Slashdot Mirror
Apple Takes Action Over Australian Logos
sams67 writes "Australian supermarket Woolworth is on the receiving end of an action from Apple over Woolworth's new logo. The green, highly stylized 'W' logo could at best be described as 'apple-like.' As outlined in the article, Apple is taking similar action in Australia against music festival promoter, Poison Apple, and pay TV provider Foxtel, over their fruit-related logos."
From the company that complained bitterly when sued by Apple Records.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Having seen the logos (I read the article. sorry) my first thought was, "How stupid do they really think people are?"
I myself could easily identify the difference after my 3rd day awake in Vegas with a .28 and a swollen left eye received from an offended stripper.
Upon further reflection though the lowest common denominator really is the lowest common denominator. If there are people out there stupid enough to believe a prince in Nigeria is going to give them a million dollars, send txt messages to American Idol at .99c each, pay the infinite profit margin for txt messaging period, and participate in the various money sinks present in the banalities on the Internet... then perhaps Apple does have a valid concern.
As much as I hate to agree with greedy megacorps, Apple's premise is that the majority of people are stupid enough to confuse the logos, and unfortunately I can't seem to argue that they are wrong.. with their premise.
For I welcome our new apple shaped overlords!
I don't think Apple has it out for Woolworth's and I don't think Woolworth's meant to make a logo that's similar to Apple's. I see the similar shape but no one would ever mistake the two. This is really just reflexive litigation where the party that potentially faces dilution issues just wants to get the issue in front of a judge for some ass covering. Whether they win or lose, Apple can point to this and say they tried to defend their trademark. And if they lose and in the future, the logo condenses and the bent dash starts to straighten out and it really does look like the Apple logo, they can point to this case again and use it as leverage to say "yeah, we saw this coming, we're not only suing now that it's established".
tl;dr: It's just some cover your ass litigation and nothing more.
I'd love to see New York City sue Apple over the rights to using an Apple as a logo. And then force Apple to come up with a new logo.
WTF, I like my iPhone, and I enjoyed using OS X at my last job, enough that I considered buying a Mac. But man, Apple is such a prick. I think I am going to leave Apple products unless they change their policies.
I'll put it this way. The #1 thing improving Microsoft's image with me is Apple. Yes, that's right. Microsoft is starting to seem darn friendly when standing next to the pretentious prick that Apple has become. (And Apple were always pretentious pricks, now they've just push themselves to a much higher
It seems like Apple has a new, overzealous legal team that feels the need to go after everyone and anyone they can.
But hey, everyone loves a large, bullying, inflexible corporation.
Right? Right?
Then again, Woolworths could lose that tick-thing at the top of their logo.
Apple sure is turning into quite the trollish company these days.
Is that the new fad style they are pushing now? being an ass?
Its been done already...
is Apple going to start suing apple trees for infringement too?
Okay then... it's a lime. Now go take a running jump.
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
Apple is the new microsoft...
-sid
Having looked at the two logos, they're easily distinguishable. Apple's logo is solid, the "W" is made of two overlapping loops. Apple's logo has the "bite", the W has no similar feature. Apple's logo is silver, the "W" is green. And on from there...
The article goes on to say that Apple is also trying to prevent someone else from using a logo of an apple with a devil, and all manner of things. That seems a misuse of trademark law. Trademark law is intended to prevent confusing similarities—something like making an MP3 player with a logo of an apple with the bite out of the opposite side, and calling it the "Appel miPod". It's not intended to prevent use of a common fruit in any type of logo anywhere, or to prohibit something with a vague, passing similarity in geometric shape but an obvious difference in any other way.
In fact, I seem to remember Apple making similar arguments themselves, when sued by a certain Apple Records...
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Looks more like a peach to me. Anyways... really Apple you have to go after that? I would never have seen the similarity if you did not point it out. Of course that similarity is like drinking fancy beer then after reading the label you think ... yeah it does taste like a ripe banana with clove spices. /.Kellerwies is a happy beer, wait this feels wrong.
You may not use an image of a real apple or other variation of the Apple logo for any purpose. Third parties cannot use a variation, phonetic equivalent, foreign language equivalent, takeoff, or abbreviation of an Apple trademark for any purpose. For example: Not acceptable: Appletree Jackintosh Apple Cart PodMart
Source.
Now I don't know whether to go with a produce joke, or a Jackintosh one.
