It is similar. Sure, it's got a mountain inside and shading, but what happens when it's printed in a single colour? I think Apple have a point with this one.

The logo's crap as it is anyway - they should count themselves lucky this gives them a chance to design a decent logo from scratch.

Apple is the agency of the devil; it's true...why else did the Apple logo have a bite out of it?? Lol..see secret kabbalistic meaning in the names of Jobs and Woz.....you'll be amazed! Ok that last part's a joke but they seem mighty defensive about their *ahem* (avoiding future litigation here) fruit of the pyrus malus (tree) type logo don't they? Like there'd be any confusion....*sigh*

They're just turning into bully boys these days...it's sad...

maybe I should sue anyone who makes money out of my surname and is younger than me, I had right to it before they did afterall (not relatives though, unfortunately!)

Pirates coz that's wa' dey are bein'!

Has Apple poached any Microsoft PR staff recently? Or Maybe Stevie J is colourblind... I think we should be told.

They copied an apple !

NOBODY ELSE should have the right to use apples.

SUE THEM ALL, SUE THE FRUIT VENDORS TOO.

DAMN SNEAKY CAPITALIST BASTARDS TRYING TO SURF ON APPLE'S FAME !!!!111!!!!!

Am I doing it right yet ?

Stupid Apple retards...

It was not that long ago that Maccy had this type of arguemnet with Macca and the Beatles Trust regarding the use of Apple and music. There while the shoe was on the other foot they argued that there could be no confusion.

Wonder if they will get upset if the school in this case uses thier own arguements against them.

Okay, same sort of shape, sure (but how many different shapes can you get out of an apple?), but otherwise in terms of colouring and stuff, it's completely different.

I keep going into their store thinking its an Ann Summers...

Microsoft actually lost that case initially, and paid $20 million to Lindows to change their name to Linspire

If you don't actively defend a trademark, you lose it.

And yes, there's no way this college didn't know what they were doing; It's the Technology department, ffs.

Like 'em or not, Apple has a point in this case.

Are apple going to try to take Tesco to court for selling apples?

can't wait until they try and sue Hereford County Council, after all they have a web site....

PS. these people are too Polite in their responses.

Mine would read.

Dear Apple Laywers,

FUCK OFF!

Yours

Fred Smith

Apple are shooting themselves in the foot here. Like the guy who wrote the rebuttal said, are they inferring that any educational institution with an apple-like logo is infringing patent? The school apparently uses exclusively apple machines - why deliberately lose that business?

One of the suggestions is to change the leaf angle. Seems fair to me.

...as part of a logo is going to attract this bully-boy litigation? I hope the judge fines Apple for wasting court time.

If they'll go after these guys then I guess the Ann Summers company should keep an eye over their shoulder.

No wait, they've got a few quid so they're probably alright...

Clam.

.. really, really busy. Or at least their legal department is. I have seen huge numbers of fruit trees all bearing items that look remarkably like the Apple Logo.

I assume that Apple, Inc. will be taking legal action against God, Nature, the Planet for producing so many copies of it's logos.

Grow up Apple, Inc. !! Stop playing the spoilt wee brat......

MS didn't get Lindows banned, aprt from that your arguement is flawless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._Lindows

What's the "apple" connection with the school exactly? Why would you even want your school associated with an apple? Given that apple is a big tech company, and they're a tech teaching place, you'd have thought they'd have seen this coming ...

Also, the leaf goes the same way in both logos. An accident? Can you not draw an apple without a leaf on it for some reason?

It looks very much like they started with Apple's logo and worked on the design just enough (or so they thought) for it to be different from Apple's logo. Why? For the love of god why?

Just when I think I've no more respect left for Apple, I find I can still lose just a little bit more. But I'm sure that must be my limit now.

Hell's teeth, if they've got nothing better to worry about than some obscure college somewhere using a fruit-based logo then I envy them. This is pathetic, petty-minded bullying. I could understand it if someone had set up in business *doing what Apple do* using a logo that looks like theirs, but they haven't.

The first commenter here said that, if printed in mono, the logos would look similar. They wouldn't. As pointed out, the apple is a different shape and includes mountains. Apple, apparently, forgot to include mountains and had a bite taken out of their apple.

Or is the implication that Apple have somehow been able to copyright the shape of an apple? In which case, I suggest the company prost... lawyers... might have some trouble bringing Mother Nature to book. What, I wonder, was the reason for them taking that bite out of the side of their own logo in the first place? Was it, perchance, in order to make it *distinctive*?

So. Different colour logos. Different shape logos. Entirely different purpose for the 'company': Apple produce overpriced novelty gadgets; the university provides education. So it's hard to see how the two could be confused at all.

