Apple vs. NYC: What's really going on
By Nilay Patel 
posted Apr 3rd 2008 1:01PM
posted Apr 3rd 2008 1:01PM
Unlike all those previous Apple trademark disputes, 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.
After the trademark applicant responds to the objection in writing (what some people have been wrongly calling NYC's "counterclaim"), the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board gathers evidence and makes a decision. We'd almost be willing to bet that never happens, though -- after all the lawyers are done strutting around and promising victory, it's likely that Apple and NYC simply come to an amicable licensing agreement. Bottom line? This is exactly how the system is supposed to work, and Apple is just protecting its billion-dollar brand as best it can -- thousands of these oppositions are filed by all sorts of companies each year. We know, not very fun at all -- anyone care to start a Jobs vs. Bloomberg slapboxing petition?
Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and a formidable slapboxer, but he's not your lawyer, and none of this is legal advice or analysis.
soooooo for NYC which has been the Big Apple for hmm tens of years, they now have to get 'Permission from apple' to use a logo?? come on... this is bull!!! Yes I'm from NY!!!
I agree. This Apple lawsuit stuff is getting redundant. I mean, seriously, they look nothing alike. The GreeNYC logo would never make me think of The iPos. And no, Im not bashing Apple, as I sure their products aside from the under-featured iPos, are solid products.
Actually the Big Apple started being used since 1920's or so Due to the Horse races. It was offically picked as a tourism theme in 1971!!!!!
Apple Inc. was created in 1976...... Now bitches who has more prior art?????!!!!!!
I love my city!
And oh yeah.. figures it takes a story about NYC for me to be first Post!
Apple's simply defending its trademark.
If it didn't object, it could be seen as abandoning/dilluting its mark, which means the next time some Chinese knock-off uses a backwards Apple logo on a PMP of phone, a startup desktop manufacturer wants to use a fruit logo, or if Apple uses a green version of its own logo, it could causes issues for Cupertino.
I doubt it's that Apple actually sees NYC's new logo as a threat to it's brand, but as far as trademark issues go, if you don't protect against any and all possible infringements, it could harm a future claim against an actual infringement.
To be fair to Apple Inc., the city is not "asking" for their permission. The trademark process has this "protest" period to see if there are any companies out there that have a beef with someone making a similar trademark to their own.
Essentially, this is Apple asking the PTO to look at both its trademark in relation to the proposed trademark to see if there is any ability for the common person to be confused by looking at either trademark.
That being said, think of a non-engadget reader, who is also a non-New Yorker that see's this logo attached to some advertisement. What would THAT person think of the logo?
This is exactly how the process works, and while it's certainly not the best system, it is there to protect the IP of people/corporations from those that would purposefully try to make a similar trademark as to confuse the average reader/viewer.
And, as stated before, this is nowhere near lawsuit level, this is just one of the steps that is taken in the process as a whole. In the end, I agree that this will probably get to a step where both parties sit down and discuss the two trademarks until they figure out some sort of licensing or otherwise satisfactory agreement so they can use their respective logos.
Dan S has the right of it imo.
so wait i'm confused. it's good for apple computers to dispute a green initiative logo of a city that has been associated with an apple logo forever, but it's bad for apple computers to get into a scuffle with apple records over the use of an apple logo?
i always get confused as to which side i need to be on when it relates to fanboy's views towards apple.
Typical New York douche-bag… Get a life.
Damn right it's stupid. The nyc logo looks more like a fukin' apple the the apple logo!
Not only that, but it's a logo to promote something positive, like being eco-friendly.
Apple's logo promotes what? Overpriced pieces of electronics slapped together by people that don't even know our LANGUAGE.
Apple hates America! ...there, I said it!
@pynk floyyd
Despite what New Yorkers seem to think, America != New York City.
I'm glad I shelved those plans at starting my own apple orchard in Washington... it would be really hard to come up with a non-stylized logo of the fruit I was growing without coming into competition with said California company that is trying to get everyone not to use said fruit on said products for marketing purposes....
Whew... that was a close one on my part. *now where is that eye rolley emote.... hmmm*
I think the thing about the Apple logo is that it IS so well known. Nobody is going to confuse a green scribble in the shape of an apple as that of the company that has been using the same logo for 20+ years.
...that, and the leaves point in two completely different directions!
Right, go talk to The Beatles' lawyers about Apple Records and see what explanation you get about Apple Computers and the famous fruit logo.
