iLounge

1

apple’s getting pwn3d.

Posted by m on November 4, 2005 at 3:14 PM (PST)

2

I care for neither Eminem or Lugz, but I must admit, the two ads bear a striking resemblence.
I’ld sue. (and I like Apple)

Posted by MirandaKali in D.C. on November 4, 2005 at 3:52 PM (PST)

3

I don’t see the point of suing.  The Original ad is three years old.  I had never heard of Lugz footwear before they whined about this.  Seems like they are just jockeying for attention.

Posted by Cameron Talley on November 4, 2005 at 4:06 PM (PST)

4

“I had never heard of Lugz footwear before they whined about this.”

So you’re sheltered and clueless and that means no one knows Lugz?

It’s THE premier footwear in hip-hop/R&B circles. Even us dumb white kids know what Lugz are.  Damn.

Posted by stark23x on November 4, 2005 at 4:20 PM (PST)

5

What exactly is the “statute of limitations” on a commercial? I mean, it’s not that the Lugz commercial is in wide circulation. Can someone from the 70’s have a claim then too for something produced today? Sounds pretty weak to me.

Posted by Boris34 on November 4, 2005 at 4:42 PM (PST)

6

Why would Apple have that disgusting so-called human eminem in one of their commercials?

Posted by bob on November 4, 2005 at 6:55 PM (PST)

7

because he is a talented musician

Posted by airplay on November 4, 2005 at 7:01 PM (PST)

8

Sentry grocery stores totally ripped off the ipod commercial last year and had a santa dancing as a black silohuette. i wonder if they got sued too. i kept thinking it was an ipod commercial when i saw it

Posted by keebie on November 4, 2005 at 7:42 PM (PST)

9

Well then I hope they’re sending a similar letter to Honda, because except for the fact that it’s a car and not a person, thir Honda Civic commercial shares all of the other qualities the Lugz people seem to believe belong to them.

Posted by Hrothgar on November 4, 2005 at 7:46 PM (PST)

10

Boris34,

I’m not a lawyer or anything, but guess is that there isn’t any. That as long as the company can claim that it (the commercial) is easily confused with their “company image” and that their business somehow incurs a damage because of that - they have a valid claim.

I think that’s how it would go.

Posted by Andrew Papp on November 4, 2005 at 11:07 PM (PST)

11

You can claim that they are using similar images if the two companies sell similar products, but this is not the case, one sells hardware and the other shoes !!! ...

Posted by MuSicrOoM on November 5, 2005 at 9:13 AM (PST)

12

whattttt thats so dumb.

its just a commerical. its not like there saying to go buy apple shoes.. its a totally different market.

this is like sewing a car company for advertising there car being drivin on the road

Posted by Ryan Imhof on November 5, 2005 at 10:40 AM (PST)

13

it’s a marketing strategy.  there is nothing to sue for really and if there’s anyone to sue, it’s the producer of the commercial.  the one thing Lugz does have to gain from suing is that they’ll gain recognition in the media.  it’s like free advertising thanks to Apple.

Posted by Oly on November 5, 2005 at 12:03 PM (PST)

14

Did Honda use Eminem too? Lugz doesn’t need free advertisment.

Talented my A$$! He’s to busy smoking crack in rehab.

Posted by BENTON on November 5, 2005 at 12:31 PM (PST)

15

Anybody got a link?  I recall a video (purple guy walking, right?) but it’s only similar in the loosest of comparisons.

iLounge et al, you guys started this mess!

Posted by gordymac on November 5, 2005 at 7:06 PM (PST)

16

Musician?  WHOOOAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAA I CAN’T BREATHE..  WHOOAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH MUSICIAN!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA…...  <CLUNK>

Posted by JRoDDz on November 5, 2005 at 9:19 PM (PST)

17

1. Lugz ad is fully 3D animation, where iPod look more like 2D motion graphic background combined with there old “black people” ads.

2. the arrow element is the common idea to relate to “graffiti” and graffiti is common idea to relate to “hip-hop”

3. problem (or not) is only they both have very similar colour.

Posted by K28 on November 6, 2005 at 12:02 AM (PST)

18

As far as I see, (IANAL), there is nothing to sue for. You can’t copyright an artistic concept you can only copyright a particular expression of that concept. Basicly, they can go sit and rotate on their shoes. Don’t give ‘em the publicity.

Posted by Countach on November 6, 2005 at 4:10 AM (PST)

19

A lot of good the cease and desist notice did- I saw the ad on during The Simpsons last night.

I don’t see what the big deal is anyway. How can you confuse an ad for shoes with an ad for iPods- especially since the commercial ends with “iPod + iTunes”?

I don’t remember the Lugz commercial- and that’s a key point in comparing it to a recent ad.

Posted by Eric on November 7, 2005 at 12:27 PM (PST)

20

Jack.

You’re a complete idiot.

Using sexuality based slurs on an apple product forum.

Real smart, tough guy.

Posted by Good One on November 9, 2005 at 12:33 PM (PST)