or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple challenges new Woolworths logo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple challenges new Woolworths logo - Page 3

post #81 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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

ITS THE STEM! Just change the stem!
post #82 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo View Post

Ummm. Woolworths is Australia's largest retailer and an iconic Australian brand that is much loved. They announced the rebranding with great fanfare over a year ago, why is Apple only noticing now....

It's also an iconic Australian brand calling itself Woolworths as a dare in 1924. Australians typically love this kind of cheeky behaviour and will totally side with much loved Woolworths over Apple in this battle.

They will probably settle out of court and sell iPhones and iPods in store...

Here's the awesome history about it starting in 1924:
The name on the draft prospectus drawn up by Cecil Scott Waine was "Wallworths Bazaar" – a play on the F.W. Woolworth name (the owner of the Woolworth's chain in the United States and United Kingdom). However, according to Ernest Robert Williams, Percy Christmas dared him to register the name Woolworths instead, which he succeeded in doing after finding out the name was available for use in New South Wales. Accordingly, Woolworths Ltd in Australia has no connection with the F.W. Woolworth Company in the United States.

Unfortunately Apple logo is International brand and recongnised the World over and that's why Apple are defending its logo to the max. This is standard practise and as many have stated undertaken by many companies on daily basis.

Also WoolWorths may plan to sell computers in their stores and that what Apple are worried about.

see link for full story

http://www.theage.com.au/business/ap...1005-ghzr.html

I can understand Apple's concern now and it is not just idle defending of their trademark/brand.
post #83 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

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.

he has not changed one bit, still ranting without any supported evidence! MS best known brand Hmm!

Btw: Coke Cola may be better known brand then MS, since you do not get many computers, when you don't have a power source, but you found Coke Cola everywhere!
post #84 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

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.

UGH. Welcome back NonVendorFan. Thanks for reminding me of everything we all owe to Microsoft; without them I'd never really be able to appreciate how great my Macs really are.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #85 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

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.

The colors on your Gay flag are the colors from an actual rainbow (minus indigo) in the order as they appear on an actual rainbow. If you compare the colors of the rainbow Apple logo to that Gay Pride flag you have hanging from your window, you will see that they appear in different order. The colors on the Apple rainbow logo is suppose to represent the color bars on the Apple II color monitor. Even though the color bars aren't in the same order. And if you look inside an Apple II, you'll notice that the 6 color wires of a cable (floppy?) used is in the same order as they appear on the logo. (But Apple designed the cable to look like their logo.)

The the Apple rainbow logo was introduced in early 1977 with the introduction of the Apple II. Your Gay Pride flag was introduced in 1978 during the SF Gay Pride Parade. And it (Gay Pride flag) originally had 8 colors. Which was why Apple Computer didn't sue you and your Gay friends for trademark infringement.

But all this aside, you can't sue anybody for trademark infringement based on color scheme alone. Unless you invent a color that didn't exist before.

And Apple is not suing NYC. Most headlines got it wrong. Apple is filing a complaint with the trademark agency that oversees trademark applications. Which Apple and all other "apple" logo users has the right to do whenever some one submits a new application for a logo with an "apple" on it. NYC may very well have to change the style of their logo or limit how, where and when they can use it. Maybe not because of Apple Inc. But because of some other company that has a logo with an "apple" in it also filed a complaint concerning NYC trademark application.

As far as I know NYC have not been granted a trademark on their logo yet. But I tell you what, if NYC did have a trademark on their green apple logo. You better believe that NYC would also be filing a complaint about this Woolworths logo. The Woolworths logo looks more like the NYC logo than the Apple Inc. logo.

check it out here

http://www.applegazette.com/apple-in...-be-the-judge/
post #86 of 127
Come on... even a fool in a hurry could see they're not related. Drop the case and pay them an "excuse me we're silly" sum...
post #87 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricksbrain View Post

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.

Apple is a little paranoid here.

What about Apple stealing the apple logo from the Beatles? Now, that is what I would call confusing: a green beatles apple selling music and an apple company selling music software!

The Beatles should reopen their case and force Apple to drop their Apple logo

There are too many lawyers in the world What a waste of money. We need more engineers and designers to face the challenges of the future. All those legal people can go * themselves!
post #88 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

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.

About the only thing confidential is the amount Apple Inc. paid Apple Records for all rights to their Apple Record logo and how much Apple is charging (if anything) to license the Apple Record logo back to them.

