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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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'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!
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.
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.
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!
Maybe that's all Apple Inc may require Woolworths to do in order to settle it. That Wooworth will always include their name with the logo. Or that the logo will never appear by itself on any electronic, computer equipment or music related product. (Don't forget, Apple Inc also own the Apple Records logo.)
Think about it. If you see the Woolworths logo by itself as an "apple" and not as a "W", on a computer, piece of electronics or music CD what company do you think of first? Apple Inc or Apple records. It doesn't matter that the three companies logos are different. Is what company you think of first when you see an "apple" logo on a product that matters. And once you understand this, you'll begin to understand what a "trademark" is all about. And why there are laws that protects a company's trademark. And protects consumers from companies violating some one else's trademark.
Comments
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
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.
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!
You mean the record company stole the logo from Adam.
How you like them apples?
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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
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?
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?
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!
Maybe that's all Apple Inc may require Woolworths to do in order to settle it. That Wooworth will always include their name with the logo. Or that the logo will never appear by itself on any electronic, computer equipment or music related product. (Don't forget, Apple Inc also own the Apple Records logo.)
Think about it. If you see the Woolworths logo by itself as an "apple" and not as a "W", on a computer, piece of electronics or music CD what company do you think of first? Apple Inc or Apple records. It doesn't matter that the three companies logos are different. Is what company you think of first when you see an "apple" logo on a product that matters. And once you understand this, you'll begin to understand what a "trademark" is all about. And why there are laws that protects a company's trademark. And protects consumers from companies violating some one else's trademark.