Apple Computers sues Sir Issac Newton for illustrating principles of gravity with unauthorized apple.
Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? About as ridiculous as Apple suing NYC for having a green apple shaped symbol to represent GreenNYC. GreeNYC aims to cut the city’s carbon emissions by 30 percent and to conserve natural resources.
This is the offending symbol:
And this is what Apple thinks is being infringed upon:
Truly, Apple has this one in the bag. NYC shall pay for daring to use an apple that doesn’t resemble the Mac trademark. In fact, soon you’ll pay a tarrif for the right to purchase apples at your local grocer since God accidentally created the apple without Mac’s permission.
I honestly wonder where they get their legal monkeys at. They must literally be struggling to find someone new to sue just to keep their retainer going. I can see this one getting thrown out of court a mile off. Let’s hope for a counter suit from the City of New York. Corporations like Apple deserve to get some payback for wasting tax payer dollars in defense of frivulous lawsuits.
William Tell will be sued next, for gratuitous destruction of a trademarked object
It’s clear that growers of the fruit, apple, are selling a product distinctly different from what Apple (Computer) is selling, in the minds of the consumer. On the other hand, it’s not so distinctly clear, from what the consumer sees and knows that NYC is “selling” something distinctly different from Apple (Computer). Now, perhaps after someone researches and reads up and finds out (after the fact), they may finally come to the conclusion that it’s distinctly different. BUT, they won’t have that conclusion, right off the bat, when seeing this logo from NYC ads and promotions. That’s the confusion that this kind of trademark will not allow (under the law). Apple (Computer) will prevail under these laws.
I have to disagree with you Eliakim. Apple has the responsibility to show in their suit that NYC is attempting to use the Apple trademark to gain influence or to promote itself without Apple’s permission. This would also require the trademark and the NYCGreen logo to be very similar, which they are not. The burden of proof lies with Apple Corp and not NYC. If Apple were to win simply because an apple was used in a logo, it would set a precedent regarding the usage of even the most simple and abstract of things such as shapes. A company would be able to trademark multiple logos and then prevent competitors from using their own logo because it contained some abstract or everyday shape or object that was “synonymous” with the first logo. For the trademark to be violated, NYC would have had to pretty much copy the Apple logo and there is a great deal of difference between the two. You also imply that NYC is selling something which they aren’t unless you count an idea or policy as sales. The NYCGreen is merely an initiative. I have seen the NYCGreen logo before the Apple suit and I have to say that I didn’t even give Apple Corp a passing thought in my mind. The logos are completely different and convey different ideas.
One of the early proposals for the Apple (Computer) logo was an illustration of the apocryphal story of Newton’s inspiration for the theory of gravity occurring upon seeing an apple fall from a tree under which he was sitting.
Sadly, I can see Apple attempting to get the ownership of any intellectual property pertaining to Issac Newton.
What about Apple Records, the Beatles’ label? They should get in on the lawsuit, too. Didn’t Paul McCartney invent apples? You know, the kind you eat? (Make sure you read this with tongue pressed firmly in cheek.)