Why would Apple Inc. pay Apple Record anything for using their Apple trademark on music related products when a judge already decided that it was not an infringement to do so under the current contract at the time. The only thing in question was the use of the Apple name in their iTunes Store. If you notice at the time, no where did the name "Apple" appeared in the iTunes store. But Apple also won the right to do that. What Apple Inc did by buying out Apple Records logo is to settled all future disputes (including any appeal) concerning their use of their trademark.

On 8 May 2006 the court ruled in favour of Apple Computer,[8] with Justice Mann holding that no breach of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstrated.[9][10]

The Judge focused on section 4.3 of that agreement:

4.3 The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) [the Apple Corps catalogue and any future music], Apple Computers [sic] shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 [Apple Computer Field of Use] (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).[9]

The Judge held Apple Computers use was covered under this cause.
post #89 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

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.

It's nothing to do with the attitudes of the lawyers. It's more the point that you can barely breathe in the US without being sued.

Your cat jumps into your neighbour's garden? Sue
Hold a cup of hot coffee between your legs and drive? Sue
Dry cleaning company loses your pants? Sue
Guy who sues people the most gets put in the Guiness Book of Records? Yep, he sued.

I'm sure the US is the only country in the whole world where it needs to be common knowledge that yes, you CAN sue yourself.
post #90 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

Apple is a little paranoid here.

What about Apple stealing the apple logo from the Beatles? Now, that is what I would call confusing: a green beatles apple selling music and an apple company selling music software!

The Beatles should reopen their case and force Apple to drop their Apple logo

There are too many lawyers in the world What a waste of money. We need more engineers and designers to face the challenges of the future. All those legal people can go * themselves!

I bet your the type of person that still thinks PARC invented the mouse and the GUI. And that Apple also stole those ideas from them.
post #91 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

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.

How wrong you are.

In the UK the release of the Beatles Stereo Box Set sold out on the day it was released, all 50,000 copies. It is still very difficult to get hold of in the UK. Who bought all those?

I have been waiting to purchase the Beatles music for a long time, for either the new CDs or downloads. I am 48 years old, and owned 3 Beatles CDs (Love, No1s and St Peppers).

There are MANY people who want to own the Beatles music and always will be, so iTunes need to get them on there ASAP. They lost out on my £170.
post #92 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnp1 View Post

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...

It's true, without Apple the vast majority of graphic designers working today wouldn't be; after all, how else would anybody be able to get an idea from head to paper without a Mac?

post #93 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthletter View Post

So a company that sells fresh apples cannot use an image of an apple in it's logo because a consumer electronics company that makes laptops, computers, phones and digital players claim to own the trademark.
Ok if there was ever any doubt that Apple is the new Microsoft it has now been erased.

But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).
post #94 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).

I thought Apple had moved into retailing music and smart-phone apps?
post #95 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

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.

The first electronic ATM was installed by Barclay's in 1967 in the UK. Obviously predating Windows by a good 18 years before the first version of Windows and 8 years before even Microsoft existed.

Most ATMs now run Windows, a deplorable practise in my opinion as there are much more secure OSes created specifically for this purpose.
post #96 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpw View Post

I thought Apple had moved into retailing music and smart-phone apps?

Apple has ALSO moved into retailing music and ipods/smartphones (electronics). They still do a lot of computers (electronics). I'm sure you can see the point now.
post #97 of 127
Sorry. I am an apple fan ... everything I have electronic is an Apple. But this suing Woolworths over their new logo, is a tad too much. Next we will be banning the word "apple" completely from the English vocabulary due to "copyright". Come on .. lets get serious. Looking at the Woolworths logo, the ONLY similarity is that its an apple. It doesnt look much like ours!
post #98 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).

No, Apple doesn't sell toasters, bread makers, DVD Players, jaffle irons etc.
post #99 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by star-fish View Post

It's nothing to do with the attitudes of the lawyers. It's more the point that you can barely breathe in the US without being sued.

Your cat jumps into your neighbour's garden? Sue
Hold a cup of hot coffee between your legs and drive? Sue
Dry cleaning company loses your pants? Sue
Guy who sues people the most gets put in the Guiness Book of Records? Yep, he sued.

I'm sure the US is the only country in the whole world where it needs to be common knowledge that yes, you CAN sue yourself.

You are telling me that Europe, Australia and others are not becoming like US with concern to those practices. Give me a break mate!
post #100 of 127
Change the colors to "Peach", and this ends "Peachy".


