Apple Sues Big Apple Over Green Logo
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 04. 9.08
Whenever we write anything mildly complimentary about Apple Computers, we get jumped in comments by computer class-warriors who call us "fanboys", even though I can't even find the ON switch on an apple machine. While I do appreciate Apple's design sensibilities, sometimes I think the anti-apple brigade might have a point about their arrogance. For example, Apple Computer is sueing "challenging" the City of New York's travel and tourism office. It is running a campaign called "GreeNYC to convince New Yorkers to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases, and hired New York design firm Turf to designed a stylized apple, a symbol of New York since well before Steve Jobs was born.
Apple claims that the GreeNYC mark is "likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception in the minds of consumers."..."Any defect, objection or fault found with [GreeNYC's] goods and services marketed under [GreeNYC's] marks would necessarily reflect upon and seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services."
Engadget suggests we and others are over-reacting in calling Steve Jobs and gang "arrogant", "farking stoopid", or suggesting that "Gwyneth Paltrow better rename that kid quick", as commenters in Advertising Age did. They say that
"this isn't a true lawsuit, and Apple hasn't sued anyone -- the city of New York has filed a trademark application for the GreeNYC apple-shaped logo with the Patent and Trademark Office, and Apple has filed its opposition to that application. That's an important part of the trademark registration process, actually: every single trademark application has to go through a 30-day opposition period during which interested third parties can raise their objections. We'd say it's pretty obvious that Apple's got an interest in other apple-shaped trademarks, so it's not particularly surprising that it's taking the first available opportunity to speak up about this one."
Right. And my name's George Harrison. via ::green daily
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
- How to Make Your Own Infused Vodka
- Create a Go Green Plan: Follow Wa$ted!'s Salon Example
- Stop Buying Packaged Cereal! 5 Awesome Granola Recipes to Try Instead
- Green Glossary: Nature Deficit Disorder
- Emeril's Spinach and Herb Cheese Stuffed Pork Loin
So, does this mean apple trees, need to be renamed?
Actually, there is no lawsuit. NYC is attempting to trademark the logo and Apple filed a notice about the trademark applications similarity to their logo. End of story. It's all very standard in trademarking logos and doesn't really mean anything to either party. It's all been blown far out of proportion.
I am actually mildly upset with Apple's actions in this story. As was pointed out this wasn't a law suit but a standard opposition filing to the trademark application but for me that is kind of the problem. The two logos are very different in fact the only thing in common is the fact that they are based on an apple. Companies are increasingly abusing the patent system to claim rights to ideas that don't belong to them. Apple has no right to claim the rights to all apple derived iconography just like it was silly for the patent office to grant Amazon the patent to "one-click purchasing". Steve Jobs got burned by that rediculous patent so one would expect that Apple would be more considerate to others.
Obviously this story will fade away and never be that important but it's just symptomatic of corporate over reaching and that bothers me.
If only Apple would take the environmental impact of their products as seriously as they take themselves the world would be a much cleaner place.
People hassling each other over 'stolen' ideas... Staking territory in other people's brains... What a sad, sad waste of time and resources, when we have precious little to share in the first place. IP is not what you would call a sustainable social technology.
It angers me when companies claim ownership on such a basic idea as a fruit. Apples have existed for (presumably) millions of years. How does one company claim ownership of all apple logos? The NYC logo doesn't even look anything like the Apple Computer logo.
Then again, the Beatles' Apple Corps Ltd sued Apple Computer Inc over the name 'Apple'.
Wow ... not that I don't agree that corporations can be a overbearing in "protecting interests" ... but you might want to back off. Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of copyright law understands that an entity needs to be legally seen as protecting that copyright. This whole thing is just a lot of paper-filing so there's a record in the event of future infringements. In the end, NYC will probably get to use it's apple, and Apple will have a fattened file. Done.
Portland, OR (a beer-loving city) has a city council member named Sam Adams running for mayor. It made the news when the Boston-based beer company Samual Adams issued a cease & desist letter for Sam Adams to stop using his own name in a campaign website. Same issue, and they worked it out too.
Trademark laws require this kind of stupidity. Companies have to show a willingness to defend their trademarks or they could lose them. This is lawyers keeping themselves employed.
That's ridiculous. I just hope Apple doesn't discover what I've got tucked away in my lunch...
Wow ... not that I don't agree that corporations can be a overbearing in "protecting interests" ... but you might want to back off. Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of copyright law understands that an entity needs to be legally seen as protecting that copyright. This whole thing is just a lot of paper-filing so there's a record in the event of future infringements. In the end, NYC will probably get to use it's apple, and Apple will have a fattened file. Done.
