Halfway through last year, the company Woolworths Supermarkets (situated around Australia and New Zealand) announced that it was going to revamp its logo, in addition to making some other changes, altering the entire corporate branding strategy. The company chose an "an abstract leaf symbol" as the new logo, hoping things would be fine� but unfortunately, they weren't, particularly for Apple, Inc.AppleInsider has reported that the Cupertino-based company Apple, known mostly for the the iPod, the Mac, and the iPhone, believes Woolworths' logo is far too similar to its own, wanting it to be changed. Apple's had a history of legal battles with other companies over logo similarities, though it's expected for a company to want to defend its brand. Woolworths' branding change application apparently asked for "a blanket trademark extending even to electrical goods and technology," with a spokesperson for the company saying, "While we can't rule [computers, musical players, etc.] out, we haven't got any plans at the moment," perhaps triggering the legal actions.
Apple is planning to take the case to IP Australia, which is the federal agency that governs trademarks in the country (where Woolworths is the largest retail company, in addition to in New Zealand); although Apple has yet to publicly comment on the actions, something will no doubt pop up soon. We've included the two logos for you to compare, courtesy of AppleInsider.
Since when have Apple ever used a green logo? They're blatantly trying to make it look more similar than it really is...
Sue me
That being said, this is stupid, it only stains Apple's reputation to do this, both logos are really different.
Obviously Apple/Parlophone had a much better claim to the apple name for selling music that itunes does!
They got screwed, plain and simple. See the bolded part.
On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” (including all designs of the famed 'Granny Smith' Apple Corps Ltd. logos) and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential.
The website for Harmonix's The Beatles: Rock Band is notable as the first tangible evidence of the Apple, Inc./Apple Corps Ltd. settlement: 'Apple Corps' is prominently referred to throughout, and the 'Granny Smith' Apple logo appears but the text beneath the logo now reads 'Apple Corps' rather than the previous 'Apple'. The website's acknowledgements specifically state that, "'Apple’ and the ‘Apple logo’ are exclusively licensed to Apple Corps Ltd.".
Woolworths have spent a long time and money pushing themselves as the 'fresh food people' and a apple is a good example.
Does Apple now own the right to use of apples? how long until we have to pay a small fee everytime we eat an actual apple.
Since the conception of trade?
Somehow I don't see people walking into Apple asking where the fresh food is.
Really?!
Because Woolworths (the Australian company, totally unrelated to anything overseas) own a electronics chain of stores called 'Dick Smith Electronics' for which they market their own brand called 'DSE'. These products are products taken from other brands and re-branded and repackaged under the 'DSE' label.
In addition Woolworths are a big and aggressive company that does have a reputation for taking things as far as they can go.
I seriously doubt you'd ever see some cheap MP3 player with the new Woolworths logo stamped on it because DSE and Woolworths are complete separate business units. Even if you did, you certainly wouldn't see it being passed off as an Apple product, and you wouldn't also see for sale it outside Australia / New Zealand either.
The only scenario that could cause them to have their 'W' stamped on electronics is because the 'Aldi' chain of supermarkets do sell things like computers and TVs which has forced also Coles and Woolworths to stock these items too (in a limited capacity). This mean the possibility of seeing a Woolworths branded electronic item such as MP3 player isn't entirely out of the question.
So yeah... now I do think Apple are probably doing the right thing.
Last edited by Jelly2003 on 05 Oct 2009 - 06:07
If Apple win this I think it set a worse precedence.
Plus other than a "W" looking like an apple it does not look like the Apple logo. The Apple Corp. Logo and Apple Inc.'s Logo looks more alike than these 2 logo's do.
You mean like the google logo, oh snap
or Google Chrome logo.
Well, if MS were to act like Apple, they should have sued all of these guys by now :-)
The apple in the Book of Genesis? Copyrighted.
I was confused too :p
please apple legal dept, fix it for me.
Also... They wait a year?
Looking at the design of the logo as well the target was an apple, as they sell fruit, though its intention was a W
Different Woolworths, different country...
Woolworths have spent a long time and money pushing themselves as the 'fresh food people"
Thre used to be a Woolworths close to my hometown and it had nothing to do with food. It was a department store
Woolworths
Of course I just woke up, but that's what I see. heh
W is for apple, kids.
Oh no wait, that's patently (haha no pun intended) ridiculous............
Woolworths actually has a decent logo. Apple representing a "fresh food" and the W incorporated into it, being the apple. Does not resemble Apple in the slightest, aside from being the same fruit.
The case should be thrown out and Apple should have to pay for wasting the court's time.
The case should be thrown out and Apple should have to pay for wasting the court's time.
(hint, hint... woolworth- recolor your logo, just a little bit.
Did you invent the Apple and it's shape - no!! Only God can claim to do that! IMO God should sue Apple Inc. for using his design in their logo. But then again, even God is not that much of a pretentious w*nker as S. Jobs (wanna-be God to some). IMO God really should sue Apple Inc. and tell them that they must revert to their 1980s rainbow-apple logo (IMO the older logo was actually much cooler! ) because their current logo is too much like God's original design!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.