Apple Corps, Ltd's issues with Apple Computer, Inc. were not over logos or name trademarks -- it was over the fact that a computer made by a company called "Apple" could make more than a simple beep. Apple Corps, which was granted broad use of "Apple" for all things audio and electronic in the UK of late 1960s wanted money out of the little successful American company, so they sued in the British courts, which have a tendency to find towards plaintiffs, especially if its a British firm vs a non-British firm.
The result was that Apple Corps got an infusion of cash (they hadn't signed a new act since Wings) and Apple Computer couldn't use hardware to produce/process sounds not could they make their own record label.
NYC has been nicknamed "The Big Apple" since the 40's around the time of WWII.
NYC = The Big Apple
Job's Company = The Big ASSHole
LOL:
New York City was the BIG APPLE before there was an Apple Computers.
Also The Beatles 'APPLE' Record label of the 60s beat them all.
they have to legally be seen to protect the apple logo by doing things like this or they could loose the copyright altogether, all companies do it, its just the press are getting more and more desperate for anti-apple stories because of their recent success so these stupid stories leek through.
The nerve from Cupertino. It's kind of silly when these big corporations get this ridiculous. I can understand their concern if it was done in bad faith. But, even then, they can't just come after you and try to ruin you. Well, I'm no lawyer, so maybe they can try to. Sort of reminds me of MS and Mike Rowe Soft? Remember that kid MS had problems with. I'm not bashing MS. I'm just highlighting the ridiculous measures some companies take with the excuse of "protecting our brand."
You have to be kidding me. Apple is so freaking stupid.
Your lack of understanding of how copyright law works is not the same thing as Apple being stupid.
This issue is about a trademark. What were you saying about understanding law... something?
Dear Zak "Apple Fanboy",
I understand "trademark" law. Apple is still stupid.
Love,
josh
I only browsed these comments to amuse myself with the inevitable Apple/MS back and forth that seems to come up regarding anything that even remotely mentions Apple or Microsoft.
Thanks for not disappointing. ;)
O RLY? Ok Josh, explain in detail why Apple is being stupid for acting to protecting their trademark. While you're at it, explain why it would be stupid for any other company to protect their trademarks as well, because it's the same thing.
OK...
Apple is stupid to think that by picking the name apple and an apple symbol that it would expect that no one else would ever put or use an apple symbol ever. Yes it's catchy for a computer company to have a fruity name. But by picking something so common it shows that yes they were stupid by not thinking about the long term effects of using such a common word and symbol to trademark itself. That's why you have companies with names like Wal-Mart, Xerox, Exxon, Google, to make sure that it one, makes them unique and two, cuts down on potential future litigation to protect its trademarks. Yes apple has to protect its name, but seriously, it named itself apple and is therefore stupid.
So to sum up, you no longer think they're stupid for protecting their trademark, you think they're stupid for picking the name "Apple". Oh look, I made a pun. Anyway, whether you think they were stupid about the name or not is completely irrelevant. Apple still has the right to protect their trademark and that is exactly what they're doing. The name itself isn't important, because I could make a company called Exxxon and make a logo that looks almost but not quite like Exxon's logo and Exxon would be forced to protect their trademark in the same way.
As someone who deals with TRADEMARK LAW every day Apple is stupid if they think they will win. A trademark only pertains to the goods or services a company provides. For exampleTANGSHAN YANNAN SHOVEL-MAKING CO., LTD. CORPORATION CHINA owns the "apple" mark for like farm goods (reg. #3196972). The dispute is over the picture more likely than not whether they are confusingly smiler. Well since the designate completely different industries thats a mute point. Not to mention that the pictures are completely different.
Wow the irony. Remember when Apple Corp., the Beatles music publishing company, was suing Apple computer over the name?
C'mon Apple, you're breaking my little nerd heart.
slapboxing..did you really say slapboxing..
oh the joy of that!
--i agree i think apple is just doing its part to protect the trademark despite not having a claim in my opinion as you can't protect the shape of an apple and it looks different (no jobs chomp and the leaf is the other way etc).
anyone else notice that the NYC logo also looks like the infinite loop symbol?
And the address of Apple is "1 Infinite Loop."
you can't be serious.
They should have made the NYC logo rainbow colored to represent the melting pot of cultures as well.
Then it would look not only a bit like the Apple logo, but also have the same colors as the original symbol and subliminally represent the address of Apple HQ! A legal trifecta! Apple lawyers go crazy! It's game over man, game over!
