New Quark Logo stolen?

I don't think it was stolen. I think it's a very unfortunate coincidence. It happened to me and several other collegues of mine before. It can certainly happen if the shape you design is such a simple one. I know of at least one more instance of a very similar logo has been used by a famous typographer, but he dropped it and he has a new logo now. And, I think a printhouse somewhere in Europe use/used a similar shape too, but I'm not sure about it.

I don't think the company that designed it was in need to steal a design. I'm sure they did check the US trademarks, but probably missed the UK trademarks, but than where do you stop? Should you go through every single country in the world to check if your logo have been used or not.

I really feel for them. They did a good job and now they are probably questioned.

Conversation about the same topic:
http://creativebits.org/jim_ds_secret_quark_fixation

And a post on SpeakUp:
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002412.html

That is unfortunate. Obviously just an accident, actually there is a good chance that if I had been asked to do a logo with a firm beginning with Q, that treatment may well have been one of my early scamps. The first thing I thought of whem I saw the new brand was UMD, the second was that it looks very similar to Neville Brody’s branding for Macromedia years ago ;)

--

Too bad for Quark. I know it's not design theft, just an unfortunate coincidence.

I hate simple logos like that because it makes it seem like anybody can design a quality logo. You can't even try and tell me that logo took a lot of work. I don't care what kind of mumbo-jumbo symbolism they try to put behind it or how many hours they slaved finding out the perfect size for the hole, or selecting an ideal color (eenie meenie miney moe, anyone?). Try designing something that hasn't been done before. Something new and original, something that my neighbor couldn't have come up with.

Bottom Line: It's too generic. What's that say about your page layout software?

P.S. Though the CB logo may be simple, it's not the kind I hate.

I'd like to believe that generally a logo has to be as simple as possible ideally. But in certain special cases it should not be simple. It should rather be complicated. Simple things are easier to remember, but if simplicity works against you, because you become too generic you should better go with a complex design. There is no recipe for a great logo. I think a gib company can afford to have a super simple logo and than with big marketing they can own that shape. In this case I think Quark has a chance to own this shape.

I truely believe with logo, and actually with any design that simplicity is the ultimate goal. By all means at the start of a creative process shove everything but the kitchen sink into a single idea, this is how you find it's code. You should then unceremoniously remove everything and anything that is surplus to requirements.

A fantastc example is Neville Brody's new branding for UK iTV and broadband provider Homechoice. The concept is based around the digital box (looks a bit like a Mac Mini) being at the centre of your living room. The log represents this by a stripped down graphical overhead view of a room surrounding the top view of the box. I think it is verging on brilliant.