Home

Do you agree with Apple that people would confuse the VSBT logo with the Apple logo?

Victoria School of Business and Technology

yes, I agree with Apple
24% (3049 votes)
no, I do not agree with Apple
76% (9620 votes)
Total votes: 12669

Poll created October 01, 2008

Click here to view all comments

 

"Comparing Apples and Oranges"

Lawyers for Apple Inc. have sent a letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology claiming our logo is confusingly similar to theirs.

We strongly disagree and say so in our reply letter. We are defensive regarding this issue primarily because it was what we thought to be an original idea which flowed from a process - see below - where the comparison never even came up. Whether that was a good process or not it speaks to our intention which was definitely not an Apple Inc. association. Whether you agree with Apple, or say no you don't agree we invite you to vote, and/or post your comments. We don't have their deep pockets for a legal fight so we thought we would let the public bear witness and see if Apple might learn to play nice ... not that we are naive, but hey, they may surprise us :-)

• Cast your vote
• Got an opinion? Post your Comments  - The Rules: Keep it clean, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS on Apple, VSBt or anyone else please, and stay on the subject without writing a "thesis" or your comment may flagged for removal

 

 

Related Resources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges

"Apples and oranges" refers to the idiom "comparing apples and oranges" or "apples to oranges", which is used to indicate that two items or groups of items have not been validly compared.

 

Googling variations of “school education logo apple” we found many schools using the iconic education apple. Some are shown and listed below. According to Apple’s trademark these would also be in violation of their trademark even though many look completely dissimilar. Food for thought.

Apple education logos

Logo Design and Thought Process:  In 2001 we founded a web design company called northStudio.com also offerring web and print design training. The northStudio logo represents the green hills and snow-capped mountains of BC with a clear blue sky above. By 2005 the school northStudio.commatured in to a separate business concern, the Victoria School of Business and Technology. In doing so we wanted the school to have a recognizeable assocation with northStudio. A clear example of this intention is how both web sites, while residing on different domains, seamlessly flow into one another. The challenge for us was how to make the new logo recognizeable as a northStudio brand yet convey that it was education. We thought then and continue to do so now that an apple was about as iconic a representation of education as it gets. So while morphing the northStudio logo into an apple may not have resulted in the so-called best designed and/or original piece of design work we thought it had clearly scored on the two objectives set out. That, and that alone was the design process and it was in no way inspired by anything to do with Apple.

To further place this in context we launched VSBT and the logo in 2005 with brand new PCs. Macs were first introduced in to VSBT classrooms nearly 3 years later in late 2007. Even now a significant number of PC users bring their own laptops and don't use the Macs. We are an Adobe Authorized Training Centre - the only one in Victoria and on Vancouver Island for that matter. Having our training up to Adobe standards is certainly of importance to us. Adobe and Apple are not related to each other. Trying to captialize on any association with Apple isn't of any beneifit to our programs or our enrollment. We felt the iMacs were a better computer for the Adobe programs we run. An added benefit is that they take up a smaller footprint at the student stations having no tower to bump in to with ones feet. That's how we came to associate ourselves with Apple products.

While we are sure many VSBT students are impressed by the iMacs we would be surprised to hear that any of our students past or present based their enrollement in our school even partially on a perception fostered by our logo that we were associated with and/or endorsed by Apple Computers. If that's you please post it here with your name and class semester and year for all of us to see. If that turns out to be the case we would consider that valuable and significant information to be factored in to any future decisions concerning our logo.VSBT left leaning leaf logo

WE ARE LISTENING TO YOUR FEEDBACK

Monday, October 6, 2008: Many comments have suggested we change our leaf to slant in the other direction. On 10/02/2008 we we posted an image of our logo's leaf slanted to the left asking our readers what they thought. Many readers were on the fence because our leaf slants the same way Apple's does. We have not yet heard from Apple in response to this, however, we are open to changing our logo to the "left slanting" leaf as shown here.

VSBT proposed sticker designWednesday, October 8, 2008: Several comments have raised a concern about the way our frosted windows look without the colour as seen on our home page. We published a photo-shopped version stating that VSBT is NOT affiliated with Apple, but then reposnses came back saying that would be admitting we agree there is a confusion. We don't agree so we'll scrap that idea.

Some readers are confusing Adobe (for which we are an authorized training centre and have posted on our windows) and Apple which is contesting our logo. Adobe and Apple have nothing to do with one another.

Post your Comments below  - The Rules: Keep it clean, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS on Apple, VSBT or anyone else please, and stay on the subject without writing a "thesis" or your comment may flagged for removal

 

Comments

Mon, 12/01/2008 - 12:12

i hope apple doesn't sue

i hope apple doesn't sue anyone who uses the word BootCamp.
Sun, 11/23/2008 - 17:10

Ask Apple Computer why there

Ask Apple Computer why there logo "looks like" or "was based on" the Beatles Apple Records logo.
Tue, 11/11/2008 - 20:55

Another illustration of why

Another illustration of why brands like Apple protect their trademarks: A brand will create variations of its logo to support its business as it changes. (For example, the original Sportsnet logo is a red dot surrounded by a couple of blue intersecting curves; not too long ago, they created new color combinations for their different regions.) Brands must protect against logos that resemble their own so that they maintain the freedom to create those variations as they please. In other words, suppose Apple wanted to create coloured variations of their logo to represent different product lines (or whatever). And suppose they wanted one that was blue and green. If Apple allows VSBT to retain its logo, it could come back to bite them--Apple's plan to create a blue/green version of their own logo would be pre-empted by the existence of the VSBT logo. Yes, this is hypothetical but this another example of why you protect your brand and trademarks.
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 13:15

To Sun, 11/09/2008 - 12:52 -

To Sun, 11/09/2008 - 12:52 - read Apple's letter - do you still think they are not claiming rights to any and all variations of the fruit? Just because they have not gone after some of the others doesn't mean they wouldn't. Reading VSBT's history they only just recently introduced iMacs in to their school - long after they started using their logo. I just don't see how VSBT would gain commercially from associating their school with Apple. Looks more like they caught the attention of an Apple rep when they started purchasing iMacs. In any event I just don't see how the two are similar unless you are looking at them from a legal or a designer's perspective. Even if you were to comapre silhouettes there is still no bite out of the VSBT logo! - Phillip from Brisbane, Australia
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 13:11

Another issue that justifies

Another issue that justifies a brand's protection of their trademark: It is standard practice in branding that a company will produce many variations of their logo for different applications. For e.g. there will be times when they need a black and white version (e.g. when placing an ad in a daily newspaper). Apple has done this. They have a version of their apple that is a silhouette with a single, solid color with no shading. For e.g. it's the first thing I see on my screen when I boot up my Mac; there's also a small one on the tab of my Firefox browser when I'm at www.apple.com. I'm sure there are many more instances of its use. Now, suppose VSBT were to do the same--i.e. create a single-color, no shading, silhouette version of their logo for a similar application. Now, imagine how similar the VSBT and Apple Inc. logos would appear. At a glance, they would be too similar for any court. If this isn't a reason for changing VSBT's logo, it raises an issue that--in my opinion--should have been dealt with in your logo design process. You could argue that you don't think you'll ever need a silhouette version with no color, but that would not be prudent as you never know all your future needs.
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 12:52

To the poster who wrote: "My

To the poster who wrote: "My employer will be in trouble, since we use an apple logo, too! http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us" You likely aren't in trouble. As many have pointed out here, your logo doesn't resemble, in any way, the Apple Inc. logo. Also, you are a county school district; i.e. there is no connection between you and Apple. Put another way, you have nothing to gain commercially or in terms of your brand, even if there was a perceived resemblance. Have you ever been approached by Apple Inc. and told you have to change your logo? I'm guessing not, which again shows that Apple Inc. does not claim ownership of every and all images of apples.
Sun, 11/09/2008 - 11:21

Victoria School should

Victoria School should better think about whether the logo is worth the problems. It is not really a dazzling design. Give the money to a talented designer instead to lawyers.
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 20:11

IMHO. Am guessing that the

IMHO. Am guessing that the VSBT logo falls within the same class of trademarks as the apple logo (if it didn't, there wouldn't be any real issue), which probably explains why the other apple-esque logos haven't received the same attention (or have they?). Either way, I think both parties can win here. Apple in particular benefits from either : (1)succeeding in getting the VSBT logo removed/restrained from being used; (2)getting acknowledgement to some degree that the apple logo has left a lasting impression in people's minds (should help make sure that their marketing people don't get coal in their stockings this xmas); (3)any publicity is good publicity. Just a thought though, do apples not sell well in canada?
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 17:57