Anyone else notice those logo's look nothing alike, aside from the vague resemblance to a certain fruit?
Is it possible that Apple is trying to save them from using a butt ugly logo?
lol LOVE IT
You are FUCKING kidding me! I wonder if Apple makes more money in these lawsuits than they do actually selling their crap?
On the other hand, the NYC apple looks like crap so thats more crap for all of you.
RTF-summary : it's not a lawsuit, it's a trademark formality.
Does Apple think it's bigger than NY or something?
Are you not capable of understanding the concept of protecting your trademark? Read the article again.
Hey Zak,
How'd you do on the reading comprehension part of the LSAT before you went to law school? Where does it say in the article that Apple is protecting its trademark? Apple is trying to prevent someone else from getting a trademark. Apple is not alleging that NYC is infringing upon its trademark, they're trying to prevent NYC from getting one. Got it? Any questions?
openyoureyes - Really? You need me to quote it for you? Fine, here it is.
"This is exactly how the system is supposed to work, and Apple is just protecting its billion-dollar brand as best it can -- thousands of these oppositions are filed by all sorts of companies each year."
Your time spent pointlessly insulting me would be better spend actually reading the article in question, don't you think?
"Any questions?" Yeah, one: How'd YOU do on the reading comprehension part of the LSAT before you went to law school
"This is exactly how the system is supposed to work, and **Apple is just protecting its billion-dollar brand as best it can** -- thousands of these oppositions are filed by all sorts of companies each year."
No you don't need to quote it. It says "brand", in general, not trademark. Apple is trying to limit companies from having exclusive rights over any image of the cross-section of an apple. Now, I don't know the exact number, but I'm fairly certain Apple has more than one trademark with an image that would fall within that "brand".
If you're going to start dabbling in making legal arguments, you'd better choose your words carefully. If you do work in IP, god help you.
Ah yes, more insults. That's good, insulting me helps you make your point better. I don't really see how splitting hairs over how it's described changes what Apple is actually doing by filing the trademark opposition. I mean if you were actually paying attention, you would have noticed that in the article Nilay described specifically what Apple is doing regarding trademarks and their opposition to the NY application, and then he also said Apple is protecting their brand.
So who are you arguing with? Me, or Nilay?
"Apple is trying to prevent someone else from getting a trademark. Apple is not alleging that NYC is infringing upon its trademark, they're trying to prevent NYC from getting one."
WTF? You're not making any sense. Or at the very least you're being a total dick and splitting hairs here. WHY would they be trying to prevent them from getting this trademark? Could it be in the interest of protecting their own? You think?
Haha, all the Apple fanboys are mad. Listen. I have NO PROBLEM with Apple filing the opposition. It's in their best interest. I don't think they'll win, but they might as well try.
My point is that very few of you have any idea what you're talking about. Mixing words like "copyright" "trademark" and "brand" is a clear sign of total ignorance. When people who say something that wrong, and are doing it to show that someone else is stupid, I have to chime in.
Nilay's an attorney. He undoubtedly chose his words carefully, unlike many of you.
... idiots, it's not a LAWSUIT, Apple isn't going to make $XXX on this.
Apple is doing what is allowed by law. If a third party objects, they can do so.
This is ridiculous. NYC will always be the Big Apple, and the logo is fitting. There is absolutely no way in hell that someone can confuse the GreeNYC logo for Apple Inc's version. Give me a break, Cupertino.
Yeah but that's not the point. They're not saying that they're going the NYC logo is going to be confusing people, but that it is too similar to Apple's logo, which, as someone above said, can cause problems when a REAL copyright infringement occurs.
It doesn't necessarily mean NYC can't use the logo if Apple wins. It just means they can't TRADEMARK it, which is what NYC is trying to do.
This is ridiculous. I will never buy another thing from (crab)Apple.
Figures, I've never trusted New York Computers in the first place.
FIGHT!!! FIGHT!!! A GREEN AND A WHITE!!!
IF THE WHITE DONT WIN, WE ALL go out and buy more ipods... lol
Jobs would win. If he wanted to, he could even pull out an Air and slice him in half with its razor-thinness.
He could, but only if Chuck Norris was his aide.
grim fandango! best. game. ever.
I'm going to have to argue. The first thing that the NY logo made me think of WAS apple. I don't have any loyalties to Apple products, quite the opposite in fact, but the shape (especially the little leaf on top...) is very VERY close to the apple logo.
