Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I could be wrong but seem to remember Subway showing McDonalds' logo while doing their fat comparisons.
Perhaps, but more often than not, it's a parody version which is immediately recognizable but not an actual reproduction. You can't trademark every yellow, arched M, but rather only your implementation. The approximation factor allows you to fight someone's attempt to adopt a close facsimile of your logo in the same market sector on the grounds that it causes confusion. You cannot, however, prevent a competitor from using a similar likeness in their marketing if they are not trying to use that logo for their own products.
Since you're not using someone else's logo as your own logo, I don't see how that could be restricted.
Logos are trade- and service marks which are protected intellectual property. You cannot use them without permission in a public capacity without authorization. What you can use (with proper citation) is the name (in speech or non-stylized text). I (as a corporation) can talk about a Macintosh or a Big Mac or an F-150 so long as I acknowledge that the name is owned by someone else. I can't use the Apple logo or any stylized marks (e.g. an exact replica of the iMac label) in my commercial or my marketing brochure. In fact, I can't use the product logo, period, even outside of marketing, without an arrangement stipulated by both the program producers and the product manufacturer (royalties/product placement/etc.). Sometimes logos creep into photos and videos accidentally and aren't cleared, but usually there is no need to take action for this so companies let it slide, especially if it's a small operation and an innocent violation.
 
Logos are trade- and service marks which are protected intellectual property. You cannot use them without permission in a public capacity without authorization. What you can use (with proper citation) is the name (in speech or non-stylized text). I (as a corporation) can talk about a Macintosh or a Big Mac or an F-150 so long as I acknowledge that the name is owned by someone else. I can't use the Apple logo or any stylized marks (e.g. an exact replica of the iMac label) in my commercial or my marketing brochure. In fact, I can't use the product logo, period, even outside of marketing, without an arrangement stipulated by both the program producers and the product manufacturer (royalties/product placement/etc.). Sometimes logos creep into photos and videos accidentally and aren't cleared, but usually there is no need to take action for this so companies let it slide, especially if it's a small operation and an innocent violation.

Of course you're correct. And I can't even think of another example.... Not even in the Coke vs. Pepsi campaign.... and I'm probably wrong about the McDonald's logo in the Subway ads.
 
I just found this photo from the opening of the Apple Store in Bentall Centre UK:
AppleStore-Bentall-Apple-Vista-Logo.jpg
 
Regarding trademark infringement, in Microsoft's case it's a bit of a yes and a no. Mind you, in principle everything you folks have said is true, but...
  1. Microsoft, except for their own name, uses and/or has used an unmodified version of Franklin Gothic (in one of it's several weights), and Franklin Gothic is a out-in-the-general-public font, not a proprietary one created for Microsoft. (Note: this stands in direct contrast to the font that Apple used to use prior to the switch to Mac OS X. That font was a proprietary variant of Garamond created by Adobe for Apple.)
  2. Though I'm not sure off the top of my head what font it is exactly that Microsoft's using for their Vista marketing, it does not look unfamiliar to me, so I strongly doubt it, either, is a proprietary and/or custom font.
  3. Microsoft has and continues to market their OS product as "Microsoft Windows xxx". And now with Vista, 66% of their product name are dictionary words, not unique proper nouns nor a unique proper noun.

In other words, as a practical matter, Apple (and/or other entities out there) can go pretty darn far before Microsoft can actually do anything.

EDIT: Actually, it looks like Microsoft's new font choice is Helvetica. Not sure if it's traditional Helvetica or Helvetica Neue (or one of the other couple variants out there), but it's one of that line.
 
[*] Microsoft, except for their own name, uses and/or has used an unmodified version of Franklin Gothic (in one of it's several weights)...
It doesn't matter what typefaces are used for text in the course of advertising. The only possible problem is if a company used a typeface for which they had no license. In terms of advertising, however, Apple could start using the font used on Vista's packaging tomorrow without consequence.

The issue only arises where a product label is displayed in perfect fidelity--that's why almost no products are straight products of a commercial typeface. They'll vary the shape of one or more letters or alter the size. Take Microsoft's logo as a simple example--all in a single typeface, except where the o and the s collide. There must be something distinctive in order for it to be registered.
 
Nuts...

:apple: I practically grew up using nothing but mac/apple in school but have no trouble using windows when I was able to afford one. In fact, it was my first owning a computer and this is true for most of my classmates also ended up purchasing a PC and we’re all loving it; who gives a crap how pretty the mac/apple is when you can buy a system that is cheaper and does its job quite well without breaking your bank. The money that I save would be best use for more important items such as car of down payment for a house. Unlike most mac/apple users, PC users doesn’t live, breath around their computer 24-hours a day; we have other hobbies besides staring at the monitor all day admire every little superficial thing the stupid things looks. After all the hype thought out its existent, mac/apple user share is still a single digit percentage; what a looser. Talk about switch! :eek:

BTW, let’s talk about upgrade shall we. Funny I need to purchase a bunch of RAMS and increase my Hard Drive capacity for this old Pentium 4 3.0GHz in so that I could install Vista :rolleyes: while those pre-Intel os9 Mac need to ditch the system altogether to UPGRADE to osx :mad: . Talk about hypocrite!

Now go and envy your self in front of the mirror please for all your hard earned money that sinking into an over bloated system full of craps. :D
 
Wow that made no sense. My OS 9 systems upgraded to OS X just fine. I've got seven year old systems runnings OS X.
 
A $1299 2.0 C2D isn't what I would call breaking the bank, and the performance is near to what you'll find in the cutting edge systems elsewhere. Granted, it doesn't have the video card and such, but the C2D simply don't go past 2.33, so far as I know.
 
If macbooks had a graphics card and a faster hard drive and procesor the battery life would be terrible. It wouldn't be a good protable anymore it would be more like a desktop replacement. We have to consider the whole package its almost like "equivalent exchange". I think now days more people are leaning towards the portable but at the same time missing the processing power of their destops.
 
I'm still a PC user and I must say those Apple ads are dead on correct. They crack me up everytime I see them because they are so true!

In all honesty those ads have made me more curious about what a Mac has which is evenutally going to lead to me switching to a Mac (Saving up the $$, waiting for Leopard and possibly a new version iMac)

So good for Apple in running a great ad campaign.

I agree with the one user in here that said something along the lines of ..."if Microsoft had a good product they would have nothing to worry about.."

Go get'em Apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.