Lugz has shoes and an arrow.

Apple has an iPod and their is a microphone and paints splashes.

They both have hip hop performers...that's supposed to be the basis for copyright infringement? Give me a break! I suppose Mini should sue Ford because their Escort's sorta look like the Cooper S and the colors are a bit similar? ;-)

Lugz market is shoes, so there is no conflict of interest here. This is just a frivolous lawsuit meant to drum up media attention for Lugz. They probably don't care about winning, as they will probably settle with Apple and this will never go to court. What they do care about is publicity. The are an obscure trendy shoe retailer, so if they can ride Apple's coat tails with this lawsuit they as far as they figure they win no matter what. I never saw their commercial when it originally aired, but I've seen it now, as have thousands - if not millions of people. And Lugs didn't have to pay a single TV station, web site and cable station to run it. Now everyone wants to see it, just to see it.

This really has nothing to do with Apple. It is just Lugz being opportunistic to improve there bottom line. If you care at one way or another, send an email to Lugz saying you cannot support yet another opportunistic greedy company...

Other than the backgrounds of both commercials being a similar shade of orange, these commercials are nothing alike.

Apple has had several other commercials where people are dancing and appear as silhouettes. Lugz commercial looked like animation.

Aside from that, just how many companies are there that are still copying Apple's switch campaign -- the white background, transitioning to different angles, snippets of info about the product or service and how it made someone's life better.

Apple and iPod are big names. Lugz is just trying to capitalize on the success of Apple and the iPod in quite an unethical manner. They want cash and/or publicity. Either way they'll get what they want.

This is Apple's second silouette commerical. Why is this one so simular yet the first one was not. I believe Apple already had the market on this type of ad before Lugs, whoever they are. I've never seen a commercial from them ever.

Apple had their silohuette ads come out prior to this lugz ad right? So it would see that the Lugz ad is trying to copy the iPod ad and using their trendiness to get attention and now Apple has merely made an ad that uses a similar outline, very similar. I personally would have liked something going a different direction for the new iPod ads.

Apple has sued others for smaller transgressions. By the way, the Lugz commercial is from 2001, the first Apple silhouette ads aired in 2003.

I DONT LIKE EMINEM. ban that damn tv ad.
Also shame on Apple... jobs said that took 2 years in the making of that ad.. and there's no need to be an eagle eye to see that ad isn't Apple way; when Apple works around 2 years in something you see differences.

The "ad isn't the Apple way?" How so? Looks pretty Apple-licious to me.

Oh, and yes, let's get rid of the ad just becuase you don't like Eminem. Brilliant.

It's freaking advertising .... I hate it regardless. You shouldn't need to exploit any teenie bopper musician to move your product.

You should be outraged that Apple has to advertise more so than that some unknown footwear company is seeking payment because Apple "stole" their ad.

Yeah, that's it. Can't believe Apple has to advertise. People should just know all products exist, they shouldn't have to be told or sold to like children. In fact, the world would be 100 thousand times better without advertising. Sure, no one would buy anything, because you don't know what's for sale, but that's of little import.