If Apple wins this, then I suggest they sue Fruit of the Loom, for not only implying Apple in the name, but also using an apple in the fruit bowl. Steve Jobs is a tool if he thinks this is legitimate.
"Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
The new Woolworths logo is pretty stupid, anyway, its not used in conjunction with their name nearly enough, and to me it always looked more like an apple than a W.
I think that having an apple peel as a logo isn't all that great: do they sell food scraps?. Further shaping the apple peel as an apple is a bit absurd, and it could be an intentional subconscious reference to Apple Inc.. I don't like the logo because those three points.
IMO the logo is in a grey area -- it has similarities and differences. I wouldn't mistake one logo for another and I don't think a reasonable person would.
Ultimately I think that an apple is commonplace and no-one should be able to register it as a trademark. However if the apple is differentiated then that's ok: Apple Inc. has a grey glossy apple with a bite in it: that's unique. The Woolworths apple is a a green apple peel: that's unique, and not in the same way as the first. As long as in a split second glimpse a reasonable person isn't able to confuse one unique apple trademark with another then they should be able to co-exist.
Dumb Aussie Joe Public (no offense to Austrailians but I'm trying to set a scene) may indeed confuse the two especially after a few tinnies.
As has been said, Apple is acting like ANY other trademark owner. You could substitute BMW, Merceded, McDonals etc for Apple. IT is your trademark. If you don't defent it then you set a precedent that means you could lose the rights to in in future.
Nothing to do with Copyright, Patents or DRM.
Simple Trademark protection.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
That new Woolworth's logo looks to me like a peeled apple skin, which is a part of the apple you throw away to avoid wax, pesticides, filth, etc.
Coincidences? Maybe not.
In related news, the board members of Fruit of the Loomâ just shat in their briefs...
Whilst looking at the two logos i think its an absolutely stupid idea that apple could think that anyone on their worst day could mistake one for the other; however knowing the power that woolworths has in Australia; being part of a duopoly that beats out competition and keeps the prices some of the highest in the world whilst not looking out for Australian farmers and now trying to expand into other markets im finding it hard to feel sorry for woolworths. whilst i don't think apples case will hold up and it wont change anything i cant help but feel satisfied that Goliath is getting some of its own back even if it is another Goliath dishing it out.
In Google we trust.
Or, more precisely, their lawyers are.
If someone gives me the addresses of these lawyers I'll be more than happy to make a bunch of stickers of this logo and plaster it over every square inch of property they own! With the amount of crack theymust be smoking, they probably won't notice it and think it's all part of their landscape.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It's bright fucking green.
Funny you should mention that. From the article:
Apple is also taking action against a music festival promoter, Poison Apple, which has applied to trademark an apple with a bite out of it atop crossed bones, and Foxtel, whose branding for a new pornography channel, Adults Only, is an apple together with an arrow and a devil's tail..
Crunchy!
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Can we stop pretending that MS is the evilest tech company in the world yet, or are we waiting until Apple, Inc. starts suing grocery stores for selling infringing fruits and vegetables?
We all know that Australians throw prawns on the BBQ and drink Beer. We have never heard any Australian on any programme ever refer to fruit.
Therefore Apple's case is completely valid as no Australian knew what an Apple was before Apple showed them the picture, in fact it wasn't until the mid-90s that Australians knew that there was a fruit called the Apple rather than it just being about a computer.
Quite clearly therefore Apple owns the right to every apple-esque or indeed fresh fruit like Logo that is possible to be created.
In separate developments they also own the concept of 3D in Germany.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Thus far, this thread is full of little more than repressed anti-Apple feelings being vented with zero analysis of either the logos or the issue at hand. You know, "facts".
As an Australian, I can say that Woolworths has been (allegedly, cough) involved in anti-competitive practices for years in the grocery, and now petrol markets. As one of the two (and effectively only) major supermarket chains in this country their activities and pricing has stifled competition and cost consumers' back pockets plenty. This is not your typical David vs Goliath situation.
So before everybody rushes to their defence, and makes Apple out to be a big corporate bully, it would be worth looking at the behaviour on both sides.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
I don't think the logos aren't similar enough to prove an infringement of trademark, especially international. This is going to be a big waste of money and time for Apple. Why attack Aussie businesses with fruity logos anyway? Don't they have anything better to do? Like, maybe fix the iMac "Big Yellow Line" display problems.
