Apple battles Woolworths over new logo

[SICKPEGASUS]

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10...10/05/apple-battles-woolworths-over-new-logo/

 

[maflynn]

What's wrong with apple trying to protect it's logo and brand - nothing. Any other company would and have done the same. McDonald for years sued other restaurants for meals that were called Mcxxxxx or if another company used/referenced the golden arches. Xerox steadfastly protected its trademark.

Clearly the logo is much to close to apple's and they have every right to protect their trademark.[/fanboy]

 

[charliehustle]

What's wrong with apple trying to protect it's logo and brand - nothing. Any other company would and have done the same. McDonald for years sued other restaurants for meals that were called Mcxxxxx or if another company used/referenced the golden arches. Xerox steadfastly protected its trademark.

Clearly the logo is much to close to apple's and they have every right to protect their trademark.[/fanboy]

IMO why should Apple get to patent the shape of a fruit?
the logo doesn't look identical to it either..

 

[rjohnstone]

IMO why should Apple get to patent the shape of a fruit?
the logo doesn't look identical to it either..

They didn't patent it, they trademarked it.

But this is ridiculous. Trademark and trade dress cover the industry for which you filed the trademark. I haven't looked, but I highly doubt Apple's trademark covers the use of ANY Apple shape in another companies logo... especially one that is not even in the same industry.

I doubt a grocery store chain would be confused with a consumer electronics company.

Clearly an Apple lawyer with too much time on his hands.

 

[beg_ne]

They didn't patent it, they trademarked it.

But this is ridiculous. Trademark and trade dress cover the industry for which you filed the trademark. I haven't looked, but I highly doubt Apple's trademark covers the use of ANY Apple shape in another companies logo... especially one that is not even in the same industry.

I doubt a grocery store chain would be confused with a consumer electronics company.

Clearly an Apple lawyer with too much time on his hands.

FTA:

More to the point, it also owns two electronics chains, and won't rule out the possibility that it could produce cell phones, music players, and computers that would put it in direct competition with Apple's iPod, iPhone, and Macintosh products.

The logic underlying Apple's suit is clear: the company relies on a strong reputation to propel sales of its high-priced consumer electronics. If Woolworths is allowed to produce in-house products with a similar logo, it could easily trade on Apple's reputation to push its products. What's more, with Internet sales collapsing the global marketplace, the Apple-Woolworth conflict could easily spread far beyond Australia's boundaries.

 

[OllyW]

I doubt a grocery store chain would be confused with a consumer electronics company.

Clearly an Apple lawyer with too much time on his hands.

They are always at it, how could you confuse New York City with a consumer electronics company?

 

[lemonademaker]

IMO why should Apple get to patent the shape of a fruit?
the logo doesn't look identical to it either..

agreed they look nothing like each other, unless apple has an "updated" logo in there pocket for the next Gen "something".... there design team probably trademarks multiple logos for generations to come.... car companies do the same thing..... (that said, all companies are smart to do that for this reason)

 

[r1ch4rd]

What's wrong with apple trying to protect it's logo and brand - nothing. Any other company would and have done the same. McDonald for years sued other restaurants for meals that were called Mcxxxxx or if another company used/referenced the golden arches. Xerox steadfastly protected its trademark.

Clearly the logo is much to close to apple's and they have every right to protect their trademark.[/fanboy]

You reminded me of this story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8243270.stm

Apparently, sometimes you can beat the big players (even if you are clearly in the wrong).

 

[aristobrat]

From TUAW:

UPDATE: A couple of points we should clear up on this post. First, Apple is not, in fact, the aggressor in this case. No one is, really. It is a trademark action, and as far as we know it has NOT become a lawsuit. It appears to be a part of the trademark process as it happens down under. Apple is free to object, and since Woolworths is attempting to register their mark across a huge range of products (like computers), they are practically obligated to do so. We'll keep an eye out for any interesting developments, however. - Ed.

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/10/05/apple-versus-woolworths-logo-smackdown/

 

[ucfgrad93]

If they are going to put the logo on electronics or computers, then Apple has an obligation to protect their brand name.