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
"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.
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 matured 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.
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.
Wednesday, 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
I completely disagree with anyone suggesting that you change your logo design just because Apple is a corporate "bully". Doing that would be admitting that Apple's argument actually has merit, which it absolutely does not. I think your current logo is a great design, and does not need to change.
Your letter labeled Re: Apple Inc - Apple Logo trade-mark was a brilliant response.
I agree that the original logo does not appear to infringe on the Apple Computers logo, however, if you look at the logo that is displayed in the windows of the school (large white verisons of the VSBT) it would apperar to passer-bys that the logo (mixed with Microsoft and Adobe) would advertise that it is an Apple Computers based learning center.
Even though I do not think the logo's look the same (I voted No); there are some similarities that I could see would cause issues for Apple. Since Apple was around long before VSBT and they would have the dollars to fight; it may make sense from a shareholders/investor point of view if VSBT was to revisit their design? Forget principle, in business its about money and keeping the business going. Personally, if this was my business I would not have ventured anywhere near a design that remotely resembled a corporate giant. It’s too risky. They have people always on the lookout for copyright infringements. Why venture into or near that territory? Surely you can find a designer with some totally original ideas that represent learning and technology but their designs are new and different. Your situation reminds me of how old songs become new again when a younger person re-does the song in their own way (e.g. Mariah Carey doing Foreigner’s “I want to know what love is”). I always think couldn’t they come up with something completely new and original?
yes apple is right. for the simple reason that they own the "apple" logo as a trademark in technology; training, marketing etc.. the same area you are offering services!
What is the relevancy of the apple with your company? studio north ? how do you get to an apple.. IMO you are asking for them to sue you.. good luck
It doesn't even look alike. Grow up, stop picking rotten Apples. It's the legal beagles who hang around like vultures who can't discern apples from oranges. I thought Job was a smart man and quite capable of discerning fruits. Stop being such a bully and leave this little school alone. I noticed in the news telecast the schoolclassroom were using Apples. How bizarre? Apple "sit on it"!
Clearly it is not the same but it is such a well known [ie. overused] mark.
I think whoever designed the SV logo was being irresponsible and the committee that accepted should have known better. It is so similar to such a huge companies logo you wonder if it was a cheap way to get some publicity?
Why not create an original mark in order to distinguish yourself? Hire someone that can do that. Even if you think your mark is different enough from Apple Computers [and all the other similar apple based logos out there] it still comes across as derivative at best and a parody at worst.
Even if you are allowed to keep it why would you? You can call me blunt and critical but I have designed logos for businesses and it is about creating a distinguishing mark that distills the essence of the company. It should try to avoid aligning itself—by being cliché or derivative—with other businesses. Possibly tough to do but you can't get much more cliché than an apple.
yuridoric[dot]com
that's retarded, methinks apple is over exaggerating its trademark policy. otherwise why isnt it bitching over the apple fruit companies that use apple as a logo? this seems like apple wants to be the dominant "apple"
There is no reason Apple should try to dispute their logo. In my opinion, it doesn't look the same. Yes, both are apples, but I wouldn't confuse it with Apple's logo. Especially with VSBT written inside the apple! Come on now, I love Apple, but get a grip!
This is obviously a corporate ploy by Apple Inc. to get attention via negative reinforcement, an age-old tactic that subconciously convinces the combative part of the brain that 'you can't go wrong with the giant'.
I believe that Apple is not doing this for the money; rather to take the news away from Steve Jobs's illness & to keep Apple fresh in people's minds, since with this recession, more & more people are slowing down on technology purchases.
Apple should not force the school to change their logo, however if they want it so much, why doesn't Apple supply the school with a special annual tuition grant for students to apply for who cannot normally afford continuing education. This would be an excellent way to give back to the community and initiative / persuation for the school to change the logo.
The fact that the apple growers didn't sue Apple speaks volumes. Even if they had I would have hoped the growers would have lost. How do you patent a thought?
The VSBT logo gives me the impression that if I enroll on a course I will be taught on an Apple platform with Apple software. I can understand their point entirely. Rather than waste everyone’s time and money, why don't you just change the logo?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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???
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!
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.
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.
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.
Read the February 04, 2009 Apple Legal Letter
matured 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.
Wednesday, 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.
Comments
Apple did not get to
I completely disagree with
I agree that the original
Even though I do not think
yes apple is right. for the
It doesn't even look alike.
Clearly it is not the same
that's retarded, methinks
There is no reason Apple
why there is a bit apple in
This is obviously a
Apple should not force the
The fact that the apple
take this publicity
The VSBT logo gives me the
i hope apple doesn't sue
Ask Apple Computer why there
Another illustration of why
To Sun, 11/09/2008 - 12:52 -
Another issue that justifies
To the poster who wrote: "My
Victoria School should
IMHO. Am guessing that the
Uh-oh... My employer will be
Take a BITE out of those
I voted for Apple. It is
So by now, I assume you have
In order to confuse this
Just turn the leaf of your
Apple has to defend its
I really do not understand
Apple stole the logo from
i dont think anyone can
There is far more similarity
Apple is way too litigious.
Why the bee in Apple Inc.'s
I've been a 20+ year Mac
Absolute garbage, you cannot
I voted no as well, it is
I hope another technology
I thought trademarks only
Apple Inc must have its team
I do not think the main,
Apple better start sending
Apple doesn't have much of a
Ridiculous I've been an
The apples are completely
Obviously this is
I voted for Apple. Of all
I voted against Apple by
Post new comment