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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Well the trees can't afford lawyers, so it would be an easy case. On the other hand, they can't pay damages either.
Sent from my PDP-11
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.
Under international trademark law, if Apple doesn't defend their trademark against any and all percieved infringements (that is, this story), they /lose their trademark/.
The silliness doesn't originate with Apple, but with international trademark law.
Some facts might be helpful:
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.
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
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
... but they'll win on a-peel ...
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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?