"WOOLWORTHS insists its new logo is a stylised W, or a piece of fresh produce"
I think it looked more like a green pepper than an apple if you are seeing it by itself.
Good thinking, that's why Microsoft won't be able to register a trademark for "Windows". No, wait... Uhm... ;)
Would that be like a government of hypos by the hypos for the hypos, or would hypos be more like a ruling class governing all the other classes?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
on the back if EVERY SINGLE laptop?
They are probably suing just to get attention. Might get a lot of Australians to think about Apple Computers when they walk into Woolworths. So maybe they are crazy, but at the same time not.
Apple, just another Microsoft in worst.
They're like potatos, there's minerals and vitamins in the skin that get discarded when peeled. Wash the apple and the wax, pesticdes, filth are gone.
The differences are obvious but what is also obvious is it's meant to "give the impression" of the Apple logo. It's common practice and sleazy marketing but it's usually done by much smaller companies. It's easy tell Apple to get a life but they have spent hundreds of millions developing the brand and they aren't happy when another company tries to snake some of reflected glory. Honestly look at the "leaf" at the top of the "W". Take that away and the problem goes away but it was put there specifically to mimic the Apple brand. Advertising is all about leaving an impression. The average person may look at it and not think Apple but somewhere in their lizard brain the Apple light goes off. Trust me they did a lot of testing to make sure people got the mental tie in to Apple. Will Apple win? Hard to say but Woolworth's is hardly an innocent victim they are testing the boundaries of what they can get away with. The whole point is they have a long established brand and this is a radical departure from it. Rather than take the years to establish a new brand look they are trying to piggyback on Apple much as the design for the Microsoft stores did. I think the Beetles argument was far less convincing. They claimed they had a trademark on a bloody apple.
Take that, Apple!!! http://img40.imageshack.us/i/applemarmalade.jpg/
Or why Bass Beer has a red triangle as their trademark.
At the end of the day, the important thing is limiting the scope. Someone should be able to open up an Apple Dry Cleaners business that uses an apple as a logo, provided that a reasonable person would not confuse it with the Apple Computer's logo.
So what if they're corporate bullys? That has absolutely no bearing on this case. Apple is batshit insane on this one, and the fact that Woolworths are not nice people has zero to do with it and shouldn't make us jump 'ZOMG they're guilty, appel is teh g0dz and can do no evil!!!1!1!!1one!1".
I kinda hope Apple wins this one, mostly because I'm tired of corporate rebranding campaigns, and I find this whole new Woolworths logo tiresome, and an attempt to be clever that failed. The old logo was just "Woolworths", which said all it needed to say. Enough with logos already. Thank goodness the Australian government put a stop to government agencies all having their own logo. That was also boring and tiresome, and thankfully has been squashed.
(Looks at lid of laptop ... looks at shopping receipt...)
Nope, don't see it. Just as well, 'cos I've apparrently got a tree full of copyright-infringement in my backyard...
The real travesty here is Woolworths. Their corporate logo is apple green, their staff uniforms are apple green - so what do they do? Make their store loyalty card bright orange, and make their staff wear a bright orange cap to advertise it.
Now I'm as straight as they come and, as such, have absolutely no eye for colour-coordination - but even I would baulk at wearing bright orange and a rather-subdued apple green together. That's about as tasteless as their home brand oven-fry chips. You're checking out the cute checkout chick, you look up to her face, and ...
ARRGH!
But, just as the poor girl at the checkout had the decency to apologise for giving me the hard-sell on the card, I had the decency to not laugh at her hat.
Until I walked outside, anyway...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Some facts might be helpful:
"Most people believe "the arithmetic mean" and "the average" to be synonyms, though there are many sorts of averages."
Indeed, in fact Mean and median are two different kinds of "averages". By convention "The average" in statistics refers to the arithmetic mean. Median is by definition the value that divides the population in half.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can we stop misspelling the word hypocrisy please? Thanks.
For all the evil that you can blame on Woolworths they are nowhere near as bad as Apple. For all the damage Woolworths has potentially done to a persons back pocket Apple's done far worse, Up until recently Apple kept a "gentlemen's agreement" with most major electronics chains that only Apple MP3 players could be stocked and promoted in exchange for not opening an Apple store.
It's not really David and Goliath, it's more like Satan has crawled out of hell to pick on Goliath.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Its obvious why Apple feels threatened... Too many things in Woolies are iChewns compatible.
