I almost can't believe that I'm writing about this, but I guess some prudes will get up in arms about anything.

BBC News reports that a U.S. based Christian group known as The Resistance is calling for a nationwide boycott of the coffee selling giant, Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX). The group's complaint against the company stems from the commemorative use of a toned-down version of the company's original logo. Starbucks states that the logo, which features a dual-tailed mermaid sporting cleavage, is not inappropriate. The fringe Christian group refers to the logo as a naked woman with legs "spread like a prostitute."

The news report from BBC states: "Howard Schultz, who bought Starbucks in 1982, described the emblem in his memoirs as "bare-breasted and Rubenesque; [it] was supposed to be as seductive as coffee itself."

To look at the logo that is claimed to offend, one has a difficult time even seeing it as raunchy. To call the flared dual tails a pair of spread legs might be a feat best accomplished while on serious hallucinogens. Clearly, this group of well-meaning Christians is at a loss for real issues to attack. The fringe group's lack of imagination in seeking some media exposure for itself is seen by me as a shallow act of spotlight grabbing.

Starbucks is reported by the BBC as stating that the bare breasted mermaid will appear on some of its cups for several weeks as part of a company promotion. It was not revealed which of Starbucks' 16,000 coffee shops in 44 countries will be featuring the racy mermaid cups. However, I'm sure that anyone who is interested in getting one of these alleged soft-porn coffee cups may rest assured that, before too long, they'll be available to anyone via eBay.

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.

Ad executive: "Guys, guys! I got an idea about how we can change the market's perception of our company and move Xerox (NYSE: XRX) into the 21st century."

CEO: "How exciting! A new product? An innovative marketing campaign?

Ad executive: Even better. A new logo.

The new logo (shown at right) marks the first time that Xerox has identified itself with an image rather than just "XEROX." And what a creative image it is: a circle with a little "X" and now "xerox" is written in lowercase! I shudder to think about how much was spent on Madison Avenue PR firms for that bit of marketing genius.

The move is part of a plan to update Xerox's stodgy image -- the stock hasn't been cool since the 1970s.

But according to The New York Times, "But Michael Watras, president of the brand consultancy Straightline International, said nothing short of a name change would wrest Xerox from the grasp of its copier reputation. 'They should have kept the Xerox brand on some products, but renamed the company.' he said. 'Without that, this is money poorly spent. If I were a shareholder, I'd be outraged.'"

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Watras. When your name is used as a verb meaning to copy, it's hard to get past the image as a copy company with a simple logo change.