Apple vs. NYC: What's really going on
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.
Filed under: Misc. Gadgets
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
True_Darknight @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:05PM
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!!!
Jesse Dula @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:09PM
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.
True_Darknight @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:10PM
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!
Dan S. @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:18PM
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.
Bryan @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:20PM
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.
Eddie @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:45PM
Dan S has the right of it imo.
mattbates @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:06PM
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.
3monkies @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:30PM
Typical New York douche-bag… Get a life.
rouge @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:28PM
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.
PynkFloydd @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:34PM
Apple hates America! ...there, I said it!
krizoitz @ Apr 7th 2008 1:44AM
@pynk floyyd
Despite what New Yorkers seem to think, America != New York City.
Jaws @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:07PM
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*
robert @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:08PM
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!
Rob @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:13PM
Right, go talk to The Beatles' lawyers about Apple Records and see what explanation you get about Apple Computers and the famous fruit logo.
Dan S. @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:23PM
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.
calzone @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:08PM
NYC has been nicknamed "The Big Apple" since the 40's around the time of WWII.
whatishalo? @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:09PM
NYC = The Big Apple
Job's Company = The Big ASSHole
The Future @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:08PM
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.
bob @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:30PM
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.
Rob @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:10PM
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."
josh @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:11PM
You have to be kidding me. Apple is so freaking stupid.
Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:19PM
Your lack of understanding of how copyright law works is not the same thing as Apple being stupid.
openyoureyes @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:31PM
This issue is about a trademark. What were you saying about understanding law... something?
josh @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:35PM
Dear Zak "Apple Fanboy",
I understand "trademark" law. Apple is still stupid.
Love,
josh
JAB @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:48PM
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. ;)
Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:53PM
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.
josh @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:17PM
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.
Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:38PM
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.
alegria690 @ Apr 7th 2008 10:18PM
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.
clifford @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:11PM
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.
Prime @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:13PM
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).
Arkweld @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:14PM
anyone else notice that the NYC logo also looks like the infinite loop symbol?
And the address of Apple is "1 Infinite Loop."
Comrade @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:38PM
you can't be serious.
Arkweld @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:15PM
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!
BigD145 @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:05PM
Anyone else notice those logo's look nothing alike, aside from the vague resemblance to a certain fruit?
dvsbstrd @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:15PM
Is it possible that Apple is trying to save them from using a butt ugly logo?
John @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:55PM
lol LOVE IT
Barron @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:15PM
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.
Dan S. @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:28PM
RTF-summary : it's not a lawsuit, it's a trademark formality.
trumpton @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:19PM
Does Apple think it's bigger than NY or something?
Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:31PM
Are you not capable of understanding the concept of protecting your trademark? Read the article again.
openyoureyes @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:47PM
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?
Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:58PM
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?
CraigJ @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:00PM
"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."
openyoureyes @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:09PM
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.
Zak @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:22PM
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?
Vidikron (FU) @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:27PM
"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?
openyoureyes @ Apr 3rd 2008 4:39PM
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.
W.G. @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:20PM
... 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.
Alex Padilla @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:20PM
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.