‘No Labels’ Accused of Ripping Off Their Logo

By Doug Powers  •  December 14, 2010 10:51 AM

**Written by Doug Powers

It seems like a controversy over a label would be the last thing an organization called “No Labels” would ever have. They may now have to change their name to “No Logos.”

I wrote about “No Labels” last month after noticing that the vast majority of the group’s organizers at the very least fall under the label “Democrat.” I’m referring to them as NLINOs (no labels in name only).

“No Labels” had their first conference yesterday, and Ben Smith from Politico noticed something similar — a distinct lack of Republicans (you’re not supposed to notice that, Ben, they’re not using labels). There were some GOPers in attendance, but mostly center-left Republicans who were swept from office by the Tea Party tsunami.

But forget about that for the time being, because one of the first problems “No Labels” is having is, ironically enough, their label — one of their logos specifically. “No Labels” has been accused of ripping off the design for their t-shirts, etc. from the “More Party Animals” logo by a New York graphic designer unaffiliated with “No Labels.”

A “No Labels” designer originally told Ben Smith that the two are “clip art coincidences”:

null

Gothamist contacted the “No Labels” designer, who acknowledged that the two are “too close” in design, and the group has issued an apology. If we come to find out that the apology has been plagiarized, the irony circle-of-life will be complete.

So it’s back to the drawing board. Here’s my suggestion for the replacement “No Labels” logo:

null

Speaking of similarities, Nice Deb noticed that “No Labels” seems to be little more than the “Coffee Party” under a different, uh, label.

(h/t Gateway Pundit)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~
Posted in: Politicians,Politics

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments


  1. #201
    On December 17th, 2010 at 3:37 pm, corkie said:

    I’m not emotionally comprised, despite what you may or may not think.

    OK

    In short, if you can’t define god then you are done

    Never said that I couldn’t.

  2. #202
    On December 17th, 2010 at 3:38 pm, zeroangel said:

    corkie:

    Never said that I couldn’t.

    But you won’t do it here?

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook