A company that immediately sues whenever a fruit logo appears, that's Apple.

Honestly, the Apple logo is well-designed. I admit that.

A bitten apple. Simple, memorable, and it casts a "premium" spell wherever it's placed.

Just a single apple on the MacBook lid makes people feel it's premium.

It's a victory of marketing, not of the product.

But why is this logo shaped like a bitten apple?

There's no profound reason. It's just to make it look like an apple.

If it weren't bitten, it would look like a cherry. That's all there is to it.

Later, stories like "bite and byte overlap, it's a tribute to Turing" were attached, but most of that is narrative added by later generations.

Apple fans love to assign meaning, not just to the logo.

And this apple is, surprisingly, much worse than it seems haha.

When talking about logos, trademark disputes are unavoidable.

Apple is a top-tier player in this field as well.

This is not a compliment.

Let's look at the facts.

In 2011, a small café in Germany called Apfelkind (meaning something like "apple child") received a warning from Apple for using a logo of a baby holding a green apple. Is the café competing with smartphones?

In 2019, a small food company in Poland, A.pl, started a legal battle after using an apple logo.

The Swiss federal government logo (a shield with a cross + an apple) was also once challenged by Apple, but they faced public backlash.

Recently, they even threatened a U.S. startup using a pear-shaped logo with potential infringement.

It's not even an apple, but a pear.

"There's a possibility of confusion" is Apple's go-to argument.

But let's think rationally. Is there anyone on Earth who would look at a café logo and think, "Oh? Is that where they make iPhones?"

Apple's position is not legally incorrect. If trademarks are not actively defended, their effectiveness weakens.

If you allow something similar once, the logic of "why can they do it and we can't" arises later.

So, the corporate legal team blocks even the smallest issues early on. It's textbook trademark management.

But the problem with Apple is that they follow that textbook too faithfully.

The opponents are mostly startups, small businesses, or even individual entrepreneurs.

Do you think these entities can fight against Apple's legal team? Just the cost of responding to a lawsuit can take down a small company.

So, in the end, they change their logos. The outcome Apple desires is achieved.

Without even fighting.

It's a logic of power. Pretending to be a logic of law.

The conclusion is this:

The Apple logo is a well-made logo. I acknowledge that value.

But if the way to protect that value is by "suppressing everyone weaker than us," then that's not brand power, it's bullying power.

The saying, "If you're going to make a fruit logo, think of Apple first," is spreading like a joke, but it's sad that this has become a reality.

A world where a single natural item, a fruit, feels like it's already under the domain of a corporate giant.

What the bitten apple has left behind is not just a great design. It has also instilled a fear that while drawing a fruit, your design might get sued.

That's probably what Apple wants... Maybe if a company called 'Pineapple' emerges, it will be around the time Apple starts to decline.