Took long enough to break here. 

If there's no reference to its use or placement in their existing logo, I'm not sure I want this to be accepted. Unless, of course, they're planning to use it in future product branding.

Originally Posted by digitalclips 
I expect Apple are worried about leafing part of their logo uncovered.

Phylum on you; not another pun thread! This is truly serious; I'd like to know what the implications of this'll be.

Could they be doing it for further power over wider brand lawsuits? Is it for a future line of simplified product?

Maybe they took offense at the Scoopertino story...

I take offense at the (TM) on the poster. Apple wouldn't sully their own advertising with such stuff.

If Apple wanted only that leaf and exactly that leaf, then it might be okay.

Unfortunately, they've shown time and again that they're not happy just safekeeping their own exact logo... instead they want to prevent everyone else from having a mark that even has an apple with a leaf.

Apple claims that the little cafe's mark, and NYC's (aka the Big Apple) recycling mark would "be confused" with Apple Inc.  Seriously?

Considering their history, giving them that leaf would undoubtedly open up tons more opportunities for Apple's lawyers to bully the owner of any mark that uses a leaf.

Originally Posted by KDarling 
instead they want to prevent everyone else from having a mark that even has an apple with a leaf.

 

Nope, just ones that misuse it in appropriate places. Like, oh, every single Chinese knockoff ever.

The German cafe's is connected; it wouldn't ever be a valid complaint.

I like how impartial the link in the article is. I also like how deeply it is based in fact and not complete and utter lies. 

I also like that the above won't be read as sarcasm by some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Nope, just ones that misuse it in appropriate places. Like, oh, every single Chinese knockoff ever.

 

Oh I'm sure you're right... because Apple's been so successful stopping Chinese knockoffs using US trademarks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

Oh I'm sure you're right... because Apple's been so successful stopping Chinese knockoffs using US trademarks.

 

It's not about stopping knockoffs. It's about being shown to make an effort to stop them. If Apple doesn't do whatever they legally can - ineffective though it may be - to make it quite clear that the knockoffs are infringing and misusing Apple's trademarks, then when some company who they can actually pursue in court infringes, the infringer can point to the Chinese companies and say, "Apple didn't enforce their claimed trademark against those guys. They're unfairly picking on me."

- Jasen.

P.S. But, wow, what a world we live in where a little tilted oval thing can be the subject of legal proceedings.

Originally Posted by KDarling 
Oh I'm sure you're right... because Apple's been so successful stopping Chinese knockoffs using US trademarks.

 

Your implication is that they have tried. They haven't.

I don't get what you're trying to say.

Ah well, I thought that leaving in the comment about sarcasm would be such a huge clue, but okay enough of that.

What I'm saying is that of course Apple hasn't been going after "just ones that misuse it", like Chinese knockoff makers.

Apple has also constantly threatened innocent entities with an apple in their logo.

I mean, c'mon, suing an organization in "The Big Apple" itself over an apple?   NYC has had that nickname since at least the 1920s.

Originally Posted by KDarling 

Apple has also constantly threatened innocent entities with an apple in their logo. I mean, c'mon, suing an organization in "The Big Apple" itself over an apple?   NYC has had that nickname since at least the 1920s.

I'm bothered by that, myself. Also, what was it, a Polish grocery store? 

Apple does have some valid points in what they attest, but a line is generally drawn between industries that makes those suits seem frivolous.