Skip
post #101 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by applerules View Post

Sorry. I am an apple fan ... everything I have electronic is an Apple. But this suing Woolworths over their new logo, is a tad too much. Next we will be banning the word "apple" completely from the English vocabulary due to "copyright". Come on .. lets get serious. Looking at the Woolworths logo, the ONLY similarity is that its an apple. It doesnt look much like ours!

Read the article and understand why Apple are suing before you comment. Woolworth's not only sell food items, but also stationary and maybe in future computers. I posted a link earlier from Australian paper on reasons.
post #102 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo View Post

Ummm. Woolworths is Australia's largest retailer and an iconic Australian brand that is much loved. They announced the rebranding with great fanfare over a year ago, why is Apple only noticing now....

It's also an iconic Australian brand calling itself Woolworths as a dare in 1924. Australians typically love this kind of cheeky behaviour and will totally side with much loved Woolworths over Apple in this battle.

They will probably settle out of court and sell iPhones and iPods in store...

Here's the awesome history about it starting in 1924:
The name on the draft prospectus drawn up by Cecil Scott Waine was "Wallworths Bazaar" a play on the F.W. Woolworth name (the owner of the Woolworth's chain in the United States and United Kingdom). However, according to Ernest Robert Williams, Percy Christmas dared him to register the name Woolworths instead, which he succeeded in doing after finding out the name was available for use in New South Wales. Accordingly, Woolworths Ltd in Australia has no connection with the F.W. Woolworth Company in the United States.

i realize how boring I and nyc is after this story .


by the seventh line i felt the gates of hell opening for me
yet i had to find out that in the ninth gate of hell WW in aus is not
the same as WW in uk/usa .
sundial racing is next for me
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #103 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dio Gratia View Post

It seems hardly likely that Woolworth's logo can be legally mistaken for Apple's which is described with "The mark consists of a design of an apple with a bite removed", and is used on Goods and Services such as "Furniture; office furniture; cabinets, enclosure, non-metal racks and other furniture for consumer electronics, computers and telecommunications equipment, and for the peripheral equipment devices therefore".

Trademark Law is a bizarre thing in the US look to the Layman as if Alice went to to Wonderland--Through Magic Mirror while on an LSD trip and how they are handled in foreign countries can make that mess look sane.
post #104 of 127
You mean the record company stole the logo from Adam.
post #105 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky View Post

How wrong you are.

In the UK the release of the Beatles Stereo Box Set sold out on the day it was released, all 50,000 copies. It is still very difficult to get hold of in the UK. Who bought all those?

I have been waiting to purchase the Beatles music for a long time, for either the new CDs or downloads. I am 48 years old, and owned 3 Beatles CDs (Love, No1s and St Peppers).

There are MANY people who want to own the Beatles music and always will be, so iTunes need to get them on there ASAP. They lost out on my £170.

The Mono set here in US is amazing. I have the Mono Boxed set on back order from Amazon due Nov 11- can't wait!
post #106 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

You mean the record company stole the logo from Adam.

How you like them apples?
post #107 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

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.

. \

Ok- so now explain the history of the word "POD".
post #108 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

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?

Why don't they do something real via the legal system with Palm rather than going after fruit logos? Explain that!

And BTW keep mispelling my name- the monitors are watching you.
post #109 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Why don't they do something real via the legal system with Palm rather than going after fruit logos? Explain that!...

What law has Palm broken? maybe the reason they haven't turned to the legal system is because they don't feel they've built a case yet.
post #110 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

You are telling me that Europe, Australia and others are not becoming like US with concern to those practices. Give me a break mate!

Of course they're becoming like that. Guess who's set the standard to define it as acceptable?
post #111 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky View Post

How wrong you are.

In the UK the release of the Beatles Stereo Box Set sold out on the day it was released, all 50,000 copies. It is still very difficult to get hold of in the UK. Who bought all those?

I have been waiting to purchase the Beatles music for a long time, for either the new CDs or downloads. I am 48 years old, and owned 3 Beatles CDs (Love, No1s and St Peppers).

There are MANY people who want to own the Beatles music and always will be, so iTunes need to get them on there ASAP. They lost out on my £170.

So don't get the stereo box set then. Get one of the 500 million other styled releases if you want to listen to the Beatles. It's not like the music is hard to get hold of just because it isn't on itunes. Get it from amazon, either as downloads or cd. Look in your local charity shop.

And I'm sure Apple doesn't care about your £170. They probably made several million in the time it took you to type that.
post #112 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

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.

The tone and summary nature of the main body of text (which you originally posted) is still interpretative at best; one of the sources is from a newspaper article and the other a press release prepared by Apple marketers.

