Google Logo knockoff *cough*

**jag5311** · May 31, 2003 11:51

I was browsing around looking at logocreation sites and came across this one

http://www.logo-design99.com/ Its not exactly like googles, but pretty damn close and obvious if you ask me

Bryan

**KeithMcL** · May 31, 2003 14:29

It is pretty close alright. It's still not very good though.

**SJH** · May 31, 2003 14:53

LOL... how ironic, it's a logo design site... and they can't even create an original logo!

-Sam

**aaron.martone** · May 31, 2003 15:14

Actually it's rather far off from Google, IMHO.

The usualy noob gfx artist mistakes are there:

Heavy Drop Shadows
Jagged Font Edges
Non-Vibrant Colors
Poor Typography
Inner "Glow" Effect
Poor Text Kerning

Google's logo on the otherhand, uses rich colors, nicely spaced with a good font. Soft drop shadows and a nice shade on the text itself.

Polar opposites if you ask me. I can see that he was probably inspired by Google, but he failed miserably in getting anywhere near it.

**theGuest** · May 31, 2003 19:23

I'd tend to agree with aaron on that.

**templates911** · May 31, 2003 19:33

Their logo is awful but according to their portfolio I like their work. But they could have spent more time on their own logo.

**PalmerB** · May 31, 2003 19:53

Originally Posted by templates911

Their logo is awful but according to their portfolio I like their work. But they could have spent more time on their own logo.

Absolutely. They're examples are 100% better than their own creation. Kind of reminds me of the first logo I did

**Ruchir** · Jun 1, 2003 03:11

i IMO don't find the logo anywhere near GOOGLE's just except the use of colors... and yes , i agree to what templates911 said.

**templates911** · Jun 1, 2003 09:07

Thinking back my first logo might have been better

**SJH** · Jun 1, 2003 09:23

lol... I remember my first one... hadn't even heard of anti-aliasing back then

-Sam

**Hierophant** · Jun 1, 2003 09:42

Because it uses a rainbow of colors and a similar font? Get real... You cannot lay claim to colors or a font. It is the entire presentation that must be taken into consideration. The only reason Google was awarded a trademark on their logo is because it is the word Google. If the site in question was a search engine called Goggle, then there would be grounds for concern since they are obviously trying to dilute a brand name. However it is a completely different type of site. And there is no attempt at brand dilution.

About a half a mile from my house is a store called the Rainbow Tree. They have the exact same rainbow colored text on their sign. Big deal.

People need to stop worrying so much about little finite details and start looking at the much larger scheme of things.

**Jixxy** · Jun 1, 2003 17:03

I find it a poorly done logo but not one that looks liek the Google logo. It uses the same colors, but not in the same pattern, it uses like text effects but not nearly as nicely done and the fonts are COMPLETELY different. One is serif the other is san serif.

**billiousness** · Jun 1, 2003 18:26

I agree with Wayne.

**foltzwerk** · Jun 1, 2003 21:34

I tend to agree with Aaron and with those who tend to agree with him. Even if you want to do a no-effort, crappy, obvious, rip-off, you can do better (or is it worse) and get closer to google in 3 minutes than our beloved purveyor of fine buck99 logos. See for yourself: http://foltzwerk.com/images/fooglewerk.gif

Which leads me to believe that the likeness of the logo in question to that of Google's is a completely innocent coincidence.

And W. Luke is right, except Coke did lay claim to their red color and you can lay claim to your logo's font if you develop an original font. But you don't get that for $199 ;-)

**jag5311** · Jun 1, 2003 21:52

, I like yours fotzwerk. Nice job.

**foltzwerk** · Jun 1, 2003 22:26

If you like that, you'll love Jovino's "logo bogarto" experiments:

http://www.jovino.com/portfolio/cheerios.html

**aaron.martone** · Jun 2, 2003 05:12

Hey, the one and only Jovino (oh oh oh oh!)

**the311guy** · Jun 3, 2003 03:25

i was checking out their portfolio. says the client was "absolutly delighted" with this one:

yeah.. thats before they get sued by apple.

**aaron.martone** · Jun 3, 2003 11:14

There's no way Apple would have a case over that logo the311guy. Where the Apple logo initially takes it's design from the Comedy and Tragedy masks (Comedy [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) and (Tragedy [img]images/smilies/frown.gif[/img] ), there's too many core differences to keep them both in their own field. (Of course Apple is smart enough not to have a frowning logo, so both sides of the iMac logo are smiling)

I do notice, however, that many of the logos use the same heavy drop shadows and/or excessive gradient fills. A lotta logos just rely on good ol flat colored vector objects. You want a plethora of that, goto your local grocer. Look at each product's logo. TONS of variety and design.

**anode** · Jun 3, 2003 11:20

Originally Posted by foltzwerk

And W. Luke is right, except Coke did lay claim to their red color and you can lay claim to your logo's font if you develop an original font. But you don't get that for $199 ;-)

You can lay claim to your logo's font if you create it (as in a bunch of 1's and 0's) but not the typeface.

**anode** · Jun 3, 2003 11:21

Originally Posted by aaron.martone

(Of course Apple is smart enough not to have a frowning logo, so both sides of the iMac logo are smiling)

There was a "sad Mac" that showed up when something was Very Very Wrong, but it's been retired along with the "happy Mac."

User Tag List

Thread: Google Logo knockoff cough

Thread Tools

Display