Apple challenges new Woolworths logo - Page 2

If Apple doesn't defend its logo against similar designs, future designs that have even more similarity will use that as an argument as to why they can have a similar logo.

Apple has to defend here, or risk even more problems with those who deliberately seek to play off their image.

Quadra610 is absolutely right, the issue at stake here is the blanket trademark. Woolworths is a behemoth of a company in Australia, they operate businesses that cover supermarkets, petrol, liquor, hardware and electronics. In their supermarkets more and more brands are being pushed off the shelves in favour of their own company branded products. Woolworths own the DSE electronics chain, which also sell Apple products. What if they decide to rebrand DSE as Woolworths using their new logo, and then launch their own brand computers, mp3 players and cellphones. It's not totally unfeasible.

At first I thought it was a stretch for Apple to take legal action until I took into account the blanket trademark application. If you look at Woolies and their quest to own the Australian retail market, Apple are right to take this action.

Apple didn't steal their name and logo.
Woolworths is not just a food store.
When have you ever got things straight?

When are The Beatles coming to iTunes?

Although they did get rid of the David Reid name, I can't see them doing the same with DSE, it is a big brand, and would be a very strange thing to do. But Apple will have to prove that people will confuse the two brands to win, and I think they are going to find that hard.

Also, have they filed the same complaint in NZ, since they are going to rebrand all Progressive Enterprises stores to the new logo as well

1.) Right they invented it just like they invented the word "pod". Yes they did.

2.) I never said they were just a food store? Can't you ever read what I write- correctly?
First line of article states-
Got it?

FWIW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer

1. In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit was settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be US$50US$250 million, but was later revealed to be US$80,000. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business.

2. In September 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer again, this time for breach of contract, in using the Apple logo in the creation and operation of Apple Computers iTunes Music Store, which Apple Corps contended was a violation of the previous agreement. Some observers believed the wording of the previous settlement favoured Apple Computer in this case.[1] Other observers speculated that if Apple Corps was successful, Apple Computer would be forced to offer a much larger settlement, perhaps resulting in Apple Corps becoming a major shareholder in Apple Computer, or perhaps in Apple Computer splitting the iPod and related business into a separate entity.

The trial opened on 29 March 2006 in England, before a single judge of the High Court. In opening arguments, a lawyer for Apple Corps stated that in 2003, shortly before the launch of Apple Computers on-line music store, Apple Corps rejected a US$1 million offer from Apple Computer to use the Apple name on the iTunes store.

On 8 May 2006 the court ruled in favour of Apple Computer, with Justice Mann holding that no breach of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstrated.

Somewhere in Australia, there's a group of lawyers who can't believe some stupid American company will actually pay them to argue this.

The outcome will be as usual: Apple will get to prove their point, the lawyers will get nice down payments on their ocean estates, and we will get to pay for it.

It is clear that WW took one of the most iconic symbols in the world and challenged themselves to come as close to that symbol as possible without getting sued. I don't know if Apple will win, but I have no doubt that the new logo would not look as it does if there was no Apple logo.

Hopefully never.

Everyone interested in the Beatles already owns their music, and the Beatles are far too late to catch the iPod party.

Leave the Bugs in the 8-track era, where they belong.

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” (including all designs of the famed 'Granny Smith' Apple Corps Ltd. logos[3]) and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential. [24] [25]

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not Yoko and gang gets a cut on every iPod, music device, music sold, music app, etc, etc. as the terms are confidential.

It might help if there was even a vague similarity between the 2 logos, there isn't, I don't know what Apple are thinking on this one.

It might be helpful to know that Woolworths are a huge supermarket chain in Australia and across the general population more people would recognize Woolworths than they would Apple in Australia.

Exactly... and really, what's with people defending them in this (and every other) matter? As though they can do no wrong. The company goofing up every now and again (more so recently) doesn't make OS X or Logic Pro suddenly suck.

Some people need to chill the frak out.


Wikipedia? Must be true then...

I think it's a good challenge, I thought of Apple (Computer) when I saw that logo. And anyway it's a bad logo for a supermarket because it looks kinda fat and you don't want people thinking of being fat while they're food shopping.