I did, in fact think it was some "Green apple" product, a solar Ipod, or a wind-up mac...
now think about this for a second. if you were walking down the street in manhattan, and saw this logo, with no text associated with it, much like the apple logo, wouldn't you, for even just a split second, think about apple computer. its not a matter of whether or not you would look at it and suddenly think ipod, where's an ipod, i need one now or im going to lose my shit, but it could weaken the prominence of the apple logo, especially if an entire city begins to plaster it all over everything. there's enough of a likeness there to warrant a dispute.
i use windows and macs with equal amounts of respect.
Wow...When I go the grocery store and see apples, I think apple computer.
You're in NYC, you see an Apple-shaped logo anywhere, and you think Apple Inc. Thats just the way it is... Not saying there would be "confusion in the marketplace" or anything, but it hurts the value of the Apple logo and I think Apple should definitely try and protect that.
You're walking along a city known worldwide as the Big Apple and you see a logo that bears a little resemblance to a well known, highly litigious electronics brand.
So how's it going to 'hurt' Apple, specifically? If anything, NYC should be giving grief to Apple, except they're not lawyer-happy zealots like Messrs Job & Co.
Why can NYC sue Apple for using the name Apple? How come Apple is not suing states like "iDaho" or "iOwa" for using the letter 'i"? Apple only has 5% of the market at the most, can you imagine if they get as big as Microsoft? Mr. SJ is going to charge everyone for using words like "Air", "pod" and everything else they can fucking think of. Fuck Apple, over priced shit!
Well other than being completely irrelevant, as stated several times before, this is not a lawsuit.
If anyone commenting here had the faintest clue about trademark law, or business for that matter, they'd know that this is a perfectly legitimate move by Apple. In fact, trademark law pretty much dictates that Apple has no choice but to file an opposition to the application. That's the nature of trademark law - vigorously defend your rights or lose them forever.
Thank you, someone who has ANY idea of how this process works. (Just about) Everyone else on here is just soapboxing their hodgepodge of ways that they think it works.
Tuff stuff. So Apple is force to oppose this. Its like saying speak now or forever hold your peace.
You can't trade mark an apple. I think if they took away the leaf it wouldn't resemble the logo so much. I predict that this is what will happen, they'll agree to drop the leaf. Then there's absolutely no resemblance that Apple Corp can complain about - unless they intend to sue Granny Smiths as well?
Nobody has or is trying to trademark an apple. It's not about an apple per se, it's about and apple shaped logo. There's a difference.
I would only argue though that an apple as a logo is not as clear cut as other objects (like a swish or golden arches) because it uses a well known natural object. Could Air Canada sue any of the environmental organizations who have a leaf logo.
A debate over Apple's logo (and name) has been going on since the Beatles. Apple have to convince that their 'particular' apple is 'adequately unique and distinctive'. The only features which (I think) fall within this category are the bite, the color and the leaf. As the bite and the color have no similarity, this only leaves the leaf - so I feel that removing the leaf will prevent any successful action from Apple Corp.
Plus, these types of applications and oppositions occur everyday from all types of companies and organizations. This made the news because it involves a large corporation and a major city. And the very fact that most people don't understand trademark law makes for a sensational news story.
The level of reading comprehension exhibited by the majority of people posting comments in this thread is appalling...
Agreed. For a bunch of folks reading a tech blog, they seem pretty uneducated.
Me fail English? Thats umpossible!
Hey, it's also colored green like the OLPC! Shame on NYC for trying to steal from both Engadget's True Love and the poor kids in Thirdworldville!
/End Sarcasm
If thousands of these oppositions are filed by all sorts of companies each year then.... why is this news? Just because Apple is involved?
Do you commenters even read the content, or just the headlines?
This explains that it is *not* a lawsuit, and Apple's legal response is just a part of the standard trademark-owners process. Their lawyers *must* file an opposition when another similar trademark application occurs, otherwise they lose their trademark. It's how the system works. Just because their law team has filed the opposition, doesn't mean any positive or negative action will happen either way.
Read the content, folks.
"Read the content, folks." What fun would that be?
Another Pro-Apple article by engadget. Hey Engadget why don't you just rename yourselves to engapple? So everyone knows the Steve Jobs has his hand up your ass?
stop projecting your fantasies onto others
It's clear the Apple-haters don't even read articles. They just pop in to bitch about how much they hate Apple.