We have Woolworths in Australia but it is English.
Coles is Australian.
Whenever I think about enjoying an Apple product, I remember how they stole the domain newton.com from a guy who had the misfortune to have "Newton" as his last name and happened to get there first.
However, in this case the Woolworth application covers allowing them to make computing products and consumer electronics... Woolworth's logo is pretty, and clever and all, but if they want a mark to use for consumer electronics and computers, making it look like an apple is just a stupid idea. How can Apple *NOT* respond. I mean, this is a company that is already making mobile phones...
But, then again, I sided with Apple Records when Apple Computers moved into the music business.
Sean
This is not your typical David vs Goliath situation.
No, it is Zeus vs Allah vs YHWH vs Flying Spaghetti Monster vs etc...
This is why when Microsoft threatened to take Lindows to court they ended up paying Lindows to change their name. The Windows trademark should never have been given, and would be lost if it ever got as far as a court case.
What is your next, off topic comment?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In Australia when plaintiff makes a false claim against another person they are legally permitted to sue the plaintiff under our woeful deformation laws.
I really really hope you mean defamation otherwise as an Australian let me say I'm very very scared right now.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
You have a tree full of trademark violations.
Get your terms right before your apples fall rooten to the ground.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And yet the Woolworths apple logo looks absolutely nothing like the Apple Computer logo. Nice.
In other news Apple files against every company on the planet for daring to use a logo.
Seriously every time I turn around Apple is doing something nasty and trying to shit on EVERYONE from their own customers to a supermarket chain. I mean Woolworths sucks for other reasons but they don't deserve this. What the fuck exactly is it going to take to see that Apple has lost the plot and does not deserve our support? I mean seriously, do they have to invade Poland? Start WWIII? What exactly?
What's the bet this gets modded up then gradually gets modded down as Apple fanboi losers come back days later when no one is reading it and mod down. Has happened without fail to any post where I've criticised Apple lately.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So Apple should be allowed to prevent other companies from using an apple in their logos if the other companies are anti-competitive. What the hell?
... but they'll win on a-peel ...
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
Dunno, I'm no Apple fan, but they look alike to me. Uncanny valley alike. Sure one is green and the other one is silver, but pretty much you could put one over the other and get almost the same outer edge, minus the bite on Apple's logo.
It's akin to making my own logo with thin aloe leaves wrapped around a ball and pretending it totally doesn't look like AT&T's logo. See, theirs is with blue stripes and mine is with green leaves. Who'd confuse that? Right?
Now maybe that's not close enough for infringement, but it seems to me like the kind of PR stunt that did bank on people noticing (and hopefully talking about) the similarity.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
... of course, if they "do" win, they might want to go back to Apple Records and say, "suck it, our logo is more prominent than yours!"
This logo is green, which makes it look more like Apple Records' logo than Apple [Inc].
My God! If only I had known! The fact that there is very little merit to the claim is now wholly irrelevant in the face of the defendant's wholly unconnected anti-competitive practices!
Now, how do I file a claim against Microsoft for the fact that my cat was run over?
You're right, of course. Not only are the logos not similar, it's irrelevant. Trademark law permits companies to have similar logos and names so long as they don't compete in the markets and there is no likelihood of reasonable consumers getting confused about which company they're doing business with. No one is going to go to an Apple store to by fresh produce, and no one is going to shop at Woolworths to look for a Macbook Pro. And even if they tried, they'd fail.
Trademarks are not copyrights. They're a consumer protection device, not a government-granted monopoly on an idea, word, or symbol.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Woolworths sells actual *apples* and holds about 55% of the grocery chain market in Australia.
Everybody, that is every.single.person in Australia knows who Woolworths are and what they sell.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the average man on the street who the fuck is this "Apple" company in comparison and what the hell do they sell? Computers?? With an apple for a logo? And they want to try and stop a massive Australian grocery chain from using an apple as their logo in Australia?
Given that globally Apple in total takes in half the revenue of Woolworths just in *Australia* per annum, Woolworths employs over 175,000 Australians while Apple employs 35,000 *WORLD WIDE*, Apple the pip squeak should perhaps shut it's mouth and not prod those with old money, old connections and household name recognition while visitors on their home ground.
Unless they wish to get iSpanked.
