Apple Bites Down On Aussie Grocer's Logo
When is a "W" not a letter? When Apple Inc. says it's a piece of fruit, that's when. The iPod-maker and self-declared ruler of all things pomaceous has decided that the stylized W adopted by Australian supermarket chain Woolworths as its logo looks a little too much like Apple's own logo, and that's reason enough to claim trademark infringement.
In a filing made earlier this year, Apple objected to the Woolworths logo, which the chain unveiled last year. Nilay Patel, a former trademark lawyer who now writes for Engadget, thinks Apple has no chance of prevailing:
Sure, it'll be big news if Apple's opposition is successful and Woolworths [trademark] registration is denied — and we'll obviously cover it if it happens — but chances are that Woolworths and Apple's highly-paid attorneys are going to quietly go through the trademark process and come out with an agreement, and we'll never hear about this again.
Woolworths' trademark application does, however, include the potential to branch out into electronics stores, though that's not likely to be enough of a reason for the company to be forced to drop the logo. As Hans Hulsbosch, who designed the logo, told Austranian newspaper The Age, "based on this logic, they would have to take action against every fruit-seller." Just give them time, Hans. Give them time.
Apple, Woolworths in Australian trademark dispute, media in hysterically confused panic [Engadget]
Apple bites over Woolworths logo [The Age]
Post a comment
Comments:
And "bites" instead of "btes" I assume.
"Apple Btes down on Ozzie Grocer's Logo"?
I feel like I'm missing some huge inside joke.
Also, I don't see how the Woolworths logo is anything like the Apple logo, unless you talk about its rotund shape. If rotund was all that we need to make things eligible for copyright infringement, we're in trouble.
That's stupid, they look completely different.
Apple doesnt HAVE to win nor is it likely they want to.
When are people going to learn that in order to keep a trademark, you have to pursue legal action against anything that my even REMOTELY look like yours, otherwise people can claim you did not take action to protect it in the past.
Every company does this, and while that doesnt make it right, it does and continues to point to the fact that current Trademark law is horribly flawed.
No consumer what ever confuse the two.
@pecan 3.14159265: I believe the problem lies in that they applied for a trademark to use an apple shaped logo (confusingly similar in shape and color) in the consumer electronics and computer categories. Apple already has such a colored logo in use in these categories, so Apple is required to defend its mark if it chooses to maintain it. Apple's brand is one of the most valuable marks in existence, so of course they will defend it. This does not mean that Woolworth's will not be able to use their mark but it may be subject to a license agreement in the computer and consumer electronics categories.
@pecan 3.14159265: I think that might be the worst written headline ever. Next they'll be leet-speaking them at us.
"Apple is OMGSUEZORRZ!!!!1!11!"
That, or the prince of darkness has opened up his own chain of convenience stores.
When I saw the logo the letter "w" wasnt what I first thought it was, mostly becasue it has that little thing abouve it (the thing that looks like a leaf)...
If it was in the correct color, smaller and I was walking by, I may mistake it for an apple logo until I actually looked at it.m
"btes" as in "bt" as in "byte" I guess?
I really hope this gets thrown out by the courts, though.
Sigh. It doesn't matter if the logos are similar or not. Nobody's going to confuse a grocery store with Apple, as they're not in the same markets. This is just like Monster Cable all over again. You'd think Apple would remember what happened when Apple records tried to sue them for trademark infringement.
On a side note, Woolworths is still around? Do they still have lunch counters?
Becoming less and less a fan of Apple.
If only my iCrack 3GS weren't so tasty. -_-
Looks more like a pumpkin than an apple.
In future news..
Apple will attempt to trademark the word "apple".
I'm just gonna say it: It looks nothing like Apple's logo. The shape, the width, the shading/lighting, the twist of the leaf, etc., are all different. The ONLY thing that is similar between the two is that each is a stylized apple.
@Morte: We 'Ozzies' live in the land of Oz... Oztralia - Gods own Country. Ozzie stands, uncorrected.
Looks more like the Walgreens logo to me. Stylized cursive W, big loop in the middle...
@B: Wrong Woolworths...this one is an Australian grocery chain; not the Woolworths in the US that started as a 5 and Dime type of store. I will say I miss them, though. The last one in PA was around in the early 80's but didn't survive to see the next decade.
Silly Apple, you can't own all apple-shaped things.
Apple the new Monster Cable?
@B: Umm I'm sure Apple remembers, they LOST twice before Apple Computers bought them out then licensed the name back to Apple Records.
@Falcon5768: Can you just save this post and repost every time one of these stupid stories pops up please??
I'm an ancient Greek nerd: the Woolworth's logo looks like an omega with a rough breathing.
Which is to say, in Greek, the logo here would be a word pronounced "haw."
@AdvocatesDevil: This is sort of the correct answer -- trademark owners must actively police their marks. But it's not necessary for trademark owners to go after anything that remotely resembles the mark, especially when neither confusion nor dilution is likely. Different companies go to different extremes to "protect" their marks, and sometimes they just want to push people around -- e.g., they wouldn't expect to win a lawsuit, but they expect the junior user to fold in the face of significant legal costs.
I fail to see how this reveals a "flaw" in trademark law -- which is, all things considered, pretty reasonable for both brand owners and consumers in many countries. Rather, it reveals that some companies use their superior resources in a...questionable manner. As most trademark lawyers would raise their eyebrows at this -- and you can be relatively sure Apple's trademark lawyers raised their eyebrows at this -- you can feel reasonably comfortable placing the blame at Apple's feet on this one.
