Besttechie Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I thought I would point this out as we had a discussion about something similar recently in another thread:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2008/04/apple_vs_apple Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheTerrorist_75 Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 It looks nothing like Steve Jobs' Apple logo. Bloomberg will own Steve's "fruits". NYC was known as the Big Apple long before Steve was born. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Besttechie Posted April 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 It looks nothing like Steve Jobs' Apple logo. Bloomberg will own Steve's "fruits". NYC was known as the Big Apple long before Steve was born.My thoughts exactly. Apple has no case. The only reason I would see them even pulling this stunt off would be for publicity. B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
irregularjoe Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 (edited) I thought I would point this out as we had a discussion about something similar recently in another thread:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2008/04/apple_vs_appleThis sounds a lot like Apples threat to sue anyone using the word "podcast".As a native New Yorker, I have one word for Mr. Jobs.......... FAHGETABOUTIT! Edited April 5, 2008 by irregularjoe Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Besttechie Posted April 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Thinking about this again from a trademark point of view... perhaps they are just doing it to reserve the right to protect their mark because if they didn't and someone released something with a much more infringing logo, then they could turn and around and say to Apple you lost your right to the mark when you let "so and so" use it.B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 5, 2008 Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Thinking about this again from a trademark point of view... perhaps they are just doing it to reserve the right to protect their mark because if they didn't and someone released something with a much more infringing logo, then they could turn and around and say to Apple you lost your right to the mark when you let "so and so" use it.B That sounds reasonable, until you consider what LOSING lawsuit after lawsuit might do to their trademark rights. "You haven't been able to defend the use of: "An Apple" -- under any circumstances, so you lose your right to the trademark." I'm inclined to believe it's the insular corporate culture there. "Hey, WE'RE Apple!" What's next? A trademark suit against the fruit itself? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Besttechie Posted April 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2008 Thinking about this again from a trademark point of view... perhaps they are just doing it to reserve the right to protect their mark because if they didn't and someone released something with a much more infringing logo, then they could turn and around and say to Apple you lost your right to the mark when you let "so and so" use it.B That sounds reasonable, until you consider what LOSING lawsuit after lawsuit might do to their trademark rights. "You haven't been able to defend the use of: "An Apple" -- under any circumstances, so you lose your right to the trademark." I'm inclined to believe it's the insular corporate culture there. "Hey, WE'RE Apple!" What's next? A trademark suit against the fruit itself?They don't have to vigorously go after NYC at all. In fact, they probably won't even go to court. Fact is they're still looking after their mark and that's all that really matters.B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.