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]
]]>... at least this is what I will always believe happens in the minds of Apple lawyers.
]]>"Oh fuck off Apple!"
]]>The 2003 case was about Apple Corps alleging that Apple Computers violated that agreement by making iTunes (as such, it was a breach of contract case, not a trademark case). The British court didn't find a violation of the contract as written. Therefore, Apple Computers doesn't have to pay Apple Corps a licensing fee.
]]>@jokono: We live in an overly litigious society.
Maybe, but I think it's also because we live in a society where brands and trademarks are more important than almost anything else (certainly more important than the quality of the actual products or services sold). Defending the trademark has taken on importance beyond what's reasonable.
]]>No, I'm not saying no one can use an apple for anything. I'm saying that if they do, they are choosing to use a symbol that is already in use and likely to be protected. In cases like this one, where the company's name has nothing to do with apples in particular, then Apple could argue they chose an apple over other fruits and veg specifically because of their own brand recognition.
]]>these f-ing companies gotta stop this crazy sueing frenzy...
i mean it's an apple...
why dont you sue every classroom, teach and school for having the 'likeness' of an apple plastered across their classes.... and you might also want to sue little timmy for bringing an apple for her teacher!
hell, i am not walking around the street eating an apple anymore, dont want a black unmarked van to pull up beside me, punch me in the face and take the apple cause I am infringing on their logo...
idiot companies, lawyers always need a job.
]]>@Morte:
LOL®
Well, this company is fucked:
@ScarletsWalk: What a shame, they were a good store. Like a high end K-Mart but better prices and usually good customer service and attentive employees. I'm really suprised they lasted as long as they did (and longer in other areas apparently).
]]>@BobSalawalatski: Agreed.
]]>Don't know what he's thinking (and slightly off-topic to the situation here) but what I think about the overall state of trademark law is that any law that punishes someone for whatever everybody else does is stupid and unjust. Why should Google be punished because I use google as a verb? Or to put it the other way around, why should I be forced to write out Lego brand plastic interlocking building blocks when all I want to do is play with my legos?
]]>They're both Apple logos right? I mean right? I love browsing the app store and biting into a delicious "w".
]]>@The Marionette: Aaaaand...after looking, Woolworths pulled in more revenue than Apple last year. So Apple is actually the smaller company here.
]]>@The Marionette: It's the 19th largest retailer in the world...hardly a "small company".
]]>Yeah, I'm wondering in what ways he thinks trademark law is flawed, and how he thinks it could be fixed.
]]>It looks NOTHING LIKE THE APPLE LOGO
What the hell?
]]>So...
When are they going to revise the retarded trademarking laws?
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Woolworths revenue is in the tens of billions. They are hardly small.
]]>"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.
]]>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?
]]>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".
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.
]]>@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.
]]>@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.
]]>I miss them too.
]]>Although I'm sure Austrania is a nice place in the winter.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Which is to say, in Greek, the logo here would be a word pronounced "haw."
]]>Apple the new Monster Cable?
]]>@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.
]]>@Morte: We 'Ozzies' live in the land of Oz... Oztralia - Gods own Country. Ozzie stands, uncorrected.
]]>Apple will attempt to trademark the word "apple".
]]>I really hope this gets thrown out by the courts, though.
]]>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
]]>"Apple is OMGSUEZORRZ!!!!1!11!"
That, or the prince of darkness has opened up his own chain of convenience stores.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>I® enjoyed® a® tasty® apple® pie® today®
Also, "Ozzie?" You mean "Aussie" maybe?
]]>