@Falcon5768: "in order to keep a trademark, you have to pursue legal action against anything that my even REMOTELY look like yours"
God, I can't believe you got three people to agree with your nonsense. You're completely wrong!
Sure, you have to protect trademarks. But there is no law that says you have to fight marks that "even remotely look like yours." Find me a single case or statute that says that. I won't hold my breath, because such a law doesn't exist.
@LatherRinseRepeat: Yes. Granny Smith Apples will be known as Granny Smith Bulbous Green Pomacious Fruit. Oh, and isn't the Granny Smith Bulbous Green Pomacious Fruit the logo of another company called Apple Records?
I think you meant "Australian" and not "Austranian".
Although I'm sure Austrania is a nice place in the winter.
@GMFish:
I believe Trademark dilution is what apple is trying to prevent so it would seem you're wrong. From Wikipedia:
Dilution
Main article: Trademark dilution
A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source. In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product (e.g., just the word Pepsi spoken, or on a billboard). Under trademark law, dilution occurs either when unauthorized use of a mark "blurs" the "distinctive nature of the mark" or "tarnishes it." Likelihood of confusion is not required. 15 U.S.C §§ 1127, 1125(c).
@Eat A Peach: Maybe your part of PA, but I shopped in a Woolworths in the mid-90s near Harrisburg.
I miss them too.
@Falcon5768: Now, dangit Falcon! I want to hate Apple, but you've deflated my reasoning in this instance. And now, I hate you instead. Happy?
@GMFish: There is no law. But, there is such a thing as precedent. And, if a company lets one possible infringement slide, that sets a precedent that a defendant may use in a later case.
@pecan 3.14159265: Ozzie. As in the Osbourne. Everyone knows he bit the head off a dove and a bat, but he also took a hardcore bite out of an apple. Hence title.
@jokono: I'm not sure I'm particularly fond of the idea of a world where every company goes all Monster Cable on anything that looks or sounds remotely like their brand name. Look, it's Apple Jacks, people might confuse that sugary food with high tech electronics, better gear up to sue Kellogg's.
I love how the Mac fanboys are defending the actions when they are some of the same who condone Monster Cables. Granted, Monster takes it a step further, but it looks like Apple is only a step behind and gaining ground fast.
@LatherRinseRepeat: I am suprised Apple hasn't taken any company that sells anything labeled as i[insert noun/adjective/etc] to court. Hell, there is even a health insurance compnay that uses that same naming convention, iCare.
And Apple actually could make a fair argument that most i[insert noun/adjective/etc] products are trying to make people think they are getting something Apple when a lot of the products named that way are for mp3 players, computers, etc.
First of all...people defend Monster Cable?
Second, frivolous trademark lawsuits aren't the only way they resemble Monster Cable. Overpriced commodity hardware is another.
The Gym was giving away free apples today for apple week, will Apple sue my gym?
RTFA!
The article clearly states that Woolworths plans on using this logo for computer hardware and software. In that regard they are in the wrong, this logo is too close to Apple because they have products in those categories also.
From: [www.itwire.com]
"...Woolworths is trying to register its logo as a trademark in Class 9 (among others), which includes "apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images.. . calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers.. . computer devices and computer peripheral devices.. . [and] computer hardware and software".
Seems like we have another Monster cables case on our hands. A big company sees that a small company has something that slightly resembles theirs and they want to throw out the copyright card, pretty typical.
@LVSinner: Yes... because this dissimilar logo is much more of a threat in the trademarked electronics category than the iPlayers strait from China.
It's more that they're -somewhat- of a threat (a tiny enough sliver to not get laughed out of court) and significantly easier to go after, imo.
But that's just my opinion... and it's strongly influenced by the fact that the logos are similar only in the basest sense... like saying any logo written in script gets to get sued by Coke D:
But I'm not the judge now am I?
@LVSinner:
"A Woolworths spokesman said: "While we can't rule anything out, we haven't got any plans at the moment.""
Woolworths Limited owns at least 3 companies that sell electronics as it is. Dick Smiths Electronics, Tandy and BigW. It would make no sense for them to use this logo when they have existing companies and brands that sell electronics already.
@pecan 3.14159265: I'm kinda rotund, I guess I'll just wait for apple's trade infringement suit in the mail.
Apple's just jealous that Woolworths' logo looks cooler than theirs.
@TechnoDestructo: Third, Batwaffel, I think you meant "condemn," not "condone." If they condoned the actions of Monster Cable, there would be no irony in your statement.
Seriously, though, did they have to choose an apple? Couldn't they have gotten, I dunno, a tomato to do the job? There's no internationally-marketed high media-presence corporation called Tomato, is there? That's the point of challenging this. They chose to use something that's already a recognized mark for something else.
@silver-bolt: You right, and one google search over about it will show that Australian Trademark law is even MORE fucked up than the US's if we go soley based on number of lawsuits going on now involving other countries companies in the country (not only US but Japan seems to be a huge winner as well)
Also based on actual laws, many of Australias IP laws are the same as the rest of the worlds, which explains a lot of whats going on here.
Where will the trademark disputes end?
I® enjoyed® a® tasty® apple® pie® today®
Also, "Ozzie?" You mean "Aussie" maybe?