Uh-oh... My employer will be

Uh-oh... My employer will be in trouble, since we use an apple logo, too! http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 16:06

Take a BITE out of those

Take a BITE out of those CONGLOMERATES! go VSBT... you'll obviously win.. :)
Tue, 11/04/2008 - 19:10

I voted for Apple. It is

I voted for Apple. It is disheartening to see so many of what are--in my opinion--uninformed views that side with VSBT, but are based on an emotional response to a perceived "David vs. Goliath" scenario. In fact, there are legal principles and precedents in play. If you care to investigate, here are a few links produced from only a few minutes surfing. I haven't done enough research to verify each, but they are consistent with the work I have done as a creative director in branding and logo design: www.sitepoint.com/article/intellectual-property-primer/4/ "When considering whether there is "trademark infringement", the main question a court considers is whether the average consumer would be confused as to the source of the good or service." www.hg.org/article.asp?id=4787 "Trademarks...provide the owner the absolute right to exclude others from the use of a “confusingly similar” name, logo or slogan within the same industry." www.trademarklegalinfo.com/index1_files/Trademark%20Primer.pdf "...a blue rectangular label on the heel and instep of a tennis shoe that reads KEDS is infringed by another tennis shoe company’s use of a blue rectangular label with any word printed on it."
Tue, 11/04/2008 - 10:01

So by now, I assume you have

So by now, I assume you have consulted a lawyer. Don't keep us in suspense: what was their advice?
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 17:33

In order to confuse this

In order to confuse this logo with that of Apple Inc. One must be a blind, ignoramus. Much like Apple Inc. and their vast hordes of soul sucking, undead lawyers.
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 15:29

Just turn the leaf of your

Just turn the leaf of your apple to the other side and you'll be done.
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 12:29

Apple has to defend its

Apple has to defend its Marks to keep them. The cheapest resolution might be for the school to offer to license the rights from Apple for a nominal annual fee.
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 12:24

I really do not understand

I really do not understand how a person that can comprehend visual input can mistake VSBT's logo w/Apple's. Unless drugs are involved. Apple is claiming that they're infringing on their trademark logo but the two images are different, plain and simple. Are people really trying to fight for the fact that the leaf is pointing in same general direction (even though the color and shape are entirely different)? What have things come do when reason is discarded.
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 12:19

Apple stole the logo from

Apple stole the logo from the Beatles. There is no way they should be able to profit from something they stole.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 22:33

i dont think anyone can

i dont think anyone can confuse the 2 logo (silver and colored) but the frosted window has to go. if you block the lower part of the frosted window (by a truck or car) it would look like an apple store.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 22:14

There is far more similarity

There is far more similarity and confusion over the logos for Apple Records and Apple Computer. Your logo is absolutely totally different and non-confusing to even the most casual glance. -Dr. A.E.Mossberg
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 22:11

Apple is way too litigious.

Apple is way too litigious. But they have to be. AAPL is publicly traded company and everyone knows the share holder's interests are at stake. I'm so glad I came to my senses and took my iPhone back. I'm also very glad I realized I don't need to spend $1300+ for a computer! I can easily spend half that and invest the rest on AAPL. lol
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 18:16

Why the bee in Apple Inc.'s

Why the bee in Apple Inc.'s bonnet? Seriously Apple, yours has a bite out of it and is shiny and silver. This school has a mountain, blue green, a graph and a green leaf with a line in the middle. I couldn't confuse these two logos unless I was colour blind, long-sighted and had cataracts the size of Mount Rushmore. There's also the fact that I think it unwise to be trying to trademark a generic fruit and claim all derivatives to be infringing on copryright. Apples (the fruits) are natural, biological products of the earth. Long before Apple Inc. existed, the metaphorical relationship between education and apples (the fruits) was thriving. A lawsuit is a waste of time in my opinion.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 16:06

I've been a 20+ year Mac

I've been a 20+ year Mac user - exclusively- I would never confuse your logo with the Apple logo. Apple should be spending their time doing more productive things. Like offering a matt screen on their MacBook Pros. And making a mid price tower; say for $1200. Market forces are changing. And if Apple doesn't change with them, they will once again fall behind. Their market share will reach a peak.......and then..... Come on Steve. You can do it.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 14:54