How is it clear? The reasoning for the new logo is perfectly reasonable in the context of the branding exercise to which it will be put. I don't know of many companies that would shape their logo like, say, a salmon, to indicate freshness. Or a pineapple.

It's perfectly legitimate for Apple to defend their trademark - it's a use it or lose it proposition, but the similarities here would at best be merely in passing - and almost certainly would not be apt to confuse. Apple cannot own every representation of a staple fruit, though I am sure they will do their best to try.

From Wikipedia...


Hmmm. Seems like you have old information. John and Paul's record label already lost THAT fight, and Apple Inc owns the trademark.

Thompson

For some one that spends a lot of time bashing Apple, one would think you get all your facts straight. Otherwise your post comes across sounding like it's from a troll.

FYI, the word "apple" was in the dictionary way before Apple Records used it in their trademark. So no, Apple Computer didn't steal the word "apple" from Apple Records. Apple Computer has every right to use "apple" for the name of their computer company. Apple Records trademark use of the word "apple" in their name only pertains to the music industry. Thus there was no "stealing" involve. So long as Apple Computers don't enter into the music business.

Steve Jobs did admit he named his company "Apple" because he was a big fan of the Beatles. But Apple Records did not own the word "apple". Never did and never will. Apple Records trademark is "Apple Records". While Apple Computer trademark is "Apple Computer". The word "apple" is a common word that can not be trademarked by itself. Regardless of industry. Not even the apple orchard business.

The apple logo wasn't stolen from Apple Records either. The Apple Computer logo is an apple because that's the name of the company. It's a completely different looking logo.

However, this didn't mean that Apple Records couldn't sue Apple Computer. Apple Records has every right, under trademark laws, to defend their trademark against any trademark that they think may infringe upon theirs. This led to an agreement between the two as to when and where each "Apple" company can used their logo. I'm sure Apple Records could not use their logo (or name) on any computer related products as part of that agreement. That's if they (Apple Records) wanted to go into the computer business.

And Apple Inc. has those same rights. And like in the Apple Record vs Apple Computer case, an agreement will be reached as to when each can use their logo. Which means that Woolworth may not be able to use their logo (by itself) on their own branded electronics. But it may also means that we will mostly never be able to shop for grocery and diapers while in an Apple Store. \

Really? Really. Seriously? They're not even the same frakkin industry. Really? Are the serious? The only similarity i see is the fact that they're both green. Not even the same shade. No bite out of one. and even the leave isn't the same.

Now they're just becoming as friggin lawsuit happy as Microsoft. That's as bad as Microsoft trying to tradmark the word Windows and suing Lindows because it was too close to a word in the dictionary. Wow.

Apple's taken a turn that i was hoping they'd never take. They're becoming more like Microsoft on a daily basis.

This is REDICULOUS! Any judge that ends up honoring this suit is going to be as laughable as the suit itself!

How much business will this REALLY cost Apple? seriously? really. Pretty soon they'll be going after anyone that has an apple in their logo. WTF people! We only have so many fruits to go around. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHARE!

As others have pointed out, Woolworths is not just a supermarket but own a chain of Consumer Electronics store that sell computers including Apple. Woolworths have applied for a blanket trademark on a logo that looks slightly similar to Apple Inc's and could potential rebrand their electronics store as "Woolworths Tech" or similar and have stores with a Woolworths logo on the front selling Apple computers.

The other point is that Woolworths recently began their own MVNO (using a local GSM network positioning themselves as a very low cost carrier). This positions Woolwoorths as a mobile carrier and Apple Inc. as a mobile manufacturer; a little too close for comfort.

References

^ a b Apple Corps Limited and Apple Computer, Inc., UK Mr. Justice Mann (High Court 2005-08-05).

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...02428_0506.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps

^ Transcript of full judgement in the 2006 case. The Times, 8 May 2006 ([2])
^ "Apple Inc. and The Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd. Enter into New Agreement". Apple Inc.. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
^ Mark Sweney (2007). "Apple trademark dispute resolved". Guardian News. Retrieved 2008-05-10.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05apple.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007...edia.musicnews

It helps to look at Wikipedia's references before posting about them.

