I just finished reading a lively little blog piece furnished by The New York Times, City Room. It would seem that the cute Green NYC logo has come under scrutiny of the corporate lawyers at Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL). Let me just start this by saying it's my opinion that on it's face, this complaint by Apple is stupid. If this sort of thing is what it takes to keep Apple's corporate lawyers busy, the company has far too many law-schooled chair-warmers on payroll.
I won't even dissect the logo issue here for you; I'd pale in comparison to the New York Times piece. What I'd like to do is offer my services to the Apple Inc. legal department as "Solicitor for Stupid Litigation Options." I have prepared a portfolio of possible litigation opportunities. I offer it in lieu of a resume.
First, Apple should file suit against the writers of the Bible. How dare those scribes make the apple to appear such a nefarious fruit. Wasn't Eve told that someday the apple would be a symbol of universal knowledge? Umm wait, I think God did tell her that. So that means we could argue that she acted with malice of intent when she asked Adam to take a bite from the future corporate logo. However, she might then file a counterclaim against Apple, citing her first precedent use of the bitten fruit symbol. We'll have to find mitigating circumstances.
Next we could possibly file suit against Benjamin Franklin. Wasn't it he that coined the saying, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away"? I'm certain that whoever it was meant to injure the sales of Apple laptop computers. We could take a survey among doctors and warp it to support our claim that the old apple adage colored their buying decisions.
And what about that apple for the teacher? I assure you that the concept was meant to help in the marketing of desk top PCs. Was it hijacked by some early 1900s health nut? If we could figure out someone to sue for putting an apple on a teacher's desk, we could certainly convince a jury to award damages on that one.
We'll file suit on Granny Smith for attaching her name to apples at all. We'll destroy the reputation of Wilhelm Tell for shooting an apple off of his son's head with a crossbow. Johnny Appleseed will rue the day he ever set a bare foot on tilled soil with the intent to start an orchard. Every man who has an Adam's apple visible from three paces will be court ordered to wear a scarf. Sir Isaac Newton will wish he had seen a pear fall instead of an apple. I'll no longer have an apple of my eye.
I can see it now, my legal career is launched. I'll be the one bad apple in the bunch. I suppose though, if you've read this far, by now you know that my lawsuit ideas are in keeping with Apple Inc.'s current complaint. To put it plainly, it's my personal opinion that Apple Inc.'s current apple-related protest is nothing less than ... horse apples.
The week in preview: Earnings from Walmart, Macy's, and other retailers
Six top trades for the rest of 2009
Comfort Zone Investing: Buffett buys Burlington
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-20-2008 @ 1:20AM
Dan said...
I've practiced in trademark and unfair competition law for years, and have to tell you, from my perspective, the GreeNYC logo is in trouble. Seriously. It's not just that they picked an apple, its how the apple logo looks -- a white silhouette; it looks aLOT like the Apple logo, just hallow.
But why would Apple care? Because, trademarks are a "use it or lose it" property interest. If Apple did not challenge this GreeNYC logo, then the next guy picking some apple logo for some product close to Apple's line of business, might be able to have a logo even more similar to the solid white Apple silhouette. So, even if the Apple guys didn't want to sue GreeNYC over this, they basically have to in order to demonstrate that Apple is policing the property right.
Also, as far as I know, the only legal action so far is Apple's administrative protest over registration of the GreeNYC logo. I am not aware that Apple has actually sued for infringement (at least not yet); so at this moment then, the only thing Apple has done is protest registration of the NYC mark. The case will depend on the results of consumer surveys showing likelihood of confusion -- that is, does the new NYC mark look enough like the Apple logo that some people (not everyone) would probably be led to believe there is some association or sponsorship between GreeNYC and Apple. If "yes," then the NYC logo will not get registered. And, if I were a betting man, that's where I'd put my bet.
4-05-2008 @ 7:28PM
Ernest said...
The fruit on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is never specified as being an apple (Genesis 3).
4-06-2008 @ 10:20PM
Al said...
Ernest is correct, the Bible never mentioned an apple in the big Adam & Eve scene witht he serpent. Of course God's legal team foresaw the potential conflict millennia ago and wisely just ambiguously called it "the forbidden fruit." The 'apple' legend 'stems' from John Milton's 17th century epic, "Paradise Lost." Now my theory is that if you traced Milton's lineage down through the ages, you would find Bill Gates' heritage, therefore proving that Apple should, in fact, be suing Microsoft for defamation of character, with cumulative damages going back over 300 years.
4-07-2008 @ 2:04PM
Dan said...
Gary, I got all confused when I read "...Apple logos" and saw the reference to the Bible.
I thought for sure you were talking about Bible study with "Logos" for Apples http://www.macbiblesoftware.com
;-)
4-07-2008 @ 2:09PM
Gary E. Sattler said...
Many thanks to the readers who have clarified or expanded on my awkward bible references.
Please do check my posts often, as I might have other writings with scripture references which need to be clarified or expanded upon in this public forum.
Thanks again,
Gary
J.I.L.