Dubstepforum.com

I do. It keeps me up at night.

Seriously, what is the story behind it? Perhaps those Croydon folk just have a heightened sense of humour?

actually, i HAVE wondered this. probably says something about the extent of my boredom.

thats a good question!

Is this serious? It's a juxtaposition. Laugh at it!!

Largin up N-Type, Hatcha, John, Skream, Artwork, Benga and the lot involved in Big Apple!

lol. never thought of that.

sorry to sound like a pretentious bastard but i think its being ironic, big up the big apple crew

ive wondered this too, it doesnt really make much sense. But then big banana records doesnt sound right does it...

big apple, split banana

the two go hand in hand don't they?

confused me, but not as quickly as it should've done. took a while for me to notice, worryingly enough.

They probably didn't consider it but Apple records (the beatles one) would probably have sued them, if they had used an apple as a logo. If not Apple Computers probably would have.

http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ight=apple

Jonnyrebel wrote:ive wondered this too, it doesnt really make much sense. But then big banana records doesnt sound right does it...

haha

big banana records sounds heavy.

time to start my own label

scoz wrote:They probably didn't consider it but Apple records (the beatles one) would probably have sued them, if they had used an apple as a logo. If not Apple Computers probably would have.

yes to apple records having an intellectual property case against them for trademark infringement, no to apple computers.

under IP law, you can only be found guilty of trademark infringement if your business is clearly within the same industry as the claimant's. in other words, the similarity in logos must be shown to pose a competitive threat to the claimant's business.

ie music = yes, computers = no.


(i think that's maybe one of the only things i retained from my IP course at law school)

nesslei wrote:

scoz wrote:They probably didn't consider it but Apple records (the beatles one) would probably have sued them, if they had used an apple as a logo. If not Apple Computers probably would have.

yes to apple records having an intellectual property case against them for trademark infringement, no to apple computers.

under IP law, you can only be found guilty of trademark infringement if your business is clearly within the same industry as the claimant's. in other words, the similarity in logos must be shown to pose a competitive threat to the claimant's business.

ie music = yes, computers = no.


(i think that's maybe one of the only things i retained from my IP course at law school)

But also now of course, Apple own itunes which complicates matters somewhat as they've entered the music industry which they had agreed with Apple Corp not to do many years ago...hence the Beatles' back- catalogue taking so long to be made available in itunes.

But mainly, bananas are cooler.

Test Conditions wrote:

nesslei wrote:

scoz wrote:They probably didn't consider it but Apple records (the beatles one) would probably have sued them, if they had used an apple as a logo. If not Apple Computers probably would have.

yes to apple records having an intellectual property case against them for trademark infringement, no to apple computers.

under IP law, you can only be found guilty of trademark infringement if your business is clearly within the same industry as the claimant's. in other words, the similarity in logos must be shown to pose a competitive threat to the claimant's business.

ie music = yes, computers = no.


(i think that's maybe one of the only things i retained from my IP course at law school)

But also now of course, Apple own itunes which complicates matters somewhat as they've entered the music industry which they had agreed with Apple Corp not to do many years ago...hence the Beatles' back- catalogue taking so long to be made available in itunes.

But mainly, bananas are cooler.

yes, i thought about the iTunes factor. definitely complicates matters...

intellectual property is actually a really interesting area of the law. if i practised it would definitely be in trademarks and patents.

it was purely out of madness.....
the original guy who owned apple just said it would be funny...
no lawsuits envolved....

Deapoh wrote:

Is this serious? It's a juxtaposition. Laugh at it!!

Largin up N-Type, Hatcha, John, Skream, Artwork, Benga and the lot involved in Big Apple!

juxtaposition... good word!

someone told me it meant 'MEN ONLY'

but ive yet to see evidence for or against this claim ?

FlashHarry wrote:someone told me it meant 'MEN ONLY'

but ive yet to see evidence for or against this claim ?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
thats a fence......
no trespassing.....
im so mash i find this funny!!!!!!!!