I just like the fact that you use the word frak! ;-)

This whole kerfuffle should easily be resolved by simply have Woolworth's tilt the stem of their fresh apple the other direction. The body of their fresh apple is clearly a stylized "W" and one without a bite taken out of it (as has Apple's less than "fresh" apple). Further, Woolworth's is a grocery store, not a computer store, so no branding confusion is arguable. Apple is over-reaching on this one and should not be allowed to bully its way, especially across international lines.

Such logo protectionism is a fairly recent phenomena in the body of historical law and is of arguably tenuous justification outside of a corporate-state framework (meaning, it wouldn't exist in free societies) in the first place. It hardly warrants support by anyone who supports free and civil cultures wherein individuals are created equal and in which corporations have no special rights that supersede those of individuals.

As for the reporting on this incident, Apple has never, to my knowledge, used an entirely green Apple logo. It is therefore beyond the journalistic pale for AppleInsider to place a green tinted Apple logo alongside Woolworth's proposed new logo. It shows a distinct bias in favor of Apple, one that is hardly supported by the facts.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=22

Please read the article.

And how much you want to bet that these same Australian lawyers will be the first to sue Walmart, if Walmart decided to incorporate their "W" into a fruit for their grocery stores.

I'm not aware that lawyers from one country are any better than lawyers from another.

FYI - Apple Inc. also own the apple logo trademark for Apple Records.

And just because Apple Inc never used a green color apple logo doesn't mean that they couldn't do so in the future. Their trademark may include all colors and shades for their logo. Not just the silver or white one we're accustom to seeing.

And don't forget, Apple Inc. is going "green".

It would be frivolous if they were suing for money, they are not.

This has nothing to do with protecting Apple's Logo.

If it did, then they wouldn't have gone GAY with the Rainbow Logo a few years back.

Apple infringed on The Gay Pride Flag, they didn't sue.

So in reality, how ridiculous does this particular infringement sound to Apple's PIECE OF FRICKING FRUIT.

They lost with the state of New York when they tried to Sue New York (Apple, You are a piece of Fruit).

Can't Apple get along with anyone these days? They are pissing everyone off and they had nothing to do with Light Peak as Intel Made Clear.

So when Apple turns their logo Green I guess Granny Smith can sue their Asses for Logo Infringement.

I like the new Woolworths Logo. It's a fricking W. Get over it you obsessed Apple Cult fans. Pull the Apple out of your Ass it's just a Logo.

By the way... Microsoft is the most known Brand in the World. Apple is just a Piece of Fruit that happens to have a Music Player and a Phone. Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.

Without Apple. You would have to find a new phone, new music player and if you're in the lowest common denominator you'd have to find a new computer that will have Microsoft Windows 7 on it.

Same old, same old from you. Welcome back, I suppose.

It doesn't look like you read the entire article. It isn't the logo in particular that Apple is concerned about.

If that's all you have to say then you are the Troll in this case.

Put your Steve Jobs jammies on and put the Apple where it feels just right for you and go to bed.

I'm going to bed with my wife.

Even if there is only a slight connection between the two logo's Apple is obligated, by law, to defend it's trademark, especially since at some point in the future woolworth might consider branding it's own brand of electronic merchandise ... the thin edge of the wedge, dontcha' know.

Agreed, they should defend themselves, but a judge should probably punish Apple for filing a frivolous lawsuit, too. That way, Apple gets credit for defending their trademark. But they also receive the sanctions they deserve for making wild, idiotic claims like they own the likeness to the Apple fruit. To a grocery company no less!

Apple has become so litigious it is getting stupid.

Teckdud ... only you could draw a comparison between these two situations, and btw Apple is breaking palm hacking with every iTunes update, or didn't you notice?

Cept there's no judge.

Jeeze Louise .... according to you the world never even existed before microsoft and you forgot to mention the fact that the music player and phone that Apple "just happens to have" are the same ones that the rest of the industry, including microsoft, are unsuccessfully trying their damndest to copy.

My condolences to your wife!