Absolute garbage, you cannot

Absolute garbage, you cannot own the image of a piece of fruit. It was never yours to own, if the logos were the same in any way other than being based on the same piece of fruit, ok, but that's not the case here. The only similarity is that they are both images of an apple and there's no way Job's can own that.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 14:22

I voted no as well, it is

I voted no as well, it is clearly very different, and even though the apple is a similarity, didn't Steve Jobs agree with Picasso's saying - 'Good artists copy, Great artists steal', therefore apple has no case against you, this is similar to T-Mobile's immature trademark of the colour Magenta, wth? I bet apple has been trying to get a copyright or trademark on the apple as well. Good luck defending your logo. This sounds like something a 5 year old would do, no one older could possibly see any point in this, I say this as a 13 year old.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 13:33

I hope another technology

I hope another technology company sprouts soon. One that can take the steam away from Apple and give us glossy new products - from a GOOD-NATURED company who isn't worrying about pinching every penny from everyplace they can find and using these pennies to fight worthless causes. The logos are obviously not going to be mistaken for one another. (Insert obligatory cuss word here) off, Apple.
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 13:13

I thought trademarks only

I thought trademarks only applied within the same general field. Apple Computer's trademark would then apply to computers, music players, and the like. As far as I know a business school is in a completly different field, the education field. A field which uses the apple as a public domain icon, I believe.
Tue, 10/28/2008 - 14:11

Apple Inc must have its team

Apple Inc must have its team of hawks who watch this survey and make sure they insert their "OH, SO HONEST AND HEARTFELT OBVIOUS" opinion, following each and every no comment. It is the "republican" way. It is the modern way of distorting the otherwise obviously straight facts. Despite their concerted efforts, though, I voted no. Apple, the humble apple, the juicy fruit has been around for a couple of years longer than Apple Inc, if I recall correctly. The humble Apple first found its fame with the narration of poor old Adam and the astute Eve.......who (ahemmm!) guess what?....She became astute because she ate of the apple, the fruit of knowledge. A school, then, adopting it as its own symbol? Appropriate, especially if it doesn't really look like the logo you use. And while you are at it, Apple Inc, search further – you'll find that BC Apples also uses an apple similar to yours to promote its product, apples. I am an Apple user and love your computer. I have even convinced two members of my family and a friend of mine to buy your product, because it is good. Don't cheapen yourself by adopting this low a crawl road. It doesn't fit the image I have of you. Bruno Cociani
Tue, 10/28/2008 - 13:55

I do not think the main,

I do not think the main, colorful logo is confusing at all. There is plenty of variation. HOWEVER... the silhouetted version in the window with the software posters, is confusing. The variation in the shape is somewhat obscured and its a monochrome gray, more similar to the Apple inc logo. Its also in the context of computer software. It does throw me off when I see that. Whether that changes anything, legally, I couldn't know.
Tue, 10/28/2008 - 13:49

Apple better start sending

Apple better start sending letters to all the quilters! It's the same basic shape as the ones used in 1000's of patterns.
Tue, 10/28/2008 - 13:49

Apple doesn't have much of a

Apple doesn't have much of a case as far as I'm concerned. As Chris with the school said the apple has been an icon to represent education for years and years! Does apple actually have that much time on their hands to try and screw the little guy???
Tue, 10/28/2008 - 13:48

Ridiculous I've been an

Ridiculous I've been an Apple computer user for 15 years and I'm disgusted by their corporate arrogance.
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 12:02

The apples are completely

The apples are completely different shapes!!! A three color logo vs. a single color? Step back an do a distance test … you will see that the basic shape is completely different!!! The only similarity is that they are based off an apple (different apples too.) Another difference is that bite changes the meaning. A whole apple shows health (an apple a day …) and education (an apple given to a teacher). While the bite is reminiscent of the Garden of Eden and temptation. I am a big Apple Inc. fan but I completely disagree with them. Based on their thinking they are the only ones to own an apple orchard!
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 10:52

Obviously this is

Obviously this is ridiculous. No one is confused by this logo. This being said according to law any company who does not vigorously defend their logo can lose it. This is why companies often seek to defend their logo even if they themselves probably don't agree that the logo that they are defending against looks especially like their own. I think laws on this issue need to change. You obviously should not be able to create a registered trademark that encompasses all apples, oranges, the sky, all mountains etc. Their should have to be a very striking relationship between your logo and the one your defending against. Companies also shouldn't have to vigorously defend their trademarks to keep them. I think they should only have to use them.
Sun, 10/26/2008 - 20:37