I've decided to register two trademark logo's, each repsectively a depiction of male and female genitalia. Then, whenever someone decides to display their genitals online as a representation of themselves (as in a dating site for example), I'm going to jump up and down and claim it's a trademark violation and sue their collective pants off accordingly....
Wait... what? They're not wearing pants are they?...
Bugger... new business strategy required!
Seriously... move along... nothing to see here kids!
Dunno, I'm no Apple fan, but they look alike to me. Uncanny valley alike. Sure one is green and the other one is silver, but pretty much you could put one over the other and get almost the same outer edge, minus the bite on Apple's logo.
IMHO you could give two graphic designers independent tasks to design apple derived logos and get designs as different as these. The outlines are not the same beyond representing apples. The aspect ratio is different. The woolworths logo is much more abstract.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Well, your post is little more than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Woolworths with zero analysis of the logos or situation at hand. Whatever unrelated Woolworths behaviour you care to mention doesn't make Apples actions any less idiotic, and Apple not only have a history of such idiocy but are quite the hypocrites from when they defended their logo from Apple Records.
Woolworths aside, are Foxtel and Poison Apple also fair game thanks to unrelated activities?
when are they going to sue ENZA then? They have an apple in their logo.
http://www.enza.co.nz/
From wikipedia: Woolworths Limited is the largest retail company in Australia and New Zealand. Although named after the (English)F.W. Woolworth brand, it has no relation.
Yes,
I was trying to buy an expensive boutique computer the other day and I ended up coming home with nothing as there was this store that tricked me into going in with their shop as they have a logo that looks *just like Apples*. It turned out to be a bloody grocery store!! The nerve, a grocey chain using an Apple as their logo! Then I looked around and noticed that they're everywhere here in Australia and I mean *everywhere*.
I swear who does this grocery store with over 700 stores in Australia think they are using the same type of fruit as an obscure American computer companies logo. I mean Apple has a whopping three stores in this country!
There should be a law...
"IMO the logo is in a grey area"
So it could be mistaken for Apple's one?
"I wouldn't mistake one logo for another and I don't think a reasonable person would."
Oh. So no grey area then.
You never would have made the silly assumption that the Woolworths logo was an apple peel if you hadn't read about this lawsuit. Seriously, I'm looking at the logo now, and NOTHING on it suggests that it's a peel of anything.
The logos are clearly distinguishable, that's true. However, imagine if the Woolworths logo was on the back of a silver computer or a music player, or even a phone; that's the point at which it causes issues.
In the new America, look around for someone to sue anyway! Then watch for something to happen.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I think that having an apple peel as a logo isn't all that great: do they sell food scraps?
Is Apple a greengrocer? Do Microsoft sell double glazing? Is Linux heavily involved in the preservation of Antarctic water fowl?
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
OK, it's Goliath v. Godzilla. What's the relevance? Hell, they've got Rupert involved by targeting Foxtel. We're just having fun watching the big kids slap each other around for no good reason.
Hmm.
Apple revenues for FY06, 07 and 08 were 19.3, 24 and 32.5bn USD respectively -- as reported on their website.
Woolworths revenues for FY08 and 09 were 47 and 49.6bn AUS $ respectively -- as reported on their website. That is equivalent to 43.4bn USD in FY09 at today's exchange rate of 1:1.14. However, exchange rate volatility is very significant -- Reuters reported Woolworths' FY09 revenues as 37bn USD on the 24th August of this year. So it's difficult to do a meaningful comparison of the two sets of sales figures very closely. However, it's clear that Woolworth's Australian sales were not double Apple's global sales.
Additionally, the number of employees simply reflects the different nature of the businesses. Supermarket chains are always people-intensive. I don't think it tells you much about the "weightiness" of the operation.
You're an idiot.
You decry other's analysis as being devoid of facts, and then proceed to talk about things pointless and irrelevant to the case.
A company in good repute is note immune from the law, and a company in bad repute also deserves to be protected by the law.
Oh yeah, and several posts linking to the logos and discussing differences and whatnot. Yeah, no analysis of the logos or facts there.
They will move on and sue Orange after this ?
Apple computers had their logo first so I don't think they would be trying to grab marketing value from Woolworths. If you mean woolies was trying to take marketing off Apple then I don't think that would work. Woolworths is much more "famous" than Apple in their marketing area.
