Apple, which has a long history of defending its world-famous bitten apple logo, has decided the similarities are a little too close for comfort. At first glance, the chance for confusion between a computer company and a food seller seems remote, but Woolworths' application asked for a blanket trademark extending even to electrical goods and technology.
Judging by that last bit, I can't say I blame Apple.
the woolworth logo is good, and not too close in relation. the leaf points right because EVERYONE associates right and up with forward and left and down with backward. i agree that woolworth's attempt to extend the mark to electronics is obviously the issue here.
still, no segment of any population would be foolish enough to assume both are the same company. there is enough difference between the two logos, especially as silhouettes.
"Well tell me, gentlemen, What does this fruit have to do with your computer? Maybe it is you that needs to change your deceptive looking logo, 'cause you can't eat your produce! And, as has been mentioned, it looks a lot like John & Paul's record label-which I have consumed all my life!"
I couldn't understand why Apple would bother until I read the article. Having said that, two things. I don't see enough similarity for Apple to be concerned and what an awful Woolworths logo. They should go back to the drawing board on that one and both problems (ugly logo and Apple's challenge) will go away.
LOL nice comment! Well I mean they are not dramatically similar. I was expecting to see a logo from the likes of what the Simpson's illustrators produced in the "Mapple" episode, but you can see were the company got it's concept from. All the same, I love Apple, but this is kind of frivolous....
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.
Only if the fresh apple company also sold electronics or whatever else Apple has covered with their trademark.
Please realise that Apple has to do such things to protect their trademark, due to the nature of trademark law.
"Well tell me, gentlemen, What does this fruit have to do with your computer? Maybe it is you that needs to change your deceptive looking logo, 'cause you can't eat your produce! And, as has been mentioned, it looks a lot like John & Paul's record label-which I have consumed all my life!"
In my mind Apple is responsible for protecting it's registered trademarks. If it doesn't it does stand the chance to loose out over time by putting up a suite it's showing Apple is very serious about protecting its trademark and will fight for it..
This has very little to do with whether Apple thinks it will win or lose this specific case... For all we know they might be of the opinion that they will lose but the fact is this made the paper and shows all of the companies they are more closely tied to the computer / consumer electronic industry to think twice about using an Apple as a logo.
That little symbol is an extremely valuable asset and I don't fault them for defending it.
I certainly fault them for a ton of other things but this isn't one of them.
the woolworth logo is good, and not too close in relation. the leaf points right because EVERYONE associates right and up with forward and left and down with backward...
I wonder if Apple has defensively registered their mark in Australia? If you're a well known company you can register a mark in advance of any potential usage. eg Nike may defensively register their swoosh for sporting goods (I know they already market these) as opposed to apparel in classifications where confusion might be caused.
However, I fail to see the resemblance. The branding has been going on for some time now and recently in my area and I did not draw the resemblance until I had read this article.
EDIT: BTW tricky colourisation of the Apple logo in the article. How did that come about?
I live in Australia and do all my grocery shopping at Woolworths. I am also a Apple user and have been for years. When I walked into my local Woolworths last year and saw the new logo, I never though once that it was related to Apple. It is it's own thing. Yes, it could be interpreted as an apple but it has it's own twist and I think it is fine. Looks more like a 'W' then an apple anyway.
Apple's logo is so recognisable that I don't think anyone could possibly get these two mixed up!
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.
After consultation with staff and management of Woolworths and many hours of brainstorming, Hulsbosch developed the new logo combining the three key elements of the famous strap-line. ‘W’ for ‘Woolworths’, the colour green and fruit for ‘the fresh food’ and a person with arms in the air – food is energy for ‘people’.
“I spent many weeks working up the best solution to create a totally fresh image for Australia’s clear retail leader, whose branding was lagging behind the rest of the state-of-the-art operations developed by Woolworths’ management team.
Actually the Beatles (Apple Records that is) might be reason why Apple Inc. is filing this suit. Apple Inc. also owns the trademark for Apple Records. Apple Inc. paid Apple records for the rights to the Apple Record trademark to stop the back and forth lawsuits between them. Then Apple Inc. licensed back to Apple Record their original trademark. Apple Record has a lifetime license and the logo is to be retired when Apple Records cease to exist. So I believe Apple Inc must also defend the Apple Record trademark.
