An Apple or Another Piece of Fresh Produce?

[Jeff Campbell]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html' target='_blank'>http://www.theage.com.au/business/a...91005-ghzr.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"WOOLWORTHS insists its new logo is a stylised ''W'' or a piece of fresh produce. Apple thinks it is an apple, and the California-based technology company wants to stop Australia's largest retailer from using it."</em></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1254799449.usr105634.jpg" /></p><p>A "W" or a piece of fresh "produce?" Um, yea, well the fresh produce certainly looks like what we refer to in orchard country as an apple. I thought the quote from the designer of the logo, Hans Hulsbosch, was rather humorous: <em>"Based on this logic, they would have to take action against every fruit seller"</em> when referring to the Apple complaint. Well Hans, only if other fruit sellers also sold electronics.&nbsp;</p>

[ptyork]

Somehow finding merit in Apple's complaint here is simply sad, Jeff. They are a GROCERY STORE!!! http://www.woolworths.com.au/ They sell electronics like Piggly freaking Wiggly sells electronics. Nobody is going to be confused by the similarities (basically only that they are both stylized fruit). Nor is anyone ever going to confuse a Woolworths store for an Apple Store. It's FAR more pointless (and fruitless--pun intended) than Apple Records long standing complaint against Apple Computer--there they both at least shared the same NAME and a similar logo and in later years marketed the same thing (music).

This is lawyers stealing money from Apple and stroking Steve's ego, nothing more. Oh, and free positive publicity for Woolworths. What a joke.

[doogald]

I'd think getting rid of that crescent shaped, leaf looking thing at the top should satisfy anybody. It still is a stylized W, doesn't look so much like an apple anymore.

[doogald]

Somehow finding merit in Apple's complaint here is simply sad, Jeff. They are a GROCERY STORE!!! http://www.woolworths.com.au/ They sell electronics like Piggly freaking Wiggly sells electronics. Nobody is going to be confused by the similarities (basically only that they are both stylized fruit). Nor is anyone ever going to confuse a Woolworths store for an Apple Store. It's FAR more pointless (and fruitless--pun intended) than Apple Records long standing complaint against Apple Computer--there they both at least shared the same NAME and a similar logo and in later years marketed the same thing (music).

This is lawyers stealing money from Apple and stroking Steve's ego, nothing more. Oh, and free positive publicity for Woolworths. What a joke.

There is a lot of assumptions going on over this story in the media and the blogs - that Apple is overaggressively pursuing trademark infringement, etc. I know that trademarks must be protected, however. If this logo is not challenged by Apple but then some other company called "Pomme" with a stylized apple logo starts selling electronics, or opens a retail store that sells electronics, then they can counter-claim that Apple did not object to Woolworth's use of this logo, and that they cannot selectively protect their trademarks and copyrights.

Tuaw's update article on this (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/10/05/apple-versus-woolworths-logo-smackdown/) was a pretty good explanation of this:

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.

[ptyork]

Among, 39 entire CLASSES of goods that they are applying for coverage, there is one class (9) that contains among 50 types of electronic goods the term "computer devices and computer peripheral devices" and "computer hardware and software," which I'd assume is the subject of the dispute.

Class: 9 Electric, weighing and measuring apparatus and instruments; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; recording discs; optical instruments, spectacles and lenses, including contact lenses, sunglasses, safety spectacles and goggles; photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; magnetic data carriers; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus; smart cards; mobile phone covers and accessories; cards to be used as credit or debit cards (encoded or magnetic); terminals for the electronic payment of charges with credit cards; computer terminals for use with credit cards at point of sale; card readers for credit cards; batteries, battery chargers; clocks, computer devices and computer peripheral devices, ear- plugs, smoke alarms, electrical devices for personal and household use; telephones; irons; computer hardware and software; CDs, cassette tapes, videos, DVDs; CD players, VCRs, DVD players, video cameras; parts and accessories in Class 9 for all of the aforementioned goods.

Automatic? Maybe. The trademark application obviously was a net thrown wide--maybe too wide. But since Apple sued NYC over their green apple logo (good god, they've been the "big apple" for ever and sure as heck don't sell computers), you can't say they only do this crap when there's some potential product overlap. No. Again. Lawyers. Greed. Ego. Dumb. Pointless. Silly. Wasteful.

[Jeff Campbell]

Somehow finding merit in Apple's complaint here is simply sad, Jeff. They are a GROCERY STORE!!! http://www.woolworths.com.au/ They sell electronics like Piggly freaking Wiggly sells electronics. Nobody is going to be confused by the similarities (basically only that they are both stylized fruit). Nor is anyone ever going to confuse a Woolworths store for an Apple Store.

There is some merit based on what the article says:

Apple is spooked by the fact Woolworths has gone for a blanket trademark that would allow it to slap its branding and logo on every imaginable product.

Woolworths' application includes a wide class for electrical goods and technology, putting it in direct competition with Apple should the retailer choose to brand computers, music players or other devices.

Woolworths has gone into credit cards and mobile phones, so the likelihood of it going into computers is not too remote.

A Woolworths spokesman said: ''While we can't rule anything out, we haven't got any plans at the moment.''

So if they are going to brand products, Apple may have a legal standing. I'm no lawyer, but it isn't that much of a stretch. If they were only a grocery store like you said then I'd agree but they seem to have plans on doing other things.

[ptyork]

Woolworths has gone into credit cards and mobile phones, so the likelihood of it going into computers is not too remote.

Rest assured, they are just a grocery store. This isn't the same Woolworths that used to be here in the states that more resembled K-Mart than a grocery store. They sell prepaid phone cards (like seemingly every other major store on the planet outside of the US) and have a branded credit card (ditto, but including the US). They MIGHT conceivably start selling some branded electric gizmos--kitchen timers, digital meat thermometers, etc.--which would be covered by the class 9 stuff, but even that seems a remote possibility at best. To graduate from grocery store to specialty computer store (or even a retailer of electronics) would be a MAJOR, MAJOR shift. "Hmm, I need a PC; let's run down to the Food Lion and see what they've got." Yeah.

Again, this has to be likened to Apples attack on the GreeNYC logo last year. Completely pointless and exceedingly bad PR for Apple at the very least. They are hurting the brand that they claim to be trying to protect.

[Jeff Campbell]

I'm not saying they are going into electronics, but the article says it and is pointing out that it is why Apple has filed this. I agree on the NYC thing, stupid. This has more merit on the face of it, thats all.

[ptyork]

This has more merit on the face of it, thats all.

Agreed. 0 Merit + 1000% More Merit = 0 Merit. ;)

[Jeff Campbell]

I think it's an apples oranges comparison :-)