Woolies haven't really had a logo previously. They've been trying to consolidate their image over the last while (i.e. I believed they've ditched the safeway branding). Their jingle is "The fresh food people" so a logo that looks like an apple, mellon, pumpkin or something matches there existing marketing. They also have the "Big W" brand so this is probably a move to consolidate them as well.
If apple wanted a strong logo that was defendable outside the area where it was registered (computing) then they should have picked something a but more unique. Apple logos are and have been used as part of fruit, education (give your teacher an apple) and health (an apple a day keeps the doctor away) markets for longer than apple computers have been around. I don't think the Apple logo is distinctive enough to survive registration as a generic logo where as a green stylised W that give the feeling of fruit or vegetables is much friendlier logo for the registration purpose.
On a side note it wouldn't surprise me if Woolworths is the biggest apple computer reseller in Australia through DSE, Tandy and BigW brands. My MBP was brought through one of their stores.
http://www.google.com/search?q=monster+cable+sues
http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+sues
+5 for this off-topic shite?
The fucking fanbois must be out in force today...
Apple is also taking action against a music festival promoter, Poison Apple, which has applied to trademark an apple with a bite out of it atop crossed bones, and Foxtel, whose branding for a new pornography channel, Adults Only, is an apple together with an arrow and a devil's tail..
Any fool can see that these logos are using deflowered pomegranates, not apples...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pomegranate_waterdrops2.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pomegranate_fruit.jpg
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
once again americans are proved to be imbeciles.
What exactly are you remembering "correctly" where you learned what people taste like?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Up until recently Apple kept a "gentlemen's agreement" with most major electronics chains that only Apple MP3 players could be stocked and promoted in exchange for not opening an Apple store.
Source? No, really - can you cite a single source for that claim because the only store I've ever been in to that _only_ stocked iPods was an Apple store. Every other store that stocked iPods _also_ stocked other companies' mp3 players. And not just recently - ever since iPods were first introduced it's been this way. iPods may have been given prominent shelf space but that happens to every market leader so that's not unexpected.
So, again, provide a source for you bold claim please.
Not to engage in stereotyping or anything, but wouldn't that be at the "complimentary" rather than "defamatory" end of the Australian spectrum? Now "Mr. X is a whinging Pom" - grounds for assault and battery at least.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Watch how the fanbois will defend Apple over this READICCULUS law suit by their messiahs.
next they'll be suing fruit..
I see the pawnbroker symbol, not the Apple logo. Someone should notify the Medici family.
If Woolworths only sold fruit, the lawsuit would be ridiculous. But Woolworths is expanding the same way that Sam's Club and Costco's has expanded into other markets. Woolworth's trademark specifically gives them the right to place it on any electronics it does or may eventually sell.
So yes, you very well might have an Apple iPod, and a Woolworths-brand MP3 player right next to each other. In those circumstances, I kinda see where Apple has a point.
It looks like a green pumpkin. Pumpkin, last I checked, is a gourd and falls into the vegitable realm. An apple is a fruit. Not only are they dissimilar in appearance, but they are completely different forms of plant life. A pumpkin is also grown on the ground while Apples grow on trees. The differences are staggering.
First off it's green and looks like a pumpkin. Steve, and Apple need to not only have their heads examined but barred from any form of trademark litigation for 3 years for such nonsense.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Apple = USD $32 billion revenue FY08
Woolworths = USD $46.9 billion revenue FY08
The green aussie will crush Apple in the palm of their hands!!!
The biggest difference between the logos: the color green.
Maybe Apple is trying reserve the future use of this variant. Green is powerful marketing image.
Now I don't know whether to go with a produce joke, or a Jackintosh one.
I don't think you need to bring the Atari ST into it.
Reference? Source? All major electronics stores stock non-Apple MP3 players. I call B.S.
woeful deformation
I don't even want to ask ...
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
corporations these days consider sueing other corporations for stupid things as part of their business model, rather than making or marketing an actual product.
Companies who make apple juice ought to watch their backs. Heck, they should start slapping bananas on their labels just to be safe.
Trademarks belong to categories (at least in U.S. - I think it's the same in most countries?). So, that is why you can have an "Apple" in the sound recording category, and an "Apple" in the computer and consumer electronics category.
So, Woolworth should be, I think, fine using that logo for retailing groceries. Even for selling computers, I think there's enough difference that it's *probably* protected. But at least for selling food, I should think this would be an open and shut case in favor of Wooworth, since it's a completely different category of goods & services?
