We know Apple has a team of lawyers that can litigate the planet inside-out, but this seems a little ridiculous. At issue is New York City’s GreeNYC campaign emblem, which is (surprise!) an apple. It’s actually more of a stylized infinite sign-looking apple outline that would be hard pressed to confuse anyone into thinking it were an Apple Inc. logo.
Regardless, Apple, in its quest to defend its right to everything apple-related, has filed a formal opposition to NYC’s trademark application for the logo, claiming that the city’s logo will confuse people and “seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services.” C’mon guys, really? My grandma wouldn’t confuse the NYC logo for an Apple Inc. one. I guess you gotta keep the legal team busy somehow, though.
NYC will continue its quest to use an apple for their logo (they are The Big Apple, after all), which means that the issue will be taken up to the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board.
[Via Wired]
Best of all is that NYC is probably way longer "The Big Apple" than Apple is what it is. There's slice chance Apple will fail in this battle and NYC will sue over use of Apple in logo :)
Apple is right, NYC is wrong.
NYC needs to find another icon.
This is ridiculous. This is just as stupid as that whole Apple Corp./Apple Computer lawsuit. No one would have ever confused the two there either. I hope Jobs Co. loses.
Apple sees its logo as a priceless asset, and I don't blame them. I think there is an argument that people might think there is an affiliation or that this diminishes the value of Apple's logo (politicians have turned weaker arguments into campaigns). It has slightly more merit than Spike Lee's lawsuit against the Spike television network.
It's a shame though, I like the GreeNYC logo (or is that just because it is not dissimilar to the Apple logo?). I can't really see how you can make something more removed from the Apple logo that's still recognizably an apple (apart from something photorealistic, but Apple Corps would have a problem with that).
I would have thought the daily patent suits against *insert industry standard* that Apple uses in it's products would have been enough to keep the legal team busy.
I'm guessing here but Apples own environmental vision can be confused with this NYC campain.
http://www.apple.com/environment/
People will remember a green apple, not nececarily the more intricate shape (clever as it may be).
This notion (that some people have) that Apple needs to threaten anyone using an apple symbol of some sort is absurd.
When Apple Corp was threatening Apple Computer the last time, I did a bit of elementary online research and came up with nearly 200 companies (many of whom predated Apple Corp and Apple Computer) that use an apple image as a company/corporate visual identifier.
This is like MacDonalds attempting to trademark every word they can come up with that they can tack "Mc" or "Mac" onto. MacDonalds has even gone after people using their own names (be it MacDonald or "Mac" or "Mc" anything) even when they weren't in the restaurant business.
It's ridiculous.
If you think cybersquatting is improper, unethical and should be illegal, then trademark squatting like MacDonalds or any company does should be held to a similar standard.
Here's a thought, maybe Apple should join in the GreeNYC effort as some sort of official partner. Then there is no confusion, Apple is involved in what, I assume, is a worthwhile effort. Why spend money on a lawsuit when you can spend money helping the environment and strengthening your brand affiliation with all things apple-y?