Today, I read an article about how Apple, Inc. is suing New York City (aka, the Big Apple) for their environmental logo.  The claim by Apple is:

• the New York logo was “likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception in the minds of consumers.”

AND

• their internationally known logo was the one true corporate representation of tree-borne fruit.

So what do you think?  Here are the two logos, side by side. 

I think I understand though - Apple, Inc. is just paying forward their experience with Apple Records (or Apple Corp) which sued them in the seventies for use of the logo.   

The result of that litigation is that $80K went to Apple Records, and Apple Inc agreed to stay out of the music business.  That was until, in 2003, Apple opened its iTunes music store and the fight renewed.  Apple Corps lost that legal battle, but Apple, Inc. and Apple Corps settled their continued disputes privately not long after that.  Take a look at the logo comparison, and you can see why Apple, Inc. might have originally said, “What the heck?” (and if we included the original rainbow apple from the 70’s/80’s, it would be even more of a difference.)

Still, it doesn’t appear that Apple Corps ever claimed that it was the “one true corporate representation of tree-borne fruit.”  But Apple, Inc. appears to have learned a lesson from all of this - and apple is an apple is an apple, and they all should belong to Steve Jobs.

Seriously, Apple thinks people might become confused about the logos because all apples reference Apple, Inc.?   Even when New York City has been called the Big Apple since the 1800’s? Look out Adam and Eve and the story of creation! (hat-tip to a comment to the original article.)

Additionally, NYC’s goals are for environmental awareness and efforts to make the city greener.  Apple, Inc. is fighting a positive reform action that NYC is trying to take.

And the reasoning isn’t exactly parallel to the previous case where Apple Corp said, “Hey man, just keep your Apple out of the music business and we’ll be cool.” Apple, Inc. is claiming it owns the image of apples - in any corporate market.  ONE TRUE CORPORATE REPRESENTATION OF TREE-BORNE FRUIT.  Does that include plums and pears, as well as other tree-borne fruit?  Can you “own” the image of something natural?  Or is it really that you can own an interpretation of that natural item?

It really sounds a lot like fundamentalism.  “One true corporate representation” is eerily close to “one true God,” don’t you think?

I feel I have a message for Apple, Inc. : There’s this term called HUBRIS.  You should look it up.  It’s almost always accompanied by a great fall.

[Edit - Check out the Complaint filed by Jizo Sama.  Hilarious.]