On the other hand, whoever has the most money makes the law, so I can't imagine the university would have any hope of winning if it came to court. And if Apple's who... lawyers... are at a loose end and feel like suing random educational establishments out of existence on asinine pretexts, then I can't imagine anything would stop them going ahead. If I was the university I'd perhaps alter the logo so that the leaf was pointing to the left instead of the right, and hope it's enough to placate Jobs' heavies.

...is that it is easy to accidentally immitate and cause offence. Not only do we have patent trolls, we now have logo trolls too, it seems.

Paris, because she is also easy to immitate and causes offence.

It's also eerily similar to the Beatles' Apple Corp logo i.e. it is an apple. Which do you think came first?

If they don't protect their trademark then others can come in and use the fact they didn't protect it in this case against them. So this is not Apple being evil this is what they have to do.

Paris - coz even Paris knows that!

This prooves that Apple really is not the nice family orientated company all the fanboy's claim it is... It really is a ruthless, moral less, mean and hypocritical industrial behemoth!

Thumbs down because the logo has a very vague familiarity to it... OF COURSE it is an apple as in the Fruit apple..

Maybe the black helicopters need to go to sunnyvale (Wasn't that where Buffy lived? Maybe Apple is taken over by the vampires)

Apple are to sue Disney for use of an apple in the Snow White cartoon. The apple in question is one used by the Wicked Queen to poison Snow White. Apple are concerned that the use of the poisoned fruit may reflect poorly on their own snow white public image.

The Wicked Witch commented that 'Mr Jobs is likely to receive a pineapple suppository'. Snow White was unavailable for comment, believed to be hibernating.

the issaquah schools foundation

http://www.issaquahschoolsfoundation.org/

apple-b building & plastering limited

http://www.applebltd.co.uk/

and the boy with the apple birthmark

http://www.2dayblog.com/images/2008/june/apple_kid.jpg

I note that this apple doesn't have a bite taken out of the side, which was seen in the Apple v. Apple Corps. case as one of the defining characteristics.

Therefore I believe it may be relevant to point out that the apple has been a symbol of knowledge and learning ever since ... well, the Garden of Eden. That's pretty much the oldest one in the book, that is.

The head dosn't understand that VSBT isn't an acronym.

Thicky.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/apple-vs-apple/#clip99805

for those who think the logos looks similar in grey scale it appears in the video and looks even more different.

nuff said.

How familiar.

Logo's shit though, both of them.

While I support the right of businesses to protect their trademarks and intellectual property, after all, they own it, I feel that this one, and also the task dock are reaching. Is Apple really that desperate for cash?

If I had one tenth of the money Steve Jobs has, I'd be considered rich!

...or should Apple be negotiating SPONSORSHIP of the college in appreciation of their ongoing custom , obvious hero-worship and low-cost media coverage they've gained from this.

The Joberati are missing a trick here.

Also, Microshaft should pay an advertising levy to the owner of any building with more than one window.

Paris, because she knows how to work bad publicity into profitable publicity.

<< If they don't protect their trademark then others can come in and use the fact they didn't protect it in this case against them. So this is not Apple being evil this is what they have to do. >>

If there was any similarity at all between the two logos, aside the general shape of an apple, then I'd agree. Or if the college was setting out to manufacture and sell shiny technological baubles to the status-conscious, then maybe there'd be a case to say that Apple need to 'protect' their logo.

But again, this isn't anything like their logo, beyond the shape of an apple - and I'd be interested to know if copyright law allows them exclusive rights to a naturally occurring object; because if it does it's clearly insane.

Like I said, they took that bite out of their own apple for a reason. What was the reason, do we think?

The Canadians have a border around their apple.

The Canadians are missing (or is that gaining?) the bite out of their apple.

The Canadians have their logo written inside their apple

The Canadians apple is a different shape to Apples' apple.

Still, the main point should be- why did they choose an apple as their logo if not to copy Apple? And why would a tech department want to copy Apple? A design (or prickish self-publicist) department sure but not a tech department.

<< Yes VSBT - (V)ictoria (S)chool of (B)usiness and (T)echnology is an acronym so perhaps you should be willing to go to that school and less willing to throw insults. >>

Actually, it's not. Strictly speaking an acronym is an abbreviation by initial letters that results in a pronounceable word. Laser, sonar and radar are acronyms; as are NASA and NATO*. But VSBT is just an abbreviation. Which I suspect is what Dennis was getting at.

---

* Yes, before anyone picks me up on it, strictly speaking *because* they're acronyms I should probably write them Nasa and Nato - but for some reason I think they look a bit weird like that, so I don't.