Apple chokes on Woolworths logo Apple has moved to prevent Oz retailer Woolworths from trademarking a logo - something which would allow it to "slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product", as The Age puts it. The Woolworths and Apple logos The problem is, according to Apple, that Woolies' brand frontage is too close to its own. Woolworths' …
.. about time that strong action was taken against those companies whose name and logo bear no resemblance to the product(s) they are selling.
Hence, Apple will need to prove that it's major business is in growing and selling Apples (the fruit) - failure to do so will render their name and logo null and void !
MicroSoft will be forced to change to "World Domination Software" or WoDoSo.
Google to "TheRealBigBrother(be afraid, very afraid)"
Woolies sell records, right?
Apple Corps sued Apple computer about apple selling music, right?
So will the ex-beatle now sue woolies?
Oh, and Woolworths? What was wrong with the old red-and-gold W? Has the British debacle devalued it? our local peddler of cheap frozen foods still has the glass panels in the front with the big W on them.
Itdoeslook as though the lawyer you quoted didn't know what they were talking about. What Apple said, about computers, seemed quite sensible, based on other cases. Australian law of course, but if Apple can move into the music business, Oz Woolworths can make computers, and other trademark holders will have reason to be a bit picky.
Besides, don't Apple, under trademark law, have to do something in this case.
.
... that iApple gets royally shafted for this (yet another) attempt at trying to lay claim to every image of an apple that has ever existed. As EddieD said, Apple don't even sell apples. They can't stop the people that do sell apples advertising the fact.
Comparing the two logos is like comparing two cars... that each have four wheels and doors. That doesn't make them the same, or even remotely similar.
Get off your bleached ivory tower, iApple, and have a bowl of fruit. Maybe then you'll get some colour in your life and see the light.
Woolies in Australia sells groceries, fruit, veg, meat, booze, canned goods, etc.....oh and other handy homely bits and pieces found in any modern supermarket. And maybe a few DVDs, and some low-cost, Chinese made, electrical goods etc.
The logo reminds me of fruit, pretty much what they sell.
http://www.woolworths.com.au/
Apple are rotten.
Well, they certainly look different to me. But the designers of Woolies' new logo have definitely made the logo look like some sort of apple. Quite why, I don't know. I'm sure Oz has much more interesting fruit. Perhaps it's a Bible thing.
Still, we can't be surprised at Apple for taking action. All big companies do it. After all, M$ took action against Mike Rowe when he set up his online software store, Mike Rowe Soft (search the archives - it's in here somewhere).
Woolies should know better, Apple do what they always do, the World keeps turning.....
Strangely enough our directors are fighting off a simular challenge relating to our use of a word in our product range that can mean a container of many smaller items, despite our markets and products being quite different from Apples typical customers and products.
Somehow, i think my bosses are stuborn enough to go to court, since he was stubborn enough to return his iPhone because of this.
Bad news for the nostalgics in this thread. The Oz Woolies has no relation (and never did) to the original American Woolworths or its British offshoot. They just snapped up the name in the 1920s and used it themselves when they found out it wasn't already registered in Australia(!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolworths_Limited#History
Sadly this will be just another round of lawyers trying to justify their existence. Some firm of US lawyers will have already billed Apple for an insane amount of money to start this. But Woolworth's lawyers won't be telling them to sod off. Far from it. They will be advising Woolworth's management of the seriousness of the threat, and the need to spend huge amounts on yet more lawyers fees (their's) to address the threat. In response the US lawyers will lick their lips and draw up a hugely expensive plan of action and advise Apple of the need to move forward with it forthwith. End result? Lawyers in both countries buy new holiday villias in the Bahamas. It is great work if you can get it.
The curly green W is quite a nice logo but if they're selling electronics, including MP3 players and computers, it's not obvious why they need to put a stalk on it unless the intention IS to make it suggestive of the Apple logo. At the very least they could have the stalk pointing the other way to make it clear it's different.
The way trademark protection works is Apple have no choice but to challenge competing uses. If they don't defend their logo they use the rights to use it themselves.
As for Apple vs Apple Corps (the Beatles music publisher), Apple were on the receiving end of precisely this sort of challenge themselves in a couple of well publicised legal challenges, which they settled out of court. The point is moot as to where the name and logo originally came from. You can buy and sell trademark and Apple *paid* the Beatles in order to be able to use the trademark relating to the music business, so now it's theirs. (That's also when they changed their name from Apple Computer Inc to plain Apple Inc.)
Living in Oz I have actually seen the woolies apple shaped logo in action, it is 100% linked to fresh food, the jingle for woolies in Oz is "Woolies, the fresh food people." Now Apple got around the Beatles trademark problem by simply pointing out that the Beatles sold Music and Apple sold computers (ignoring for now iTunes and the Apple Music Shop). To argue against Woolies using thier logo to sell fresh food would be to argue against their own argument that let them use the apple in their trademark.