The logo doesn't say Apple Computer to me. I'm not even sure it's an apple at all, it could be the generic peelings of many different kinds of green fruit. Without the leaf, one might even say it's a curly cut from a green potato, not that the idea is appetizing. It would take quite a twit to confuse the two logos, and I think that's well below the standard required to block it. Their similarities are few, and it doesn't look distinctively like an Apple to me. It's not as much of a stretch if the filing really gives them the right to plaster it directly to electronics products, but it's still a bit of a stretch.

Im always torn on these issues. I understand that you have to defend a logo you risk it getting used even more widely in the future by not setting precedence, but the lawyers are the only ones who win here and I dont see how anyone could confuse the two, especially since they are in different industries.



Assuming he is telling the truth. Personally, I dont think Helen Keller could stand to be in his company.

As a specialist in CB & CI design, I have just a few points to make.

1) Apple MUST protect their Trademark, as many here have said, or risk losing... or at the very least diluting...it, and making it harder to protect in the future.

2) Yes, the "W" logo as it stands on this page is quite different re: the Apple logo. HOWEVER, as all of you Apple fans should know and see on the product right in front of your face, what happens to the differentiating colors and form when the "W" logo becomes uni-colored, or only embossed in plastic at 1x1 cm or smaller? Or the logo is upside down, as it may be in every day use?

3) as someone above has mentioned, Woolworths also has an electronics retail business. So they go to China, get a cheap looking knock-off of an iPod, and have their "W" logo embossed on it... only for a promotion. All of a sudden you have these quite similar iPods all over the place, that "must be" Apple's (at a cursory glance), and the whole thing is a piece of shite, causing people to consider all Apple products to be the same low-quality crap... and spreading that "fact" to family and friends. What if Woolworths decides to emboss their logo on toilet-bowl disinfectant bricks for their home wares division?

Do any of you NOW see the problem if Apple doesn't at least try to protect their logo?

In the legal process, Apple may request and be granted that the "W" must at all times be in green, never embossed or uni-colored without the gradient, and never be placed on any product at smaller than say 1x1", and always be accompanied by the word-mark "Woolworths". Suit over, and Apple wins.

You you could also say Woolworth wins too, because now there is a definite set of guidelines to follow that won't ever get them in trouble.

PS: Unbelievable that there are so few designers left in the Apple community that know these things. Guess that's the price to pay when Apple saved itself by becoming a consumer products co. first, and a designers dream-machine/platform after the fact.

PSS: The "W" logo is definitely too fat, difficult to print on all products (screen-printing) and most surely would be "re-worked" and/or reinterpreted to be printable at small sizes, losing, or blurring the identity. Trash the design... start over.

Without Apple, Microsoft would have no LOGO! The Windows flag was created on a Mac at Wieden & Kennedy for the release of Windows 95 and all the Windows 95 icons were done on a Mac by the original artist who drew them for Steve-she lost her mind and turned traitor! For the most part, everything useful in Windows had Mac origins. So go stuff it! And complain all you want-you can't change history by defending your stupid, frustrating Windows based Microsoft poop!
PS -all those things you spoke of relate more to Goldman Sachs, would will eventually cause all of us to have to sell apples on the street corner and warm our hands over a 50 gal. oil barrel!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9170b5f2-b...44feabdc0.html

You don't have to guess - it's part of the trademark applications - there's two of them:



I think in the monochrome it is just as difficult to draw any connection to Apple, the computer maker. Note that the symbol itself does not stand alone in the application.


Interestingly, it took Apple three months to oppose it,

TM Number 1258297
OPPOSITION
Acceptance Advertised: 18-DEC-2008
Applicant: \tWoolworths Limited
\tACN: 000014675
\t
\t
Address for Service: \tSPRUSON & FERGUSON
\t
Opponent: \tAPPLE INC.
Address for Service: \tBAKER & MCKENZIE
Status: \tExtension Pending
Notice of Opposition \tDue: 18-MAR-2009
\tLodged: 16-MAR-2009
Evidence in Support \tDue: 16-JUN-2009
\tExtension: 16-SEP-2009


The branding exercise is already intensely underway here and my local woolworths has already adopted it. There won't be any going back here.