The funny thing is that they did a feature on this on the news here and they interviewed the head guy from the school in a room full of iMac's at the school.
Both apple and this guy I quoted are ridiculous. Come on first of all the school doesn't threaten your company or provide any competition at all. Second the apple is completely different. The colors are different. The shape is different. The leaf is tilted different. The apple doesn't even have a bite out of it. We get it apple wants to protect their logo which is fine but The Curpentino based company does not own the apple. The apple is a fruit you cannot control all variations of an apple that is absurd. Apple you should be worrying about fixing your crappy products and all of their problems not worrying about the fact that the fruit came before the company.
I agree with you Daniel. The logos are different and they are not a threat to Apple. Plus they're supporting Apple by buying up their products! Hey, if the similarities of their logo and their usage of Apple's products make people associate them a bit, fantastic! All the better for both of them I say.
Both apple and this guy I quoted are ridiculous. Come on first of all the school doesn't threaten your company or provide any competition at all. Second the apple is completely different. The colors are different. The shape is different. The leaf is tilted different. The apple doesn't even have a bite out of it. We get it apple wants to protect their logo which is fine but The Curpentino based company does not own the apple. The apple is a fruit you cannot control all variations of an apple that is absurd. Apple you should be worrying about fixing your crappy products and all of their problems not worrying about the fact that the fruit came before the company.
You're analyzing the logos in the wrong way. There can be a hundred differences and it doesn't mean a thing if there's just one similarity that can cause a confusion as to what company logo it is. You can create a logo in the shape pear, that is purple with three leaves on top. But if it has a "byte" taken out of it on the right side, chances are you would be in violation of Apple's trademark. (At the least you would not be able to use it with a tech company.) That's because the first thing anyone would think of is Apple Inc. when they see it. And in reality, no company in their right mind would want a logo that makes people think of some other company first. It's not just how different the logo is. It also matters what company people think of when they first see it.
That's why the company (VSBT) rep is full of crock when he said that they came up with a "100% percent original logo through a flow and a process." The first thing you would want in a logo is for it to be different from all the other logos out there. The last thing you want in your logo is for people to think of another company when they see it. If you own a restaurant chain, would you use an apple in you logo? No matter how different you make it (the apple in the logo), people are going to first think of Applebee.
A logo is meant to identify a company with just a glance. That's the purpose of having one. If you have a logo that people has to stare at in order to try to figure out whose logo it is, it's time for a new logo. That's why Apple Inc. (any company really) is so adamant (and rightly so) about protecting their logo. It does Apple no good if people have to stare at a logo for any length of time before they figure out whether or not it represents Apple Inc. It is easy for anyone to sit here and compare the two logos side by side and come to the conclusion that they don't look alike. But glance at the window of VSBT while driving down the street. Can you tell for sure that it's not the Apple Inc. logo? (With out having to stop and look at your iPod. ) What happens when you receive a fax from VSBT with the logo on it and it's now in black and white? Will it first remind you of Apple Inc.?
And of course there may be a reason why VBST would want people to think Apple Inc. when people see their logo. It makes it seem that some how Apple Inc. is endorsing their products. Along with Microsoft and Abode and the others logos they paster around theirs. They made it difficult to tell where one logo ends and another begins. Here in the US, our sue happy lawyers would already be on them with a class action suit for falsely misrepresenting who's endorsing their products. And Apple would be named in the suit because they knowingly allowed VSBT to use a logo that they knew could be easily confused with their Apple Inc. logo.
And Apple would be named in the suit because they knowingly allowed VSBT to use a logo that they knew could be easily confused with their Apple Inc. logo.
Comments
Both apple and this guy I quoted are ridiculous. Come on first of all the school doesn't threaten your company or provide any competition at all. Second the apple is completely different. The colors are different. The shape is different. The leaf is tilted different. The apple doesn't even have a bite out of it. We get it apple wants to protect their logo which is fine but The Curpentino based company does not own the apple. The apple is a fruit you cannot control all variations of an apple that is absurd. Apple you should be worrying about fixing your crappy products and all of their problems not worrying about the fact that the fruit came before the company.
I agree with you Daniel. The logos are different and they are not a threat to Apple. Plus they're supporting Apple by buying up their products! Hey, if the similarities of their logo and their usage of Apple's products make people associate them a bit, fantastic! All the better for both of them I say.
Both apple and this guy I quoted are ridiculous. Come on first of all the school doesn't threaten your company or provide any competition at all. Second the apple is completely different. The colors are different. The shape is different. The leaf is tilted different. The apple doesn't even have a bite out of it. We get it apple wants to protect their logo which is fine but The Curpentino based company does not own the apple. The apple is a fruit you cannot control all variations of an apple that is absurd. Apple you should be worrying about fixing your crappy products and all of their problems not worrying about the fact that the fruit came before the company.
You're analyzing the logos in the wrong way. There can be a hundred differences and it doesn't mean a thing if there's just one similarity that can cause a confusion as to what company logo it is. You can create a logo in the shape pear, that is purple with three leaves on top. But if it has a "byte" taken out of it on the right side, chances are you would be in violation of Apple's trademark. (At the least you would not be able to use it with a tech company.) That's because the first thing anyone would think of is Apple Inc. when they see it. And in reality, no company in their right mind would want a logo that makes people think of some other company first. It's not just how different the logo is. It also matters what company people think of when they first see it.
That's why the company (VSBT) rep is full of crock when he said that they came up with a "100% percent original logo through a flow and a process." The first thing you would want in a logo is for it to be different from all the other logos out there. The last thing you want in your logo is for people to think of another company when they see it. If you own a restaurant chain, would you use an apple in you logo? No matter how different you make it (the apple in the logo), people are going to first think of Applebee.
A logo is meant to identify a company with just a glance. That's the purpose of having one. If you have a logo that people has to stare at in order to try to figure out whose logo it is, it's time for a new logo. That's why Apple Inc. (any company really) is so adamant (and rightly so) about protecting their logo. It does Apple no good if people have to stare at a logo for any length of time before they figure out whether or not it represents Apple Inc. It is easy for anyone to sit here and compare the two logos side by side and come to the conclusion that they don't look alike. But glance at the window of VSBT while driving down the street. Can you tell for sure that it's not the Apple Inc. logo? (With out having to stop and look at your iPod.
And of course there may be a reason why VBST would want people to think Apple Inc. when people see their logo. It makes it seem that some how Apple Inc. is endorsing their products. Along with Microsoft and Abode and the others logos they paster around theirs. They made it difficult to tell where one logo ends and another begins. Here in the US, our sue happy lawyers would already be on them with a class action suit for falsely misrepresenting who's endorsing their products. And Apple would be named in the suit because they knowingly allowed VSBT to use a logo that they knew could be easily confused with their Apple Inc. logo.
You're analyzing the logos in the wrong way.
[...]
And Apple would be named in the suit because they knowingly allowed VSBT to use a logo that they knew could be easily confused with their Apple Inc. logo.
Great post!