logo. Obviously someone in Apple's legal department was bored and needed something to do.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 7:21PM
BobbyW said...
Unfortunately, the legal system here doesn't run on sense, it runs on fear and precedent. Judges prefer not to think on individual cases, they prefer to fall back on what someone else thought earlier. Let someone get away with this now and who knows who will get away with it next.
The Apple logo is extremely valuable right now. Apple is continually ranking at the top in terms of companies admired by consumers, etc. Letting that logo and brand get dragged down by someone else? Why would the lawyers do that? How do they explain to the board that they decided it was best not to do anything when maybe it would have been an easy win?
4-06-2008 @ 4:33PM
Hawkman said...
Meh, it's similar-ish. Mainly, though, if they don't make a show of protecting their trademarks other people won't think twice before infringing them.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 4:38PM
Niklas said...
Putting one atop another reveals the big similarity: http://www.omni-advertising.com/art/dan/ALL_NYC.jpg
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 5:54PM
PSM said...
Now that's a little more interesting. When I saw what the NYC apple looked like, I thought Apple were out of their minds. But seeing the two images overlapped, perhaps there's an argument that the NYC design was meant to get people to subconsciously associate it with the very well-known Apple logo. Yeah an apple can only have so many shapes, but it's EXACTLY the same shape (I'm trusting that image hasn't been stretched in any way).
As a resident of NYC, and a devoted Apple user, I have no bias one way or the other, but now it does seem like this is something that Apple should at least raise an objection about, whether it's found to be infringing on their trademark or not.
4-06-2008 @ 6:11PM
Niklas said...
@PSM
The NYC logotype is mirrored, I can't se any other modifications though.
4-07-2008 @ 6:22PM
Jacob said...
That was the first thing I did—overlay the logos, and sure enough, (without stretching) the shapes were identical. I can see the issue. They could have designed any number of apple shapes, but this appears to be an attempt to ride the coattails of a strong brand image.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6854/picture1zz8.png
4-06-2008 @ 4:41PM
mikull said...
NY was the Big Apple first.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 4:43PM
boisro said...
Please, please do your research before writing ignorant articles like this one. This is not a lawsuit and not a real fight. This is one company defending its logo. Your sister blog Engadget posted a piece explaining it all a couple of days ago. You would think that the author might have read it first before posting about an old story.
Engadget article: http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 6:11PM
gekokujouseikatu said...
Agreed, Mr. Rose you just look ignorant with your wording. And despite linking the article your "seems kind of petty" furthers this - did you READ the article? Apple MUST do this as part of holding a trademark. You can't "pick and choose" who infringes on your trademark, otherwise you will be crushed under the fuzzy logic. Apple and its lawyers mean no harm or disrespect and aren't being malicious in their intent at all, it is a required trademark opposition.
4-06-2008 @ 7:00PM
Michael Rose said...
Apple is not obligated to challenge every other mark that includes an apple or looks like an apple -- only the ones that could reasonably cause the company injury or infringe on the trademark. In the words of the objection filing, the GreenNYC mark is described as possibly causing “consumer confusion resulting in damage and injury” to Apple, and will “cause dilution of the distinctiveness” of Apple’s trademark.
I understand that interested parties have to protect their trademarks (unlike copyrights, which persist to some degree whether you actively defend them or not). The point of my post, and the points of the BloggingStocks and NYT posts, are all the same: this is a trademark challenge Apple DOESN'T need to make, as the marks are not that similar nor is consumer confusion at all likely.
4-06-2008 @ 9:39PM
John Coxon said...
Michael, whilst you may say that (and it's all very well and good), I've read the Engadget post written by a lawyer and if he's describing at as normal and mundane your continued assertions that it's silly and not something that Apple should do seem rather hollow... No offence, but it might be better to let Engadget's post speak for itself on this one.
4-06-2008 @ 4:45PM
jsw said...
In addition to what Hawkman said, trademark policing is not just /pour encourager les autres/. Unlike copyright or patent, trademark law requires you to police your mark -- if you don't police your mark, you run the risk of losing it.
That said, it's a freakin' apple, used by a city in a recycling program -- I'm having a hard time seeing where there's any likelihood of confusion between the two products / entities among the target consumers. Somebody in Apple's legal department has gone a bit off the rails, IMO.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 5:38PM
timothyjaycolburn said...
I can see why Apple would want to protect it's logo, but at the same time, I'd think it be a good subliminal message that would help counteract Greenpeace. Apple = Environmentally Green
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 10:48PM
GenNove said...
Hmmm lets see
New york originally obtained the BIG APPLE nickname back in 1921.
Apple was not established till 1976 I believe.
How can you honestly mistake NY apple green logo with apples monotone apple?
Diffrent colors. The general public will distinguish both logos just by simply seeing the color. Plus they are totally diffrent. I understand if it was a solid apple and bitten. but the ny logo is a N and Y. totally diffrent in aspect and color.
Apple is way over their heads with this one.
i wonder if soon they will sue the apple itself for copyright infrigement? or maybe they will go after the guy that rendered this picture.
http://matrimonyxpress.com/images/Dec06/apple_bitten.jpg
Since you know people will get confused by looking at it.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 12:19AM
MyAppleStores.com said...
I thought they lost last time they tried to take another apple.
MyAppleStores.com
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 1:36AM
Trevor said...
It makes plenty of sense for Apple to be against this. It's easy for a company or group to gain stickiness using an already extremely sticky symbol. (sorry to use marketing phrases, but they work)
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 2:33AM
JESG said...
Is this Digg?
First, BobbyW runs his mouth on stare decisis and demonstrates ignorance of US law, while managing to offer some irrelevant marketing advice for a legal question.
Michael, next time you do a legal comment, you should spend 5 minutes browsing Wikipedia, and you won't get called out so harshly. (In this case, you would have gone to Trademark > Dilution.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Dilution
Apple is nearly obligated to speak up when their attention is drawn to something like this. The lesson here is to not name your fledgling company after a common fruit.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 7:49AM
hugmup said...
There is no trademark police, just as there is no copyright police. You have to defend your trademark (or copyright) yourself or you lose it.
I don't think Apple cares whether they win or lose the case. If Apple loses the case, they have a court ruling that New York did not infringe on their trademark, and the existence of the law suit proves that they actively their trademark. Losing the case is just as much a victory as winning the case, because in the future, no one will be able to claim that Apple acquiesced to the dilution of their trademark.
I'm sure Apple doesn't enjoy spending the money and that its legal team has a "here we go again" attitude, but it's necessary.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 1:33PM
alansky said...
I say more power to Apple. The Apple logo IS an extremely valuable trademark right now. It would be incredibly dumb of Apple not to protect it. Anyone who has a problem with that can go fly a kite. Apple does not need the approval of the Peanut Gallery to take care of business.
Reply