http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/ Engadget Comments for Apple vs. NYC: What's really going on http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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!]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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. ]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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. ]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
i always get confused as to which side i need to be on when it relates to fanboy's views towards apple.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 2:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 2:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/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.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 3:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 4:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
Despite what New Yorkers seem to think, America != New York City.]]>Apr 7th 2008 1:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Whew... that was a close one on my part. *now where is that eye rolley emote.... hmmm*]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
...that, and the leaves point in two completely different directions!]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Job's Company = The Big ASSHole]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/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.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 2:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
I understand "trademark" law. Apple is still stupid.

Love,
josh]]>Apr 3rd 2008 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
Thanks for not disappointing. ;)]]>Apr 3rd 2008 3:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 3:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/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.
]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 4:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 7th 2008 10:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
C'mon Apple, you're breaking my little nerd heart.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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). ]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
And the address of Apple is "1 Infinite Loop."]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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!]]>Apr 3rd 2008 2:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 4:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
On the other hand, the NYC apple looks like crap so thats more crap for all of you. ]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/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?]]>Apr 3rd 2008 2:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
"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?]]>Apr 3rd 2008 3:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
"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."]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/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.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
So who are you arguing with? Me, or Nilay? ]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
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?]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/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.
]]>Apr 3rd 2008 4:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/
Apple is doing what is allowed by law. If a third party objects, they can do so.]]>Apr 3rd 2008 1:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/03/apple-vs-nyc-whats-really-going-on/Apr 3rd 2008 1:20PM