Portland, OR (a beer-loving city) has a city council member named Sam Adams running for mayor. It made the news when the Boston-based beer company Samual Adams issued a cease & desist letter for Sam Adams to stop using his own name in a campaign website. Same issue, and they worked it out too.
I've been disenchanted with Apple for about five years. I think the success of the iMac made them forget about substance.
It's especially hypocritical considering how much they had to fight Apple Records over trademarks.
On the environmental matter, in 2008, you have to do a little more than saving energy and using recycled metal for your shell.
Apple isn't being arrogant, it's just trying to protect it's trademark. Also, many of the attacks on Apples environmental record are faceless. They ARE beginning to take their environmental record much more seriously and have already taken it more seriously then many other computer manufacturers.
brownjeans,
This is not "lawyers keeping themselves employed," but lawyers acting as agents for corporations who wish to promote their business interests. Lawyers don't make the laws, legislatures do. Blaming a lawyer for advocating for a client is like blaming a cop for writing a ticket. Both are enforcing laws that your elected officials have passed. If you take issue with the system, take issue with those who create it, not those who operate within it.
brownjeans,
This is not "lawyers keeping themselves employed," but lawyers acting as agents for corporations who wish to promote their business interests. Lawyers don't make the laws, legislatures do. Blaming a lawyer for advocating for a client is like blaming a cop for writing a ticket. Both are enforcing laws that your elected officials have passed. If you take issue with the system, take issue with those who create it, not those who operate within it.
As a dedicated Apple aficionado and brand expert, I am disappointed that Apple would react this way, but not surprised. Apple has created a pocket for themselves and like any other big brand who dominates the market, some time the pockets get too big for their own good. The similarity between logos is relatively vacant, stylistically speaking. Other than the two are both apples, they seem void of being brothers. I understand Apple's need to protect their assets, but it's important to note that there isn't too much out there that hasn't already been done in some form or another. I suppose it's important to pick your battles, as they say.
I work as a copywriter in an ad agency, which pretty much makes me both an Apple fan and a trademark authority. In other words, I can speak both objectively and expertly on this story. One of my jobs is branding companies and products. To do so successfully, I must be familiar with trademark procedures, and here's what strikes me about this particular story...
The commenters above are correct in saying that this is not a lawsuit, but they are wrong in justifying Apple's actions as a protection of the company's own trademark. While this sort of challenge is the obligation of any trademark holder (as the owner of the mark is responsible for policing its usage), the company holds the right to use/defend its trademark only within the bounds of its own industry. In this case, Apple's "goods and services" are confined to computers, peripherals, electronics, etc.
The eco-initiative of NYC is far outside the bounds of Apple's trademark rights. And Apple's legal department surely understands this. The only case that Apple could make with any merit is if the company has previously filed a trademark for a green version of its logo, specifically for use in a publicized eco-program similar to that of NYC. (Technically, this would be a service mark, designated as SM not TM.) In this hypothetical case, Apple could argue that BOTH the design of the logo and the area of usage were too similar and could possibly create confusion. But in Apple's challenge, the company makes no such argument.
Long story short, it's bollocks. Just for different reasons than previous commenters stated.
This explains so much, I've been trying to find the power button in lower Manhattan for months now...
Give me a break thats assinine!
the Green infinity apple doesnt even have a bite out of it!!
AND the leaf is pointing the in opposite direction
Apple should be ASHAMED!
Sunny is absolutely correct. The mindset, nevertheless, for Apple even to dispute this shows that they are all too happy to make lawyers rich. And when only lawyers are getting rich, tying up NYC and Apple’s core activities and allowing them to get on with their jobs, that can never be a good thing. Remember: the USPTO has better things to do than listen to this—and it explains why trade mark registrations are so expensive.
Apple really should be ashamed of themselves. It's just a logo, and it doesn't even look remotely connected to the Apple logo. I wouldn't have thought of that, would you?
SHAME on Apple.
So no one but Apple can have an Apple as their logo? That's insane.
Ok, how would I go about starting a drive to change the name of the apple to "non-trademark infringing fruit?"
This is going too far for me.
When was NYC deemed the "Big Apple?" Couldn't they challenge Apple over the name of their company? I would say if the logos resembled eachother there could be a reason to challenge the logo, but this is nothing like Apple's logo.
Perhaps New York should be forced to change their traditional nickname to the Big Pomegranate?
Well, they better sue the Green Apple Festival people too (advertised on Treehugger)...that has an apple shape in the logo too.
Uhh...NYC has been the "Big Apple" long before computers were a twinkle in any body's eye....DAH!!!
NYC should be suing Apple Computer!!!!
Poor excuse for a computer anyway!!!
I LOVE NYC...Apple Computer GET OVER YOUR PUNY SELF!!!!
Porter,
Most legislators are lawyers actively working to craft laws that keep other lawyers employed.