This is no different the when Apple Record sued Apple Computer for their rainbow Apple Computer logo. The Apple rainbow apple logo looked nothing like the Apple Record logo. An agreement was reach that allowed Apple Computer to use their rainbow apple logo(along with the "Apple" name for a computer maker), so long as they did not enter into the "music business". But when Macs started coming with MIDI ports, Apple Records sued again for breach of contract. Apple Records claimed that using a Mac to create music was entering the "music business". Apple Computers paid Apple Records to have the contract redrawn redefining exactly what the "music business" entails. Apple Records tried to sue again when iTunes came out. But Apple Inc. prevailed as iTunes was allowed under the terms of the redrawn contract. Apple Record was going through appeal when Apple Inc. paid Apple Records for all rights to the Apple Record logo. And then licensed it back to them.
The real question is why are there so many people here against Apple Inc. for defending their trademark? But yet most of these very same people most likely had no problem defending the Beatles when they claimed that Apple Computer stoled their original rainbow apple logo from the Apple Records. Specially when there's a greater difference between the Apple Computer rainbow logo and the Apple Record logo. Than there is between the Apple Inc. logo and the Woolsworth logo.
My bet is that Apple Inc. can stop Woolsworth from using this logo on anything to do with electronics, computers and music. People in Australia may not be confused if they saw this logo on an MP3 player. But here in the US, most never heard of the Australian Woolsworth. And thus when they see an MP3 player with their "w" apple logo on it, they will most likey think first of Apple Inc. and iPod.
It's quite simple ... Apple has one of the worlds most recognizable names & trademark in the world and they have to, by law, defend it 100% or lose that trademark ... end of story.
Why doesn't Apple go after Palm for hacking iTunes ? End of story?
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".
While Woolworth has admitted the possibility of selling computers at some indeterminate point in the future, and perhaps occasional sells or has sold furniture for other consumer electronics, the lack of the bite of removed from an apple should be sufficient to differentiate the trademarks. You could also note that Woolworths logo is a stylized W, and even if comprised of an apple peel does not match the Apple Mark Description nor does it match the image. You could note that while Apple is now the registered owner of recent Apple Corps Trade Marks, to date they have avoided the color green in new registrations.
Let me get this straight - Apple Computer originally stole both it's logo and name from Apple records and is now suing a food chain that uses an Apple in it's logo in the land of down under. LMAO!!!!!!!
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.
Comments
Apple, which has a long history of defending its world-famous bitten apple logo, has decided the similarities are a little too close for comfort. At first glance, the chance for confusion between a computer company and a food seller seems remote, but Woolworths' application asked for a blanket trademark extending even to electrical goods and technology.
Judging by that last bit, I can't say I blame Apple.
the woolworth logo is good, and not too close in relation. the leaf points right because EVERYONE associates right and up with forward and left and down with backward. i agree that woolworth's attempt to extend the mark to electronics is obviously the issue here.
still, no segment of any population would be foolish enough to assume both are the same company. there is enough difference between the two logos, especially as silhouettes.
Sorry legal team, but the judge may ask,
"Well tell me, gentlemen, What does this fruit have to do with your computer? Maybe it is you that needs to change your deceptive looking logo, 'cause you can't eat your produce! And, as has been mentioned, it looks a lot like John & Paul's record label-which I have consumed all my life!"
kinda lame..
Agreed! Apple is 'reaching' here.
F'ing lawyers, if it was up to them we wouldn't have jam in 'glass' jars.
I couldn't understand why Apple would bother until I read the article. Having said that, two things. I don't see enough similarity for Apple to be concerned and what an awful Woolworths logo. They should go back to the drawing board on that one and both problems (ugly logo and Apple's challenge) will go away.
LOL nice comment! Well I mean they are not dramatically similar. I was expecting to see a logo from the likes of what the Simpson's illustrators produced in the "Mapple" episode, but you can see were the company got it's concept from. All the same, I love Apple, but this is kind of frivolous....
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.
Only if the fresh apple company also sold electronics or whatever else Apple has covered with their trademark.
Please realise that Apple has to do such things to protect their trademark, due to the nature of trademark law.