Now to iTunes and et al. When apple started selling music (despite having promised never to do so, the Beatles didn't want two Apple logos in the music industry) there was a big court case, surely we all remember that? In fact the Beatles lost that case, the summary was thus;
"But Mr Justice Anthony Mann ruled that the computer company used the Apple logo in association with its store, not the music, and so was not in breach."
So Woolworth simply needs to dredge up the details of this case and argue that their green curly Apple logo is used in association with their store, and not any computer hardware it may sell, using Apples own court case as precedent. I can't imagine Woolies lawyers are idiots and since Apple themselves have already set the precedent I smell a big fail coming Apples way!
Understand that the I.P. attorneys have to justify their stupidly large annual billing by demonstrating to the Board of Directors just how much "money" they "saved" the company by rigorously defending the company's I.P.
It doesn't matter if it badgering teenagers that appropriated their trademark for their Apple fan page with "Cease and Desist" letters, or going after a "hackintosh" manufacturer. That's why stupid things like this end up in the news. It doesn't have to make much of any sense at all, it just has to sound good at the end of the fiscal year.
Rolf Howarth and Steve Brooks seem to be in the minority of people who properly understand the situation.
The argument which Apple are presenting is that Woolworths may use the logo on electrical items and _at that point_ the logo similarities may cause confusion. This is why Apple Inc. did not have to settle with Apple Records _until the former started selling music_. Prior to that point, they were operating in completely different spaces so there was no scope for confusion.
Apple, like any company, must defend their trademarks in order to preserve brand identity. Now that Apple have brought this action, it falls to Woolworths to convince a judge that they will not be using the logo in association with any electrical items. And if they don't, but decide to do so at a later date, Apple can go after them for breaking this promise (in the same way that Apple Records went after Apple Inc. when they entered the music selling business - as they had already won a ruling which prevented Apple (Computers) Inc from doing so).
So, Woolworths will be free to use the logo provided that they do not apply it to electrical goods, and Apple needs to ensure that this ruling is passed as early as possible.
... And saw these fantasically real 3D apple logos arranged outside, so I inquired within about laptops. Never understood why the salesman checked the coast was clear, but he produced a nice shiny laptop from a bag under the counter, and I duly paid my money. You can image how horrified I was when it didn't boot into OSX... i'm off to phone trading standards!!
If you look at the original article in The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/apple-claims-woolies-is-getting-fresh-with-new-logo-20091004-ghxe.html
It says that
"Apple is spooked by the fact that Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product."
This is an important point. While Woolworths doesn't currently make or sell PCs, they are applying for the registered logo that they could potentially use to market them.
Woolworths could probably just get around this by restricting their application for trademark to not apply to electronic devices or similar.
Here in NZ at any rate, Woolworths is akin to Sainsburys, maybe Tescos. All owned by parent Aussie company Progressive.
We're getting the same logo over here, albeit the stores branding Countdown
but Woolworths et al over here is certainly seen as a supermarket and not the dear tat bazaar we so fondly remember over in Blighty.
So, yeah, the logo to me makes perfect sense, conveys freshness. They may sell electronic goods too, but they're primarily foodstuffs. Always have been, I'm told.
In any case, I don't think they have "own brand" electronics goods - its just their food that is so.
FWIW, doesn't look exactly the same, but then it doesn't look entirely different.
I noticed that on the Nickelodeon TV show iCarly, they use 'Pear' branded computers. I was wondering if anyone knew the reasoning behind this - did Nick get threatened with anything or is it a way of avoiding allegations of product placement ? Citations would be nice as all I could find online was fan speculation.
I don't think Apple comment upon this (no surprise, there) but my understanding was that Apple chose the logo in homage to Alan Turing, father of the modern computer and responsible for much of the decoding of Hitler's messages. Turing killed himself by injecting an apple with poison and then taking a bite out of it after he was prosecuted for having a same-sex lover. Homosexuality was a crime in the UK in those days.
Who knows?
Or is everyone just spouting bollocks?
Apple has to defend its trademark and its right otherwise they lose them. It doesn't matter who does what or where, Apple is obliged to defend its mark each and everytime, even if it means coming to an agreement with Woolworths over it.
And, as much as you guys hate Apple, Apple does have a point. If this mark showed up on a computer or MP3 player then it could easily cause confusion in the market place. Trademarks are designed to protect a company's investments in their brand and marks.
...for those apologists spouting that Apple need to "protect their brand".
Hello, Woolies will not be -naming- their electronics "Apple", the logos look nothing alike, they use different colours (yes, that's part of the trademark), yadda yadda yadda.
Yes, trademarks (and trademarked logos) are designed to protect a company's brand, which is apparent when someone rips off the Gucci logo for their knock-off goods and gets sued up the wazoo This is just Apple being a bunch of cheeky f#cktards - "having a go" to give their trademark lawyers some more work and generating some publicity.
Take the McDonald M and bend the outer legs in at the bottom to make it a bit more rounded, put a stalk in the dip at the top and colour the whole thing a uniform Orange. Take a bite out of the side if you must!
Now you can grantee that if woolworths win this case, they can then sue you too. Essentially giving you an extra product line for the duration of the case.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