New York City should sue Apple for using their logo. It's only fair according to Apple logic...
Brought to you by Woolworths and Apple Inc!
>> While folks here at /. would know the difference, you must admit that there would be a plethora of users who would think they had an "apple" computer.
Are you from Australia? Do you know anything about how popular Woolworths is in Australia? Or you are just making a generic statement about something you don't have a clue about and at the same time, accusing others for doing it?
You may not be a fanboi, but either you are on your way to become one, or you are just a douche.
>> ... Apple fanboi losers come back days later when no one is reading it and mod down. Has happened without fail to any post where I've criticised Apple lately.
You are spot on. Have had it happened so many times, I generally post on Apple threads anonymously. Any wonder why you see so many 'anonymous' 'trolls' on Apple threads? They are not really trolls, but at least they wont get direct karma hits with zealots are out with their pitch-forks.
They sell fresh produce, it is only logical that they have some kind of fruit for their logo. It makes a lot more sense for company selling fruit to use fruit for logo as opposed to pc manufacturer using fruit for their logo. This reminds me of how Johnson&Johnson sued The American Red Cross for using the red cross symbol... that's RIGHT! The symbol of red cross on white background is a registered trademark so Johnson&Johnson sued The American Red Cross (the non-profit organization known for and named after a red cross) for using a red cross.
How long before some asshole trademarks the christian cross, the crescent moon and the star of David and sues everyone?
Somebody's salary must be up for review.
Do you see what I did there?
Because the surviving Beatles, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison's family have collectively opposed making the Beatles' catalog available on any such service. They were slow to jump to CDs as well. It has nothing particularly to do with Apple (the computer company).
I was working in a record store in the mid to late 80's when the first CD's started to arrive. When we only had a single bin of CD's they were mostly Beatles CD's. They were nearly first... certainly not slow...
Apple BLATANTLY ripped off the CBC logo for their iTunes gift cards.
pretty soon apple will have a monopoly on apple logos and everyone that wants one will have to pay royalties to them
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
You'll notice that the parent post used no such "n00bsp3ak" language, and was quite plain in their language and hardly a rabid fanboy on either side of the issue.
You however, are anonymous.
Either way, Apple are protecting their trademark in the computer sector - Woolworths are trying to get a generic trademark that would enable them to use it in the computer sector.
What will probably happen is that either it will be dismissed (and Apple will have done enough to tick the box 'defending trademark' for future lawsuits), or Woolworths will be allowed to trademark it, but not in connection with computers or cellphones or music players and so on.
+3 insightful?
*sigh*
Source? Even National Inquirer will do.
Even Steve Ballmer's butler will do, but this needs a source or it's just plain heresy.
"wankers"
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
I don't know whether it makes me a fanboy or a criminal, but I just finished lunch which included a McIntosh apple. (One of my favorites, this time of year in the Northeast.) Several varieties of the McIntosh are protected by patents, and I'm sure the origin of McIntosh and apples (with a lower case) predate Apple computer. I vaguely remember something about apples (untradedmarked) being mentioned in the bible.
It seems to me that some Apple Corp. trademark attorney has a case against the fruit growers and the authors of the "adam & story".
This is humor... don't get all wound up.
It is simply the requirement that you defend your trademark. it's a cost of doing business. It is not needed that you win them all merely trying is enough to prove that you are defending your trademark. Like when Coke sues over everything in the world (well the south anyway) being called a coke. If a restaurant gives you a Pepsi when you asked for a Coke they can be sued. Xerox has that problem these days as well. It's a trademark thing and really has nothing to do with anything other than our twisted legal system.
Relax people and enjoy the blinking lights.
Why bother
Apple is a computer company. Woolworths is a department store.
The Beatles didn't care about Apple's apple until Apple started selling music. Their turf.
Apple needs to limit their claim to computers, or digital technology, or something.
They can't own all apples. Woolworths is green and it looks like a 'W' !
Apple Computers has begun a worldwide legal campaign against trademark infringement. Steve Jobs has vowed to sue every fruit tree on the planet found to be violating the trademark on his company's logo. Apparently, it is an orchestrated campaign of infringement, happening on a scheduled, almost seasonal basis.