Sorry legal team, but the judge may ask,
"Well tell me, gentlemen, What does this fruit have to do with your computer? Maybe it is you that needs to change your deceptive looking logo, 'cause you can't eat your produce! And, as has been mentioned, it looks a lot like John & Paul's record label-which I have consumed all my life!"
Hey with you around, who needs a legal team!
This has very little to do with whether Apple thinks it will win or lose this specific case... For all we know they might be of the opinion that they will lose but the fact is this made the paper and shows all of the companies they are more closely tied to the computer / consumer electronic industry to think twice about using an Apple as a logo.
That little symbol is an extremely valuable asset and I don't fault them for defending it.
I certainly fault them for a ton of other things but this isn't one of them.
nice GREEN apple inc. logo.
the woolworth logo is good, and not too close in relation. the leaf points right because EVERYONE associates right and up with forward and left and down with backward...
What's the significance of two leaves?
However, I fail to see the resemblance. The branding has been going on for some time now and recently in my area and I did not draw the resemblance until I had read this article.
EDIT: BTW tricky colourisation of the Apple logo in the article. How did that come about?
Apple's logo is so recognisable that I don't think anyone could possibly get these two mixed up!
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 spent many weeks working up the best solution to create a totally fresh image for Australia’s clear retail leader, whose branding was lagging behind the rest of the state-of-the-art operations developed by Woolworths’ management team.
I wonder what the Beatles think of all this?
Actually the Beatles (Apple Records that is) might be reason why Apple Inc. is filing this suit. Apple Inc. also owns the trademark for Apple Records. Apple Inc. paid Apple records for the rights to the Apple Record trademark to stop the back and forth lawsuits between them. Then Apple Inc. licensed back to Apple Record their original trademark. Apple Record has a lifetime license and the logo is to be retired when Apple Records cease to exist. So I believe Apple Inc must also defend the Apple Record trademark.
This is no different the when Apple Record sued Apple Computer for their rainbow Apple Computer logo. The Apple rainbow apple logo looked nothing like the Apple Record logo. An agreement was reach that allowed Apple Computer to use their rainbow apple logo(along with the "Apple" name for a computer maker), so long as they did not enter into the "music business". But when Macs started coming with MIDI ports, Apple Records sued again for breach of contract. Apple Records claimed that using a Mac to create music was entering the "music business". Apple Computers paid Apple Records to have the contract redrawn redefining exactly what the "music business" entails. Apple Records tried to sue again when iTunes came out. But Apple Inc. prevailed as iTunes was allowed under the terms of the redrawn contract. Apple Record was going through appeal when Apple Inc. paid Apple Records for all rights to the Apple Record logo. And then licensed it back to them.
The real question is why are there so many people here against Apple Inc. for defending their trademark? But yet most of these very same people most likely had no problem defending the Beatles when they claimed that Apple Computer stoled their original rainbow apple logo from the Apple Records. Specially when there's a greater difference between the Apple Computer rainbow logo and the Apple Record logo. Than there is between the Apple Inc. logo and the Woolsworth logo.
My bet is that Apple Inc. can stop Woolsworth from using this logo on anything to do with electronics, computers and music. People in Australia may not be confused if they saw this logo on an MP3 player. But here in the US, most never heard of the Australian Woolsworth. And thus when they see an MP3 player with their "w" apple logo on it, they will most likey think first of Apple Inc. and iPod.
It's quite simple ... Apple has one of the worlds most recognizable names & trademark in the world and they have to, by law, defend it 100% or lose that trademark ... end of story.
Why doesn't Apple go after Palm for hacking iTunes ? End of story?
While Woolworth has admitted the possibility of selling computers at some indeterminate point in the future, and perhaps occasional sells or has sold furniture for other consumer electronics, the lack of the bite of removed from an apple should be sufficient to differentiate the trademarks. You could also note that Woolworths logo is a stylized W, and even if comprised of an apple peel does not match the Apple Mark Description nor does it match the image. You could note that while Apple is now the registered owner of recent Apple Corps Trade Marks, to date they have avoided the color green in new registrations.
Apple has to defend here, or risk even more problems with those who deliberately seek to play off their image.