I voted for Apple. Of all

I voted for Apple. Of all the apple logos you display here--both educational institutions and other businesses--yours bears the closest resemblance to Apple Inc.'s. If I didn't know anything about the legal matter, and you showed me all the logos (including yours), and then told me that one of these logos belonged to a company that was associated with Apple Inc.--if you asked me to identify that company, I would quickly choose the VSBT logo. I'm confident the vast majority of people would do the same. That would demonstrates a reason for Apple's concern.
Sat, 10/25/2008 - 14:40

I voted against Apple by

I voted against Apple by voting no. If the college logo had a bite out of it sure. Otherwise this seems to be an argument for lawyers and designers who likely see this from a different perspective than us regular folks - you know the ones that Apple thinks are too dumb to not be able to tell them apart.
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 19:33

I voted for Apple. You

I voted for Apple. You display "apple" logos of many other educational institutions to illustrate your point that an apple is an icon associated with education. No argument there. Now, how many of those institutions have been told by Apple Inc. to change their logos. I'm guessing none--because they aren't computer/technology schools, and because their apple logos bear no resemblance to the Apple Inc. logo (unlike yours). You also display other businesses with "apple" logos. I recognize a few as companies/organizations still in business and still using their logos. This shows that Apple Inc. doesn't claim "ownership" of any and all apple images. I'm guessing that none of these companies has had any problems with Apple Inc. either--because they aren't in the computer/technology sectors, have nothing to gain from an association with Apple Inc., and their apple logos bear no resemblance to the Apple Inc. logo.
Wed, 10/22/2008 - 15:24

If VSBT was trying to

If VSBT was trying to associate itself with Apple I would agree with the previous comment. From reading their history - running the school for years before introducing iMacs in to their classrooms, morphing their web design company logo in to an apple when the school branched off - I just don't see how they were/are trying to associate themselves with anyone let alone Apple. As noted by previous commentators it is ownership of the very image of the apple itself which is at issue - bite or no bite, Macintosh apple or golden. That is scary and that is morally wrong regardless of whether their legal beagles were able to trademark the fruit. The school's logo looks completely different than Apple's - unless you are a graphic designer and view it from a designer's analytical perspective. In court a designer would no doubt make a good expert witrness for Apple's case. For us everyday folk I simply cannot see how one logo can be confused with the other. - Scott, UK
Tue, 10/21/2008 - 17:40

I voted for Apple. To

I voted for Apple. To posters who are characterizing this as the "big guy" picking on the "little guy": Brands like Apple are perfectly justified in protecting their brands. Smaller companies gain by associating themselves with bigger brands. If the association is legal and they've paid for it--fine. That's why companies pay for the right to be the "official sponsor" of the Olympics or MLB or whoever. That's why companies will pay for the right to say we use such-and-such's coffee in our restaurants, or we use such-and-such's technology in our products. (Or if they don't exactly pay, there is at least some business agreement in place.) If the association is NOT legal, then it has to stop. For example, if I started an athletic shoe company and designed a shoe with three strips down either side of the shoe, I would likely be told to stop. (Btw, I don't even have to name the company for you to know who I'm referring to--that's the power of the brand and why it has to be paid for.) If I made electronic gear, designed them to look like Apple stuff, and put the letter "i" in front of my products' names, I would be told to stop.
Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:53

The Macintosh 128K computer

The Macintosh 128K computer marketed by Apple Inc. was released on January 24, 1984. They appear to use a Macintosh apple with a bite taken out at the right side as their logo, which perhaps indicates "will bite the hand that feeds them" There are many varieties of apple fruit numbering in the hundreds - Apple Inc. appears to have chosen a Macintosh apple as their logo. How can the VSBT logo possibly be a reproduction of Apple Inc? The Victoria School of Business and Technology logo appears to show a Canada Reinette apple..eh, with a mountainscape inside, and also their business name! Apple Inc. should stick with developing new products instead of picking on our Canadian teaching institutions.
Mon, 10/20/2008 - 11:18

