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.
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.
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!!!!!!!
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.
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. 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$50?US$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 Computer?s 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 Computer?s 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.
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$50–US$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 Computer’s 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 Computer’s 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”.
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.
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!!!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!"
From Wikipedia...
Quote:
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? and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use.
Hmmm. Seems like you have old information. John and Paul's record label already lost THAT fight, and Apple Inc owns the trademark.
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!!!!!!!
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.
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...
References
^ a b Apple Corps Limited and Apple Computer, Inc., UK Mr. Justice Mann (High Court 2005-08-05).
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 just like the fact that you use the word frak! ;-)
Comments
The whole point:
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!
Apple didn't steal their name and logo.
Woolworths is not just a food store.
When have you ever got things straight?
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.
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
Apple didn't steal their name and logo.
Woolworths is not just a food store.
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-
Attorneys for Apple have begun a legal response against the largest supermarket chain
Got it?
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$50?US$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 Computer?s 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 Computer?s 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?.
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.
When are The Beatles coming to iTunes?
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.
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$50–US$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 Computer’s 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 Computer’s 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”.
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 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.
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!!!!!!!
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.
FWIW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
Wikipedia? Must be true then...
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.
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.
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!"
From Wikipedia...
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? and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use.
Hmmm. Seems like you have old information. John and Paul's record label already lost THAT fight, and Apple Inc owns the trademark.
Thompson
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!!!!!!!
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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 just like the fact that you use the word frak! ;-)