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.
Wow, that's the very first thing I thought when I saw this story.
Here's the skinny for those not up on their Mediaeval History.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
From what I understand (from a local news report) it appears to be over the fact that Woolworths is doing a blanket trademark of every type of trademark item with the new logo.
Now considering that some of the classes of trademarks in Aus are computers and electronics and mobile phones/communication devices; if Woolworths stuck that logo all over the front of a shiny new home brand/Woolworths MP3 player (which they're getting into), there's bound to be some idiot who buys the thing and expects it to work with his iTunes.
The fact that Wooloworths already sells rebranded sim cards and mobile phones this isn't that far a fetch. Granted, I don't see the problem, they're easily distinguishable, but even the smallest similarity and a few dumb customers and Apple has bad press.
Apple should modify its logo to make it more unique. May I suggest splitting it into 6 horizontal stripes each with a different rainbow color.
Look at the logos, though. It would be one thing if the Woolworth's logo was silver, or looked like an apple with a bite out of it. It's neither. It's bright fucking green. It also looks like a stylized lower case 'w', as well as maybe looking like an apple. But honestly, are any Apple-fanboys going to confuse the two? No. Is anyone going to mistakenly assume that the store labeled "Woolworth's" is really an Apple store in disguise? No. Is anyone going to go to the Woolworth's web-page and wonder "Where the fuck are the iTunes downloads?". No. No. A thousand times no.
There's "defend the trademark" and then there's "rampant corporate paranoia".
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
Yes, but they're doing this for legal safety; either Woolworth's trademark claim gets denied (Apple wins), Woolworth settles (Apple wins), or the government determines that the logos are sufficiently distinct and grants Woolworth's application (Apple still wins). Otherwise, say somebody makes a logo that the government decides does infringe on Apple's trademark; if the offenders can make the case that Woolworth's did it first and Apple didn't protect their trademark, then Apple loses it. But having a definite decision that Woolworth's did not infringe on Apple's logo gives Apple ammunition in future lawsuits.
And yet the Woolworths apple logo looks absolutely nothing like the Apple Computer logo. Nice.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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).
Never mistake "can" for "should".
Doesn't God have prior art?
He did, but he didn't show up for his court date.
looks absolutely nothing like the Apple Computer logo
Kinda... Think of when you try to find shapes in the clouds, it's almost the same. The difference this time is that you've got a cold sweat covered Steeve Jobs believing the logo is it's his own and casting black magic on everyone around to project the famous reality distorsion field. Then, actually, throught the field the logos look exactly just the same.
Some facts might be helpful:
not even a moron in a hurry would confuse the two
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
A hypocracy is what you get when you have a country/world ruled by hypocrites.
I might have believed that until I checked out the logo of Adults Only, the channel over which Apple is suing Foxtel.
The Woolsworth logo contains no apple but it just might be considered similar in appearance to the Apple logo, mostly thanks to the stem-like shape above the "W". The AO logo, on the other hand, contains an apple, but certainly could never be mistaken for the Apple logo. It's got a small apple figure which makes up 1/6 of the logo at best, and instead of a consumer electronics label the intended connotation might be the forbidden fruit or something. Here's a direct link to just the logo on the channel's website, in case you want to take a look without going to the rest of the site.
I repeat: the only common feature is the shape of an apple. Does Apple really claim that all logos containing the fruit might infringe on their trademark even without any other similarities? That's either paranoia or extreme arrogance.
MATH FIGHT!!!
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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...
From the article, I gather that it's not so much that the logo looks so much like Apple's logo right now, but that Woolworth's may well be planning a line of computers with their new stylized logo on it.
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.
This is a pre-emptive move by Apple to protect their computer brand. I'm no Apple fanboi by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but I can see why they are being so paranoid.
-JJS
I look at the Woolworth's logo and see an apple. I do not see an Apple apple.
It may be time-of-the-year related, but personally, I see a green pumpkin.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.