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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You'd be correct if the logo looked like the Apple logo it doesn't though so this whole thing is frivolous. Sorry but Apple is the jerk here
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.
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.
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.
Why doesn't Apple go after Palm for hacking iTunes ? End of story?
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?
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.
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.
.
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.
Woolworth's will simply pull up very common instances of Apple's being used in other adverstising.
However:
With that being said claims that Apple should be ashamed or that this is frivolous are incorrect. As Merdhead stated you must defend potential encroachmen of your trademark in order to keep yours. We don't know who "vigorously" Apple intends to defend but any effort on their part preserves their right to challenge future encroachment.
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.
I?m 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 don?t see how anyone could confuse the two, especially since they are in different industries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
My condolences to your wife!
Assuming he is telling the truth. Personally, I don?t 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. 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.
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!
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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
Quote:
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.
The branding exercise is already intensely underway here and my local woolworths has already adopted it. There won't be any going back here.
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.
Comments
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.
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!
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=22
Please read the article.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Frivolous.
It would be frivolous if they were suing for money, they are not.
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.
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.
Look who beat the ban. Welcome back.
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.
You'd be correct if the logo looked like the Apple logo it doesn't though so this whole thing is frivolous. Sorry but Apple is the jerk here
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.
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.
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.
Why doesn't Apple go after Palm for hacking iTunes ? End of story?
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?
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.
Cept there's no judge.
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.
.
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.
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.
My condolences to your wife!
Apple won't win.
Woolworth's will simply pull up very common instances of Apple's being used in other adverstising.
However:
With that being said claims that Apple should be ashamed or that this is frivolous are incorrect. As Merdhead stated you must defend potential encroachmen of your trademark in order to keep yours. We don't know who "vigorously" Apple intends to defend but any effort on their part preserves their right to challenge future encroachment.
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.
My condolences to your wife!
Assuming he is telling the truth. Personally, I don?t think Helen Keller could stand to be in his company.
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. 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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
The branding exercise is already intensely underway here and my local woolworths has already adopted it. There won't be any going back here.
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!