Seriously, Apple seems to think they own the rights to anything containing, resembling, or suggesting similarity to apples. They do not. The Adults Only logo, Woolworth's logo, etc., are nothing similar to Apple's logo. There is no way a sober, sighted individual is going to confuse any of the above. Apple is acting like a whiny preschooler in art class, crying to the teacher that some other kid stole their idea. Grow the fuck up Jobs, and then show your legal department how to do the same.
On a side note it wouldn't surprise me if Woolworths is the biggest apple computer reseller in Australia through DSE, Tandy and BigW brands. My MBP was brought through one of their stores.
That's kind of the case-in-point right there. The biggest reason for Apple to file suit is that Woolworths is already selling Apple products, meaning that there is already a competition issue. How long before it's the "Woolworth's Apple" computer store and Apple looses it's right to control its brand?
-- Adam McCormick
It's ridiculous. Apple and Woolworths aren't in the same business, first of all -- no one shopping for food is going to think, hey, aren't those the people who make those iPods?
Second, the logos are different enough. It's not fair for Apple to claim that any representation of the fruit, the apple, infringes on their rights. Woolworths' apple isn't a filled solid shape, and it doesn't have a bite taken out of it.
...an even less inspiring logo. Like 'Circle Brand' computers. Then they could have gone after everyone! GE, BMW, Vodafone, Starbucks, Target and tons more. What a missed opportunity.
Apple isn't just about boutique computers. They're also about mainstream mp3 players.
I'm honestly surprised woolworths isn't selling their own brand of mp3 player. They already have their own brand of several other mainstream electronics products.
Not to mention woolworths completely owns dick smith and tandy, the two retail outlets which probably sell more iPods than every other store in australia combined. This law suite is all about stopping a woolworths branded mp3 player from being sold on the same shelf as an apple branded mp3 player by a company which is continuously under fire for being anti-competitive.
I HATE HATE apple's philosophy. Caretakers of the Walled Garden and proprietary habits I curse thee! Just keep making other people learn from your designers...
There is enough similarity that Apple is obligated to fight for its trademark. I know that U.S. trademark law *requires* you to actively protect your trademark or you could end up losing the trademark completely. Not sure how it applies to international logos, but could be that if they don't protect it internationally, it has the same consequence. But it is definitely more than just a "stylized W" as Woolworth claims. I have never seen a "W" with a stem. From a distance, it could be mistaken for an Apple and that is enough reason for Apple to take steps to protect it's trademark.
Yes, and everyone knows it's a W stylised as an apple, Woolworths marketing slogan is "Woolworths the fresh fruit people." You have to defend your trademark in Australia, or risk losing it, as well.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
It reminded me more of a green pumpkin. Apples aren't the only things with stems.
Yeah, but no idiot would buy an iPod from an Apple store. Idiots buy iPods from JB HiFi.
Smart people buy iRivers.
I don't therefore I'm not.
To prove this you only needed to walk into any DSE store prior to about 2006.
Apple broke their end of the "gentlemen's agreement" (P.S. Gentleman agreements are never documented because they are almost always illegal) when they started competing with DSE and the like directly, so now you see competitive Cowon and Iriver models in DSE.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
used a banana!
Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
sued Australian business for misspelling word Allah~and had issued an fatwah.
Apple lawyers are pleased to report that the wording of Genesis 3:6 has been altered to remove all reference to "Apple", and heretofore refers to "the fruit of the tree".
Nobody will ever confuse Woolies and Apple. Woolies sell damn good produce at very low prices. Apple sells sh*tty computers at hyper-inflated prices. And just so it's clear to everyone, Woolies already competes in the computer space. They own both Dick Smith and Tandy.
Http://www.tntshoes.com ,hellow pls see our website in the photos attached attached is our store's website, we are a online shopping store, we are selling large brand new shoes,clothing, handbag,sunglasses,hats etc, our products are all 20000000% best quality with the cheapest price. You will see the more pictures and the price for our product in our website, we are selling all brand new handbag, please see below some price list of the product. We accept paypal as payment, and give free shipping. Jeans : A&f Armani artful dodger jeans Bape BBC christian audigier COOGI D&G diesel ED HARDY lrg etc $33-50 free shipping. Jersey NBA Jersey MLB NLBM nike puma adidas $12-30 free shiping.
Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos
if you are interested in our product, please email me by
OUR WEBSITE:
Http://www.tntshoes.com
YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
Gentleman agreements are never documented
Neither is bullshit.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au