The article could say that Apple has found the cure for cancer, but if the headline says "Apple trademarks disease cure" all the Apple haters would be in here complaining about how evil they are, and how you can only use one button on the mouse. (Yes, outdated, but they're hardly paying attention to details, are they?)
It's clear the PC weenies who hate Apple without a clear reason will always pop into Engadget to remind us that they hate Apple, even when it means they don't bother to actually read the content of the article they're commenting on.
So if they read this, I'll summarize again: NOT A LAWSUIT. NO MONEY TO BE MADE. APPLE ISN'T SUING NEW YORK.
"It's clear the Apple-haters don't even read articles. They just pop in to bitch about how much they hate Apple."
Ok, with all due respect, this happens with Apple fanatics as well.
"The article could say that Apple has found the cure for cancer, but if the headline says "Apple trademarks disease cure" all the Apple haters would be in here complaining about how evil they are,"
Again, how is this any different from when a story about Microsoft comes up, Apple fanatics show up to tell us how much "M$ SUKS" or use terms like "Winbolwz" or "Micro$haft"?
"and how you can only use one button on the mouse. (Yes, outdated, but they're hardly paying attention to details, are they?)"
Or BSODs?
"It's clear the PC weenies who hate Apple without a clear reason will always pop into Engadget to remind us that they hate Apple, even when it means they don't bother to actually read the content of the article they're commenting on."
Again no different than Apple fanatics.
"So if they read this, I'll summarize again: NOT A LAWSUIT. NO MONEY TO BE MADE. APPLE ISN'T SUING NEW YORK."
Which is true. What I think they are reacting to is the assumption that if this was some logo that resembled anything from another company, and that company did the same process as Apple, they would be ripped apart by Engadget for "abusing the trademark process" and just trying to steamroll over some innocent group. and the comments here would be along the lines of "that evil bastard corporation that cant make anything good but has the time to get there noses into something like this".
Reactionary? Yes. But they've learned from the best, and they are now turning the tactics of Apple fanatics back on them much to their annoyance.
blessed be the internet...
im fred and i liek teh fanboy warz.
Would you acknowledge this happens in both directions? Lot of Apple-preferrers like to pour scorn on Microsoft related threads.
Descriptions like "PC Weenies" or "Turtlenecked latte-sipping slogan-reciting ad-quoting propaganda-spouting kool-aid-drinking elitist religious fanboi fanatic devotees" only add fuel to the flames.
You cannot patent a piece of fruit wtf?!
Apple and their mindless cult should be exported to some purpose built Starbucks riddled island where they can sip lattes and talk crap all day long
As long as it is not magenta
Sorry dude. You beat me to it :)
So how does this affect the price of hookers on Long Island? Spitzer can't afford much now that he's got legal bills of his own...
This should be fun to watch unfold. I never thought apple would try to attack the 'big apple'. Absolutely foolish
It's really having it both ways to claim your credentials and then later disclaim them in every post. Generally, is it necessary to point out that you're a lawyer at least twice in every post? You are awfully enamored with your lawyerness, aren't you?
Same response as always: You pay my malpractice insurance, I'll kill the disclaimer. Let me know when you're ready to send the check.
Well that's really quite simple. If you don't extol your own credentials from the top of every post, then there's no need for a disclaimer.
it's called CYA vic. get over it
Obviously didn't pass any type of bar exam...
This is sick, Engadget is so pro apple. If this is any other company objecting to NYC using apple logo as a trademark, everyone would slam it hard. I mean, it's even GREEN, how can you be against that. But the second it's Apple, Engadget would dare to suggest NYC be "licensing" from Apple. Engadget is a corporate dog, just like all the apple fanboys.
BTW, I'm not an Apple hater, I have brought 3 iphones and 4 nanos in the last year, for myself and as gifts. I also run Leopard at home. I do like their design alot. But I hate you fanboys worshiping Apple like a cult.
I just hope the NYC doesnt have pay a fee to Apple to use a damn apple in a logo. Whats next, every window company that installs windows in houses gonna have to pay a fee to Microsoft to use an image of a window on their van.
*this isnt a bash Apple post, more of a bash big business post. Thank you, that is all.
This just in:
"The devil is sueing Apple for trademark infringement."
I am no huge Apple fan boy but as long as I can remember, apple has always had the apple logo. Just another person trying to get money from Mr. Jobso company. This is pretty worthless if you ask me.
What part don't you understand?
Apple. Is. Filing. Trademark. Dispute.
No money involved.
End of story.
Would it be OK, if they make it magenta??