![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-171636-100x100.png\")
And \"bites\" instead of \"btes\" I assume.
And \"bites\" instead of \"btes\" I assume.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
\"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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6178-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: I'm kinda rotund, I guess I'll just wait for apple's trade infringement suit in the mail.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-939783-100x100.png\")
@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.
@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.
That's stupid, they look completely different.
@BobSalawalatski: Are you serious? They are EXACTLY the same! I mean shades of green and shades of gray are nearly the same color. Plus they are both shades of a color and not one specific color. An apple that resembles a \"w\" is no different than an apple that looks exactly like an apple. Then there's the fact one has a bite out of it and the other doesn't. That means the grocery store is trying to say they are better than Apple! That just won't stand.
... at least this is what I will always believe happens in the minds of Apple lawyers.
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.
@Falcon5768:
Thanks for the explanation. Most people do not know or understand anything about trademark/copyright laws. Please cut and paste your response every time a story like this appears so that the public can become educated about corporate stupidity like this.
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-446358-100x100.png\")
@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.
@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).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479704-100x100.png\")
@Falcon5768: Can you just save this post and repost every time one of these stupid stories pops up please??
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-552772-100x100.png\")
No consumer what ever confuse the two.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1713-100x100.png\")
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?
@B: Umm I'm sure Apple remembers, they LOST twice before Apple Computers bought them out then licensed the name back to Apple Records.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1151569-100x100.png\")
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-385800-100x100.png\")
@Eat A Peach: Maybe your part of PA, but I shopped in a Woolworths in the mid-90s near Harrisburg.
I miss them too.
@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).
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53212-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1261301-100x100.png\")
@chapoec: I agree. I was thinking if they made it orange and added a little cork-screw piece of vine, it would be perfect!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-34412-100x100.png\")
In future news..
Apple will attempt to trademark the word \"apple\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-926607-100x100.png\")
@LatherRinseRepeat: Fortunately or unfortunately, they've already sort of covered that ground vs. Apple Records.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1201340-100x100.png\")
@veg-o-matic: Wow that's amazing. That one totally flew under the radar. I'm not surprised Apple Records and Apple Computers tangled, but I'm surprised Apple Records hasn't collected some sort of licensing fee for allowing Apple Computers to run iTunes. Strange world we live in.
@zacox: Well, that's kind of what the 2003 (decided in 2006) case was about. Apple Corps sued Apple Computers a few times before the 2003. In those cases, the parties settled. As part of the settlement, the parties divvied up the respective rights to the Apple trademark (ie, Apple Corps gets to use the tm for certain areas of trade, Apple Computers gets to use it for other areas).
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223242-100x100.png\")
@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.
@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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116836-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-494190-100x100.png\")
Looks more like the Walgreens logo to me. Stylized cursive W, big loop in the middle...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1269564-100x100.png\")
Silly Apple, you can't own all apple-shaped things.
Apple the new Monster Cable?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-479856-100x100.png\")
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.
Yeah, I'm wondering in what ways he thinks trademark law is flawed, and how he thinks it could be fixed.
@Cant_stop_the_rock: \"wondering in what ways he thinks trademark law is flawed\"
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?
@henneko: Actually, it would only punish someone who uses the mark in trade. Therefore, your examples are flawed.
I think you meant \"Australian\" and not \"Austranian\".
Although I'm sure Austrania is a nice place in the winter.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-335454-100x100.png\")
@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.
@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.
@Kogenta: I wholeheartedly agree. We live in an overly litigious society. I HOPE some day we'll find a way to CHANGE, but I'm not holding my breath.
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-496332-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
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.
@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.
@CheritaChen: so you are saying, no one can use an Apple for anything. Of couse an Apple is a recognizable trade mark, its been around for millions of years! Maybe some European family that has an apple in its family crest should sue Apple Inc.
@chuloallen: Only if that family were also selling something with their family crest as a trademark.
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.
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\".
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-535508-100x100.png\")
@Kyorisu: If that's the case they shouldn't make vague public statements like that, because it will not help their case (no pun intended).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-804913-100x100.png\")
@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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-337579-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
@The Marionette: Aaaaand...after looking, Woolworths pulled in more revenue than Apple last year. So Apple is actually the smaller company here.
Apple's just jealous that Woolworths' logo looks cooler than theirs.
So...
When are they going to revise the retarded trademarking laws?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-726004-100x100.png\")
...
It looks NOTHING LIKE THE APPLE LOGO
What the hell?
Can you imagine what would happen if Apple decided to go into the cable business? I dont know which would be worse, Apple v Monster or a Apple Monster v eveyone
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-581631-100x100.png\")
Didn't this happen the other way around when Apple Corps tried to sue Apple for the same reason? Apple Corps had a better argument and they still ended up losing.
That stylized W kind of looks like a cable so my guess is that Monster Cable is suing them also.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116599-100x100.png\")
They're both Apple logos right? I mean right? I love browsing the app store and biting into a delicious \"w\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
Perhaps they can change their name to Monster Woolworths and turn the logo upside down.... just a thought.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-782863-100x100.png\")
@Falcon5768: I have to say, you probably hit the nail on the head. And you're also correct in that this means that trademark law really needs to be changed. In a huge way.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-496434-100x100.png\")
Heehee...\"Ruler of all things pomaceous\"...good one!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-334007-100x100.png\")
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.
I read the headline, looked at the two logos, right away I said:
\"Oh fuck off Apple!\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1238020-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-539206-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-789978-100x100.png\")
Where will the trademark disputes end?
I® enjoyed® a® tasty® apple® pie® today®
Also, \"Ozzie?\" You mean \"Aussie\" maybe?
@Morte:
LOL®
@Morte: Nope. Just forgot about Harriet.
@Morte: We 'Ozzies' live in the land of Oz... Oztralia - Gods own Country. Ozzie stands, uncorrected.