Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration? There is a big difference although some don't seem to distinguish the two.
And yes, the difference between the logos is substantial.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Opposes Logo Trademarked by Norwegian Political Party
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anti immigration or anti illegal immigration? There is a big difference although some don't seem to distinguish the two.
And yes, the difference between the logos is substantial.
Mike Rowe got a pretty good return from that encounter though. It was nothing obscene, but decent chunk of change for a teenager and he got to come out as the nominal winner.
The difference here is the fact that they applied for the trademark in the areas of Computer Software and Digital Media, as well as areas that could include things like phone cases.
Erm, uh, Keys, I don't think Apple is doing much good on that front…
Wait, actually scratch that; the leaf is pointed up! The emoji is perfect!
I believe Apple Records did exactly that back in the late 1970s. The judge ruled in favor of Apple Computer, because it was clear they were not a music company and therefore there was not likely to be any consumer confusion about the two different entities.
This reminds me of when McDonald's sued Macdonald's restaurant in Scotland that was like 500 years old lol
(& as a Swenska, GOOD FOR APPLE!
FILTHY, FILTHY NORWEGIANS!!
SHAME!! SHAME ON NORWAY!!
BOOO!! HISSSS!!)
~ SVERIGE ÄR NUMMER ENT! ~
(& as a Swenska, GOOD FOR APPLE!
FILTHY, FILTHY NORWEGIANS!!
SHAME!! SHAME ON NORWAY!!
BOOO!! HISSSS!!)
~ SVERIGE ÄR NUMMER ENT! ~
(your doctor can help you get your leaf up, if you want)Erm, uh, Keys, I don't think Apple is doing much good on that front…
View attachment 824894
Wait, actually scratch that; the leaf is pointed up! The emoji is perfect!
I believe Apple Records did exactly that back in the late 1970s. The judge ruled in favor of Apple Computer, because it was clear they were not a music company and therefore there was not likely to be any consumer confusion about the two different entities.
Indeed. I'm pretty sure the two entities have some sort of agreement considering all the Apple Records music that is available on iTunes and Apple Music: Beatles; Badfinger; Mary Hopkins; James Taylor's first album; etc... There's even an Apple Records various artists collection which has the Apple Records label as its cover art.
Apple Dentist, on the other hand might want to watch out...
Since this discusses Fremskridtspartiet, you might want to put this in the political forum...
Whilst I disagree heavily with this party, they're totally in the right using this logo.
Whilst I disagree heavily with this party, they're totally in the right using this logo.
THAT might need a specialist
(i'm only a pediatric intern, i don't know much about gangrene, sorry)
Unless Apple trademarked that exact picture of the Apple, I don't see their lawsuit being victorious. I think they are chasing their proverbial legal tails.
That’s how trademark and copyright law works in general. There are likely nuances but failure to defend is pretty much universal.
[doublepost=1551827963][/doublepost]
The original settlement prevented Apple Computer from making or selling music, which some interpreted to mean any polyphonic sound.
The original Mac started up with a “bong” sound.
As Apple evolved, they created the startup “chime” and also the system sound called sosumi, which was a homonym for SO SUE ME, as a joke about the Apple Records Agreement.
For Apple to start the iTunes store, they had to come to new terms with Apple Records because they were in direct violation of their agreement.
Did you miss the part where this company intends to put the logo onto computer software and digital media? This is the part that makes it relevant for them.
It's not worth mentioning because their political affiliation has nothing to do with the logo design similarities (or rather, lack thereof) with Apple's logo.
I wonder how much it costs the innocent company to defend their use of their (obviously not infringing) logo? That hardly seems fair...
It's silly because this looks nothing like Apple's logo. Trust me, Apple won't lose their logo if they leave this one alone.
The law requires Apple to defend it's trademarks, yes. However, it does not require them to defend every alleged trademark violation... and they don't. This particular alleged violation never should have seen the light of day.
No one would be confused by this:
