Ummm. Woolworths is Australia's largest retailer and an iconic Australian brand that is much loved. They announced the rebranding with great fanfare over a year ago, why is Apple only noticing now....
It's also an iconic Australian brand calling itself Woolworths as a dare in 1924. Australians typically love this kind of cheeky behaviour and will totally side with much loved Woolworths over Apple in this battle.
They will probably settle out of court and sell iPhones and iPods in store...
Here's the awesome history about it starting in 1924:
The name on the draft prospectus drawn up by Cecil Scott Waine was "Wallworths Bazaar" – a play on the F.W. Woolworth name (the owner of the Woolworth's chain in the United States and United Kingdom). However, according to Ernest Robert Williams, Percy Christmas dared him to register the name Woolworths instead, which he succeeded in doing after finding out the name was available for use in New South Wales. Accordingly, Woolworths Ltd in Australia has no connection with the F.W. Woolworth Company in the United States.
Unfortunately Apple logo is International brand and recongnised the World over and that's why Apple are defending its logo to the max. This is standard practise and as many have stated undertaken by many companies on daily basis.
Also WoolWorths may plan to sell computers in their stores and that what Apple are worried about.
This has nothing to do with protecting Apple's Logo.
If it did, then they wouldn't have gone GAY with the Rainbow Logo a few years back.
Apple infringed on The Gay Pride Flag, they didn't sue.
So in reality, how ridiculous does this particular infringement sound to Apple's PIECE OF FRICKING FRUIT.
They lost with the state of New York when they tried to Sue New York (Apple, You are a piece of Fruit).
Can't Apple get along with anyone these days? They are pissing everyone off and they had nothing to do with Light Peak as Intel Made Clear.
So when Apple turns their logo Green I guess Granny Smith can sue their Asses for Logo Infringement.
I like the new Woolworths Logo. It's a fricking W. Get over it you obsessed Apple Cult fans. Pull the Apple out of your Ass it's just a Logo.
By the way... Microsoft is the most known Brand in the World. Apple is just a Piece of Fruit that happens to have a Music Player and a Phone. Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
Without Apple. You would have to find a new phone, new music player and if you're in the lowest common denominator you'd have to find a new computer that will have Microsoft Windows 7 on it.
he has not changed one bit, still ranting without any supported evidence! MS best known brand Hmm!
Btw: Coke Cola may be better known brand then MS, since you do not get many computers, when you don't have a power source, but you found Coke Cola everywhere!
Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
UGH. Welcome back NonVendorFan. Thanks for reminding me of everything we all owe to Microsoft; without them I'd never really be able to appreciate how great my Macs really are.
This has nothing to do with protecting Apple's Logo.
If it did, then they wouldn't have gone GAY with the Rainbow Logo a few years back.
Apple infringed on The Gay Pride Flag, they didn't sue.
So in reality, how ridiculous does this particular infringement sound to Apple's PIECE OF FRICKING FRUIT.
They lost with the state of New York when they tried to Sue New York (Apple, You are a piece of Fruit).
Can't Apple get along with anyone these days? They are pissing everyone off and they had nothing to do with Light Peak as Intel Made Clear.
So when Apple turns their logo Green I guess Granny Smith can sue their Asses for Logo Infringement.
I like the new Woolworths Logo. It's a fricking W. Get over it you obsessed Apple Cult fans. Pull the Apple out of your Ass it's just a Logo.
By the way... Microsoft is the most known Brand in the World. Apple is just a Piece of Fruit that happens to have a Music Player and a Phone. Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
Without Apple. You would have to find a new phone, new music player and if you're in the lowest common denominator you'd have to find a new computer that will have Microsoft Windows 7 on it.
The colors on your Gay flag are the colors from an actual rainbow (minus indigo) in the order as they appear on an actual rainbow. If you compare the colors of the rainbow Apple logo to that Gay Pride flag you have hanging from your window, you will see that they appear in different order. The colors on the Apple rainbow logo is suppose to represent the color bars on the Apple II color monitor. Even though the color bars aren't in the same order. And if you look inside an Apple II, you'll notice that the 6 color wires of a cable (floppy?) used is in the same order as they appear on the logo. (But Apple designed the cable to look like their logo.)
The the Apple rainbow logo was introduced in early 1977 with the introduction of the Apple II. Your Gay Pride flag was introduced in 1978 during the SF Gay Pride Parade. And it (Gay Pride flag) originally had 8 colors. Which was why Apple Computer didn't sue you and your Gay friends for trademark infringement.
But all this aside, you can't sue anybody for trademark infringement based on color scheme alone. Unless you invent a color that didn't exist before.
And Apple is not suing NYC. Most headlines got it wrong. Apple is filing a complaint with the trademark agency that oversees trademark applications. Which Apple and all other "apple" logo users has the right to do whenever some one submits a new application for a logo with an "apple" on it. NYC may very well have to change the style of their logo or limit how, where and when they can use it. Maybe not because of Apple Inc. But because of some other company that has a logo with an "apple" in it also filed a complaint concerning NYC trademark application.
As far as I know NYC have not been granted a trademark on their logo yet. But I tell you what, if NYC did have a trademark on their green apple logo. You better believe that NYC would also be filing a complaint about this Woolworths logo. The Woolworths logo looks more like the NYC logo than the Apple Inc. logo.
If Apple doesn't defend its logo against similar designs, future designs that have even more similarity will use that as an argument as to why they can have a similar logo.
Apple has to defend here, or risk even more problems with those who deliberately seek to play off their image.
Apple is a little paranoid here.
What about Apple stealing the apple logo from the Beatles? Now, that is what I would call confusing: a green beatles apple selling music and an apple company selling music software!
The Beatles should reopen their case and force Apple to drop their Apple logo ?
There are too many lawyers in the world What a waste of money. We need more engineers and designers to face the challenges of the future. All those legal people can go * themselves!
On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to ?Apple? (including all designs of the famed 'Granny Smith' Apple Corps Ltd. logos[3]) and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential. [24] [25]
You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not Yoko and gang gets a cut on every iPod, music device, music sold, music app, etc, etc. as the terms are confidential.
About the only thing confidential is the amount Apple Inc. paid Apple Records for all rights to their Apple Record logo and how much Apple is charging (if anything) to license the Apple Record logo back to them.
Why would Apple Inc. pay Apple Record anything for using their Apple trademark on music related products when a judge already decided that it was not an infringement to do so under the current contract at the time. The only thing in question was the use of the Apple name in their iTunes Store. If you notice at the time, no where did the name "Apple" appeared in the iTunes store. But Apple also won the right to do that. What Apple Inc did by buying out Apple Records logo is to settled all future disputes (including any appeal) concerning their use of their trademark.
On 8 May 2006 the court ruled in favour of Apple Computer,[8] with Justice Mann holding that ?no breach of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstrated?.[9][10]
The Judge focused on section 4.3 of that agreement:
4.3 The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) [the Apple Corps catalogue and any future music], Apple Computers [sic] shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 [Apple Computer Field of Use] (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).[9]
The Judge held Apple Computer?s use was covered under this cause.
And how much you want to bet that these same Australian lawyers will be the first to sue Walmart, if Walmart decided to incorporate their "W" into a fruit for their grocery stores.
I'm not aware that lawyers from one country are any better than lawyers from another.
It's nothing to do with the attitudes of the lawyers. It's more the point that you can barely breathe in the US without being sued.
Your cat jumps into your neighbour's garden? Sue
Hold a cup of hot coffee between your legs and drive? Sue
Dry cleaning company loses your pants? Sue
Guy who sues people the most gets put in the Guiness Book of Records? Yep, he sued.
I'm sure the US is the only country in the whole world where it needs to be common knowledge that yes, you CAN sue yourself.
What about Apple stealing the apple logo from the Beatles? Now, that is what I would call confusing: a green beatles apple selling music and an apple company selling music software!
The Beatles should reopen their case and force Apple to drop their Apple logo ?
There are too many lawyers in the world What a waste of money. We need more engineers and designers to face the challenges of the future. All those legal people can go * themselves!
I bet your the type of person that still thinks PARC invented the mouse and the GUI. And that Apple also stole those ideas from them.
Everyone interested in the Beatles already owns their music, and the Beatles are far too late to catch the iPod party.
Leave the Bugs in the 8-track era, where they belong.
How wrong you are.
In the UK the release of the Beatles Stereo Box Set sold out on the day it was released, all 50,000 copies. It is still very difficult to get hold of in the UK. Who bought all those?
I have been waiting to purchase the Beatles music for a long time, for either the new CDs or downloads. I am 48 years old, and owned 3 Beatles CDs (Love, No1s and St Peppers).
There are MANY people who want to own the Beatles music and always will be, so iTunes need to get them on there ASAP. They lost out on my £170.
Without Apple, Microsoft would have no LOGO! The Windows flag was created on a Mac at Wieden & Kennedy for the release of Windows 95 and all the Windows 95 icons were done on a Mac...
It's true, without Apple the vast majority of graphic designers working today wouldn't be; after all, how else would anybody be able to get an idea from head to paper without a Mac?
So a company that sells fresh apples cannot use an image of an apple in it's logo because a consumer electronics company that makes laptops, computers, phones and digital players claim to own the trademark.
Ok if there was ever any doubt that Apple is the new Microsoft it has now been erased.
But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).
Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
The first electronic ATM was installed by Barclay's in 1967 in the UK. Obviously predating Windows by a good 18 years before the first version of Windows and 8 years before even Microsoft existed.
Most ATMs now run Windows, a deplorable practise in my opinion as there are much more secure OSes created specifically for this purpose.
I thought Apple had moved into retailing music and smart-phone apps?
Apple has ALSO moved into retailing music and ipods/smartphones (electronics). They still do a lot of computers (electronics). I'm sure you can see the point now.
Sorry. I am an apple fan ... everything I have electronic is an Apple. But this suing Woolworths over their new logo, is a tad too much. Next we will be banning the word "apple" completely from the English vocabulary due to "copyright". Come on .. lets get serious. Looking at the Woolworths logo, the ONLY similarity is that its an apple. It doesnt look much like ours!
Sorry. I am an apple fan ... everything I have electronic is an Apple. But this suing Woolworths over their new logo, is a tad too much. Next we will be banning the word "apple" completely from the English vocabulary due to "copyright". Come on .. lets get serious. Looking at the Woolworths logo, the ONLY similarity is that its an apple. It doesnt look much like ours!
Read the article and understand why Apple are suing before you comment. Woolworth's not only sell food items, but also stationary and maybe in future computers. I posted a link earlier from Australian paper on reasons.
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.
Unfortunately Apple logo is International brand and recongnised the World over and that's why Apple are defending its logo to the max. This is standard practise and as many have stated undertaken by many companies on daily basis.
Also WoolWorths may plan to sell computers in their stores and that what Apple are worried about.
see link for full story
http://www.theage.com.au/business/ap...1005-ghzr.html
I can understand Apple's concern now and it is not just idle defending of their trademark/brand.
This has nothing to do with protecting Apple's Logo.
If it did, then they wouldn't have gone GAY with the Rainbow Logo a few years back.
Apple infringed on The Gay Pride Flag, they didn't sue.
So in reality, how ridiculous does this particular infringement sound to Apple's PIECE OF FRICKING FRUIT.
They lost with the state of New York when they tried to Sue New York (Apple, You are a piece of Fruit).
Can't Apple get along with anyone these days? They are pissing everyone off and they had nothing to do with Light Peak as Intel Made Clear.
So when Apple turns their logo Green I guess Granny Smith can sue their Asses for Logo Infringement.
I like the new Woolworths Logo. It's a fricking W. Get over it you obsessed Apple Cult fans. Pull the Apple out of your Ass it's just a Logo.
By the way... Microsoft is the most known Brand in the World. Apple is just a Piece of Fruit that happens to have a Music Player and a Phone. Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
Without Apple. You would have to find a new phone, new music player and if you're in the lowest common denominator you'd have to find a new computer that will have Microsoft Windows 7 on it.
he has not changed one bit, still ranting without any supported evidence! MS best known brand Hmm!
Btw: Coke Cola may be better known brand then MS, since you do not get many computers, when you don't have a power source, but you found Coke Cola everywhere!
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.
This has nothing to do with protecting Apple's Logo.
If it did, then they wouldn't have gone GAY with the Rainbow Logo a few years back.
Apple infringed on The Gay Pride Flag, they didn't sue.
So in reality, how ridiculous does this particular infringement sound to Apple's PIECE OF FRICKING FRUIT.
They lost with the state of New York when they tried to Sue New York (Apple, You are a piece of Fruit).
Can't Apple get along with anyone these days? They are pissing everyone off and they had nothing to do with Light Peak as Intel Made Clear.
So when Apple turns their logo Green I guess Granny Smith can sue their Asses for Logo Infringement.
I like the new Woolworths Logo. It's a fricking W. Get over it you obsessed Apple Cult fans. Pull the Apple out of your Ass it's just a Logo.
By the way... Microsoft is the most known Brand in the World. Apple is just a Piece of Fruit that happens to have a Music Player and a Phone. Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
Without Apple. You would have to find a new phone, new music player and if you're in the lowest common denominator you'd have to find a new computer that will have Microsoft Windows 7 on it.
The colors on your Gay flag are the colors from an actual rainbow (minus indigo) in the order as they appear on an actual rainbow. If you compare the colors of the rainbow Apple logo to that Gay Pride flag you have hanging from your window, you will see that they appear in different order. The colors on the Apple rainbow logo is suppose to represent the color bars on the Apple II color monitor. Even though the color bars aren't in the same order. And if you look inside an Apple II, you'll notice that the 6 color wires of a cable (floppy?) used is in the same order as they appear on the logo. (But Apple designed the cable to look like their logo.)
The the Apple rainbow logo was introduced in early 1977 with the introduction of the Apple II. Your Gay Pride flag was introduced in 1978 during the SF Gay Pride Parade. And it (Gay Pride flag) originally had 8 colors. Which was why Apple Computer didn't sue you and your Gay friends for trademark infringement.
But all this aside, you can't sue anybody for trademark infringement based on color scheme alone. Unless you invent a color that didn't exist before.
And Apple is not suing NYC. Most headlines got it wrong. Apple is filing a complaint with the trademark agency that oversees trademark applications. Which Apple and all other "apple" logo users has the right to do whenever some one submits a new application for a logo with an "apple" on it. NYC may very well have to change the style of their logo or limit how, where and when they can use it. Maybe not because of Apple Inc. But because of some other company that has a logo with an "apple" in it also filed a complaint concerning NYC trademark application.
As far as I know NYC have not been granted a trademark on their logo yet. But I tell you what, if NYC did have a trademark on their green apple logo. You better believe that NYC would also be filing a complaint about this Woolworths logo. The Woolworths logo looks more like the NYC logo than the Apple Inc. logo.
check it out here
http://www.applegazette.com/apple-in...-be-the-judge/
If Apple doesn't defend its logo against similar designs, future designs that have even more similarity will use that as an argument as to why they can have a similar logo.
Apple has to defend here, or risk even more problems with those who deliberately seek to play off their image.
Apple is a little paranoid here.
What about Apple stealing the apple logo from the Beatles? Now, that is what I would call confusing: a green beatles apple selling music and an apple company selling music software!
The Beatles should reopen their case and force Apple to drop their Apple logo ?
There are too many lawyers in the world
On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to ?Apple? (including all designs of the famed 'Granny Smith' Apple Corps Ltd. logos[3]) and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential. [24] [25]
You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not Yoko and gang gets a cut on every iPod, music device, music sold, music app, etc, etc. as the terms are confidential.
About the only thing confidential is the amount Apple Inc. paid Apple Records for all rights to their Apple Record logo and how much Apple is charging (if anything) to license the Apple Record logo back to them.
Why would Apple Inc. pay Apple Record anything for using their Apple trademark on music related products when a judge already decided that it was not an infringement to do so under the current contract at the time. The only thing in question was the use of the Apple name in their iTunes Store. If you notice at the time, no where did the name "Apple" appeared in the iTunes store. But Apple also won the right to do that. What Apple Inc did by buying out Apple Records logo is to settled all future disputes (including any appeal) concerning their use of their trademark.
On 8 May 2006 the court ruled in favour of Apple Computer,[8] with Justice Mann holding that ?no breach of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstrated?.[9][10]
The Judge focused on section 4.3 of that agreement:
4.3 The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) [the Apple Corps catalogue and any future music], Apple Computers [sic] shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 [Apple Computer Field of Use] (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).[9]
The Judge held Apple Computer?s use was covered under this cause.
