Apple Sues School Over Logo

Big B

Big B

HWF Godfather
Apple is suing the Victoria School of Business and Technology over it's logo.

"Our logo is unique and distinguishable in numerous aspects from the Apple logo including the acronym 'VSBT' being part of our logo," reads a statement by school president Dieter Gerhard. "Are you suggesting that anyone using any variation of an apple for technology education is infringing on Apple's trademark?"
 
VSBT is currently a large customer of Apple's, with a significant segment of its labs being Apple computers.
Click to expand...
If I were the technology director at VSBT, I would inform Apple as follows:

"We respect the right of Apple to defend its intellectual property. But incidentally, we'll be migrating to Linux. So long, and thanks for all the litigation."
 
Apple's PR department needs to look into this sorta stuff. Long before Jobs founded Apple, the apple was used in conjunction with education.

Oh, and this isn't the first time Apple's gone postal over their logo: they also sued New York City over a GreenNYC campaign.

This, along with the way many Apple users act, make me cringe.

Yes, Apple, how dare someone else use a common fruit. :rolleyes:
 
I think that the saying An apple a day, keeps the doctor away needs to be changed to Not a single apple a day, keeps the lawyers away...
 
RHochstenbach said:
I think that the saying An apple a day, keeps the doctor away needs to be changed to Not a single apple a day, keeps the lawyers away...
Click to expand...

lol nice one but i think that the people who designed the school logo should know better then to copy a well known brand, im not backing apple but i think the school logo is very similar and Apple did over react.
 
Its a friggin apple, you can't change the shape of an apple, otherwise it wouldn't be an apple. I think this case is just dumb, its not anything like the apply logo, the only resemblance is the fact that it is an apple. People know what Apple's logo is, and that school's logo isn't it.
 
Swansen said:
Its a friggin apple, you can't change the shape of an apple, otherwise it wouldn't be an apple. I think this case is just dumb, its not anything like the apply logo, the only resemblance is the fact that it is an apple. People know what Apple's logo is, and that school's logo isn't it.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's like suing farmers because they got apple trees, and those apples look like the Apple logo :doh:
 
This is stupid. That hippie Steve Jobs (thanks for your iphone though) needs to stop suing over apple logos. Out of all the 2 none of them resemble even a bit the apple logo.

It's not like anyone's thinking, "Hey, that looks like steve job's apple." They're probably thinking, "hm, have i had my source of vitamins today?."
 
Swansen said:
Its a friggin apple, you can't change the shape of an apple, otherwise it wouldn't be an apple. I think this case is just dumb, its not anything like the apply logo, the only resemblance is the fact that it is an apple. People know what Apple's logo is, and that school's logo isn't it.
Click to expand...

using the word Apple..
 
Yes i know an apple is an apple but they could have made fatter apple lol and anyways the leaf position and size is exactly the same as well, they could have made the leaf and apple size differently.
 
But, in the end, it's still going to look like an apple. What if it was a square? Would Apple somehow get the right to use a basic shape and bar others from doing so? Come on, that's just ludacris!

There's not a whole lot that can be changed on the shape of an apple. Apple Computer needs to stop being such pricks about things. If you checked out the tiff over NYC's GreenNYC logo, that bared much less resemblence to the Apple logo, yet the company was up in arms over it. Apple does not have the patent on the apple fruit itself, therefore, they do not have any and all rights to such things.
 
Big B said:
But, in the end, it's still going to look like an apple. What if it was a square? Would Apple somehow get the right to use a basic shape and bar others from doing so? Come on, that's just ludacris!.
Click to expand...

I know it's stupid

but what im trying to say is that if a company was given the right to have a square as their logo and only they can use it then you should blame the authority of those who gave the company the trademark to use a square logo and only they can use it. After all if Apple registered their logo as that particular apple shape then they have a right to defend it and i know they don't have a patent over the apple fruit lol but im sure they have one for their view of an apple ie their logo lol

This is making me look like the bad guy isn't it lol
 
Pimp said:
but what im trying to say is that if a company was given the right to have a square as their logo and only they can use it then you should blame the authority of those who gave the company the trademark to use a square logo and only they can use it.
Click to expand...
Yes, such obvious things shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked, agreed. But if Apple didn't want to deal with defending a super-obvious logo (an extremely common fruit of all things!), they shouldn't have chosen it to begin with. Not my problem, and it shouldn't be society's problem to have to tiptoe around company's IP rights -- especially when they trespass so blatantly into our respective cultures in the first place. When companies want to make a buck, they should have to work for it; society shouldn't have to bear the burden.

Take Sun Microsystems for example. They might have been in the same boat, except that they were wiser with their logo. It's the word "SUN" bisected on itself recursively 4 times to make a diamond. The word sun is common, yes, and so are the various ways of representing it graphically. But the logo Sun chose is unique to Sun; it's easily recognizable and sets them apart from other companies (tech or otherwise) that would like to use the common "sun" name or logo in their name or products.
 
Anti-Trend said:
Yes, such obvious things shouldn't be allowed to be trademarked, agreed. But if Apple didn't want to deal with defending a super-obvious logo (an extremely common fruit of all things!), they shouldn't have chosen it to begin with. Not my problem, and it shouldn't be society's problem to have to tiptoe around company's IP rights -- especially when they trespass so blatantly into our respective cultures in the first place. When companies want to make a buck, they should have to work for it; society shouldn't have to bear the burden.

Take Sun Microsystems for example. They might have been in the same boat, except that they were wiser with their logo. It's the word "SUN" bisected on itself recursively 4 times to make a diamond. The word sun is common, yes, and so are the various ways of representing it graphically. But the logo Sun chose is unique to Sun; it's easily recognizable and sets them apart from other companies (tech or otherwise) that would like to use the common "sun" name or logo in their name or products.
Click to expand...

Good point, i agree with you. I think apple chose their name/logo because they wanted a unique name in the computer industry something catchy but yet random to what they do in the industry. If i ever set up a company selling computers i would probably call it Kiwi Tech lol :chk:
 
Pimp said:
After all if Apple registered their logo as that particular apple shape then they have a right to defend it and i know they don't have a patent over the apple fruit lol but im sure they have one for their view of an apple ie their logo lol
Click to expand...
The apple is wider, the leaf is at a different angle, and it doesn't "shine" like like the apple logo, and it doesn't have a piece missing out of its right side like the Apple logo. Plainly, they are just reaching here. To me it seems like they just don't want anyone else using an apple to represent anything, other than apple computers. Just wait, next they will go after ciderys everywhere and people won't be able to sell apples ether, because it will "confuse" the market, that some one might confuse buying a fruit with a Mac.
 
Taking that thought to it's extention, that would mean some very bad things about a Mac user's intelligence. I mean, in the idea that they could not distinguish between cider and a computer...If you're user base cannot tell the difference between your product and something else, you have to wonder, especially with the snobbish 'tude emitted from their side of things.

Not saying they are, but just thinking about it would be one thing to consider for Apple: do you want to be saying that your users are basically idiots? I would hope not.
 
Big B said:
Not saying they are, but just thinking about it would be one thing to consider for Apple: do you want to be saying that your users are basically idiots? I would hope not.
Click to expand...
No, Apple is smart actually. They need some additional funds to cover their losses during the crisis at the stock market. And this is one of the ways to do it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top