I honestly don't think Wikipedia quotes should be used as defacto information, even is the information is cited. For a start the main body of text can be edited even after the original citation, without checking each one independently, it's hard to know if the text and citation are even related (although in this case it looks as though they are).

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #113 of 127
Its hard not to imagine that even the Apple's Sydney office would have been reluctant to go down this path, given the might of Woolworths. Woolworths group is a significant buyer of Apple product so it will cause tensions. Obviously HQ in Cupertino have an active program that would have overruled the Sydney Apple office.

In any case, Apple have twice sought extensions from IP Australia to justify their claim which demonstrates they're struggling and on thin ground to support their objection.

Also, the requirement that you must be seen to actively protect a trademark is not nearly as onerrous in Australia as it is in the US. It's good practice, sure, but it's not a requirement.

Oh and to those who mentioned the use of green Apple logo in the article... so far this exact logo (in the comparison image) was silver everwhere else, so it's been colored green seemingly in support of the article re-write here.
post #114 of 127
That's not trademark infringement. Apple does not own the trademark to all images of the apple fruit. That's ridiculous. Furthermore, Woolworths in Australia is apparently a supermarket, another market altogether. Apple should drop the suit before they make the general public angry at they for being such bullies.
post #115 of 127
I guess it might just be Apple defending their trademark, but it still sucks. I don't see any reason why this new logo should be a threat. It is a shame that any system could necessitate action like this, especially when the lawyers are the only winner.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #116 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpw View Post

It's true, without Apple the vast majority of graphic designers working today wouldn't be; after all, how else would anybody be able to get an idea from head to paper without a Mac?

not to mention Adobe, whom the sheep on these boards so happy to trash...

regarding the logo, why those, who think they look similar fail to see that the W logo does include their name. as someone mentioned above, it is part of their application. even if W will sell electronics, still there will be their damn name written on them!
post #117 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

I guess it might just be Apple defending their trademark, but it still sucks. I don't see any reason why this new logo should be a threat. It is a shame that any system could necessitate action like this, especially when the lawyers are the only winner.

It really doesn't matter. Apple should go after them anyway if they think they have a claim. The good thing about this is that the breadth and scope of Apple's trademark will be clarified even further.
post #118 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by star-fish View Post

Of course they're becoming like that. Guess who's set the standard to define it as acceptable?

So you basically saying that Europe, Australia and others can't think for themselves and follow, what the USA does...thats even worse
post #119 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Ok- so now explain the history of the word "POD".

Apple do not own the trademark for "POD". They do however own the trademark for "iPod". Which they can because it's a made up "word". Just like "Microsoft" is also a trademark by itself, because it's also a made up word. No one can use either of these "words" for any products or company name. Regardless of what it is or the fact that the company is not part of either Apple or Microsoft core business. You can not call your walking cane company "iPod" or sell diapers call "Microsoft".

Trademark law is funny in that it treats words in your trademark just as though they were images of a logo. So not only do the way they sound or how they are spelt counts, so do the way they look. You can not make an MP3 player (or related items) and name it a "tripod", an "aPod" or "POD" because they are too similar to "iPod". Even if they aren't the same word. Just way they sound and look would be a trademark violation. And thus Apple can file a complaint. Even though they do not own the trademark to "POD". By having "POD" in the name, many people may think it's an Apple product.

And it even gets funnier. If you create a font, it can be incorporated into your trademark. So if you create a font and use it for your products, you can claim trademark violation if another company uses your font on their products. Even if the the names don't even come close in sound or lettering. Just using your font that everyone associate with your company would be considered a trademark violation. You can market a soda and call it "TeckStud Cola" and most likely have no problems. But use the Coca-Cola font in your lettering (along with the red and white coloring) and you can expect a call from the lawyers at Coca-Cola. Even though Coca-Cola don't have a trademark on "TeckStud".

And that's the problem Apple has with this Woolworths logo. It doesn't matter that the two logo looks different. What matters is that on first impression, a piece of electronics or computer with a logo of an apple on it may be confused as being an Apple Inc product.

And even Woolworths don't want this to happen. The last thing Woolworths want is to have people think that their computers and electronic products are cheap Apple Inc knock offs. It doesn't help your image if people think Apple Inc first when they see the Woolworths logo on their products. Of course it could be worse. People might think of "Walmart" when they see that "W" logo.

Is this stuff getting through to you yet? \
post #120 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Of course it could be worse. People might think of "Walmart" when they see that "W" logo.
Is this stuff getting through to you yet? \

The why doesn't George Bush sue them?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple challenges new Woolworths logo