And how much you want to bet that these same Australian lawyers will be the first to sue Walmart, if Walmart decided to incorporate their "W" into a fruit for their grocery stores.
I'm not aware that lawyers from one country are any better than lawyers from another.
It's nothing to do with the attitudes of the lawyers. It's more the point that you can barely breathe in the US without being sued.
Your cat jumps into your neighbour's garden? Sue
Hold a cup of hot coffee between your legs and drive? Sue
Dry cleaning company loses your pants? Sue
Guy who sues people the most gets put in the Guiness Book of Records? Yep, he sued.
I'm sure the US is the only country in the whole world where it needs to be common knowledge that yes, you CAN sue yourself.
Apple is a little paranoid here.
What about Apple stealing the apple logo from the Beatles? Now, that is what I would call confusing: a green beatles apple selling music and an apple company selling music software!
The Beatles should reopen their case and force Apple to drop their Apple logo ?
There are too many lawyers in the world
I bet your the type of person that still thinks PARC invented the mouse and the GUI. And that Apple also stole those ideas from them.
Hopefully never.
Everyone interested in the Beatles already owns their music, and the Beatles are far too late to catch the iPod party.
Leave the Bugs in the 8-track era, where they belong.
How wrong you are.
In the UK the release of the Beatles Stereo Box Set sold out on the day it was released, all 50,000 copies. It is still very difficult to get hold of in the UK. Who bought all those?
I have been waiting to purchase the Beatles music for a long time, for either the new CDs or downloads. I am 48 years old, and owned 3 Beatles CDs (Love, No1s and St Peppers).
There are MANY people who want to own the Beatles music and always will be, so iTunes need to get them on there ASAP. They lost out on my £170.
Without Apple, Microsoft would have no LOGO! The Windows flag was created on a Mac at Wieden & Kennedy for the release of Windows 95 and all the Windows 95 icons were done on a Mac...
It's true, without Apple the vast majority of graphic designers working today wouldn't be; after all, how else would anybody be able to get an idea from head to paper without a Mac?
So a company that sells fresh apples cannot use an image of an apple in it's logo because a consumer electronics company that makes laptops, computers, phones and digital players claim to own the trademark.
Ok if there was ever any doubt that Apple is the new Microsoft it has now been erased.
But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).
But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).
I thought Apple had moved into retailing music and smart-phone apps?
Microsoft runs all of Fortune 500 companies. Without them you wouldn't likely have a Job, couldn't get cash out of ATM's, Couldn't get Gas with your Debit Card, Couldn't buy groceries with your debit card.
The first electronic ATM was installed by Barclay's in 1967 in the UK. Obviously predating Windows by a good 18 years before the first version of Windows and 8 years before even Microsoft existed.
Most ATMs now run Windows, a deplorable practise in my opinion as there are much more secure OSes created specifically for this purpose.
I thought Apple had moved into retailing music and smart-phone apps?
Apple has ALSO moved into retailing music and ipods/smartphones (electronics). They still do a lot of computers (electronics). I'm sure you can see the point now.
But if you read the article, Woolworths wants to trademark their logo to include electronics too (which is Apple's domain isn't it).
No, Apple doesn't sell toasters, bread makers, DVD Players, jaffle irons etc.
It's nothing to do with the attitudes of the lawyers. It's more the point that you can barely breathe in the US without being sued.
Your cat jumps into your neighbour's garden? Sue
Hold a cup of hot coffee between your legs and drive? Sue
Dry cleaning company loses your pants? Sue
Guy who sues people the most gets put in the Guiness Book of Records? Yep, he sued.
I'm sure the US is the only country in the whole world where it needs to be common knowledge that yes, you CAN sue yourself.
You are telling me that Europe, Australia and others are not becoming like US with concern to those practices. Give me a break mate!
Skip
Sorry. I am an apple fan ... everything I have electronic is an Apple. But this suing Woolworths over their new logo, is a tad too much. Next we will be banning the word "apple" completely from the English vocabulary due to "copyright". Come on .. lets get serious. Looking at the Woolworths logo, the ONLY similarity is that its an apple. It doesnt look much like ours!
Read the article and understand why Apple are suing before you comment. Woolworth's not only sell food items, but also stationary and maybe in future computers. I posted a link earlier from Australian paper on reasons.