Here's what I think, in all

Here's what I think, in all honesty. Apple, the corporate cheese, should not OWN the rights to a fruit. This statement has already been voiced by several others, but I am going to back it up with examples! If I owned a restaurant, and let's just say the name was "Mario's Diner"... Could I not design a logo for my restaurant using the letter "M" simply because there is a large food chain who uses the letter "M" as their icon? Seriously... Or what if I had a comic book/gaming store? What if the name started with the letter "S"? Should people automatically assume that we mainly sell Superman comics? Without me saying the name Superman, would you ever put the letter S to that? I think it's ridiculous. You can't own a letter of the alphabet, why should you be able to have full copyright and "Ownership," of a fruit? Honestly, think of how childish this is? At the rate Apple is going, I could see them waiting in a van outside a dental office, waiting and spying. And the moment somebody pulls out an apple and takes a bite out of it, they'd kick in the windows - full swat team and all - and tackle the person. I wouldn't doubt it. As for a way to fix this little pickle - I like the concept of the leaf tilted to the left. And I think a stem could work. I've been playing around with photoshop and looking at different logo options. I think that'll be the best way. (I know - let's tilt the leaf back to the right, just leave it as is, saturate the whole logo so it's gray, and then erase a bite mark out of the right side... Maybe then Apple will actually have a real reason to fight this...) -D.Hoop
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 23:02

I've had a good look at your

I've had a good look at your case. In the interest of brevity... You are on the mark to slant the leave to the left. You also need to move the TM over to the left. Do that and Apple will lose. End of story. Otherwise.. your work is considered a "prevarication". As such, you will get hammered. It matters not what you intended... but what affects you derived.
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 18:49

as a kid i think it is

as a kid i think it is stupid and immature of apple.
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 18:48

they will always be

they will always be different, it's Canada it is a free country. but on the other hand apple might just want some publicity
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 18:43

Apple has enough money why

Apple has enough money why are they looking for more.
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 18:42

They are totally different,

They are totally different, how could you make the mistake. Apple should not sue you, that's stupid
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 16:22

Heard the Vancouver "Get

Heard the Vancouver "Get Connected" radio broadcast today and went to your web site to see the two logos myself. Yes they are both apples but isn't that then very point that Apple makes - they now own the apple! I don't see how they can be confused. Reading the history of north studios and the college I don't even see the college and Apple relationship until last year when the school started using iMacs. Ironically that seems to have been the event which triggered Apple taking the bite out of the school! Totally weird.
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 14:42

I think your logo, if it

I think your logo, if it were not associated with computers, most likely would've never caught Apple's attention. However, since you are in the computer business, I can see how Apple could view your attempt to draw people into your school with a "similar" catch logo. It isn't a matter of "confusing" the two. Had you used the leaf, pointing to the left side, or a stem as suggested above, Apple would've no case against you.
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 14:39

The only similarity is the

The only similarity is the overall outer shape of the apple logo, minus the bite, but even that has a little difference such as the little bump under the leaf. But, how much difference can you offer for a standard apple shape? The mountains/hills/colours differentiate dramatically. I would agree that reversing the leaf direction would be good, not only for offering an olive branch to Apple by adding further differentiation, but I feel it looks better. The green, left-slanted leaf counter-balances the green hills on the lower right side. Make the minor change and stick to your guns >>> if you can afford to. Apple has a BIG $ stick. Good luck!
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 14:17

hi chirs, i just was

hi chirs, i just was listening to u in the radio and I agree with you 100%. I am boycotting 'apple' products after hearing this broadcast...no one can OWN the concept of a fruit...give me a break. I fully support your case!! Since Apple stole it from Xerox PARC...I am exciting to being my boycott!!! POWER TO THE UNDERDOG!!
Sat, 10/18/2008 - 14:15

Apple Computer Inc has been

Apple Computer Inc has been related to computers and software since the 70's. When I see your logo, I think of Apple Computers. If your were not related to computers at all I could see your agrument, but... Sorry, I have to side with the big corp on this one.
123456789…next ›last »

Post new comment

kool fm vsbt open house

drupal bootcamp

victoria bed and breakfast

Syndicate

Syndicate content

drupal certification course

Victoria Campus
301-771 Vernon Ave.
Victoria, BC
V8X 5A7
250.721.9991
1-800-215-6702
Contact Us
Location

Vancouver Satellite Campus
927 W. 8th Ave.
Vancouver, BC
V5Z 1E4
604.568.4500
1-866-819-3756
Contact Us
Location

New Brunswick Satellite Campus
8 Industrial
Eel River Crossing, NB
E8E 1P8
506.826.3502
1-877-691-3500
Contact Us
Location

yoga teacher training