Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple

Apple Takes Action Over Australian Logos 425

Posted by kdawson
from the that's-no-w dept.
sams67 writes "Australian supermarket Woolworth is on the receiving end of an action from Apple over Woolworth's new logo. The green, highly stylized 'W' logo could at best be described as 'apple-like.' As outlined in the article, Apple is taking similar action in Australia against music festival promoter, Poison Apple, and pay TV provider Foxtel, over their fruit-related logos."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Takes Action Over Australian Logos

Comments Filter:
  • by AuMatar (183847) on Monday October 05, 2009 @12:43AM (#29641089)

    From the company that complained bitterly when sued by Apple Records.

    • by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:03AM (#29641167) Homepage
      Not just complained bitterly. Acted like a petulant child. Why do you think it took so long for the Beatles to be on iTunes?
      • by ta bu shi da yu (687699) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:42AM (#29641367) Homepage

        And yet the Woolworths apple logo looks absolutely nothing like the Apple Computer logo. Nice.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by MrNaz (730548) *

          I'm sitting here, with a gigantic bag of popcorn, waiting for the circus that will be the fanboy response to this.

          Show starts in 3, 2, 1...

        • by eiapoce (1049910) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:28AM (#29641603)

          looks absolutely nothing like the Apple Computer logo

          Kinda... Think of when you try to find shapes in the clouds, it's almost the same. The difference this time is that you've got a cold sweat covered Steeve Jobs believing the logo is it's his own and casting black magic on everyone around to project the famous reality distorsion field. Then, actually, throught the field the logos look exactly just the same.

          • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Monday October 05, 2009 @04:58AM (#29642285)
            I can see a similarity between the two. The question is if, when presented with the two, would I be confused into thinking that a Woolworth's branded product is an Apple product, and is it the intention of Woolworth's for this to be the case. The answer is no.

            I look at the Woolworth's logo and see an apple. I do not see an Apple apple.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Savage-Rabbit (308260)

              I can see a similarity between the two. The question is if, when presented with the two, would I be confused into thinking that a Woolworth's branded product is an Apple product, and is it the intention of Woolworth's for this to be the case. The answer is no.

              I look at the Woolworth's logo and see an apple. I do not see an Apple apple.

              Yup... that and the fact that Woolworth's was smart enough to not try and tempt it's customers with a half eaten fruit.

            • by RulerOf (975607) on Monday October 05, 2009 @07:20AM (#29642911)

              I look at the Woolworth's logo and see an apple. I do not see an Apple apple.

              It may be time-of-the-year related, but personally, I see a green pumpkin.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Guysmiley777 (880063)
              If you look at a gray scale version [photobucket.com] version of the image it's a little more noticeable. Imagine a chrome or transparent plastic version on a "wPod" device or something. Still, not enough to sue over IMHO.
              • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

                If you look at a gray scale version version

                So you're saying Apple are suing over the fact that color-blind people might confuse the marks? ;)

                ObMed: I realize that color-blindness does not result in 'gray scale' vision.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by amoeba1911 (978485)

              They don't want Apple users to get confused and buy groceries instead of computers. Last thing you need is an Apple trying to plug in a tomato into the USB port thinking it should work in her iMacBook since it came from a store with an Apple as a logo.

              But seriously, the two companies aren't even in the same market. One is a personal computer company, the other is a god damn grocery store. They sell apples, apple is a very common fruit.

              What about everyone else who has an apple in their logo? Is Apple Co

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                What about everyone else who has an apple in their logo? Is Apple Co. going to go after them too?

                If you RTFS, they're also suing an Australian music festival, and a Cable TV provider (which should be fun, Foxtel's parent company is NewsCorp, so not entirely short of cash for their own legal defense).

          • by JeffSpudrinski (1310127) on Monday October 05, 2009 @06:00AM (#29642581)

            From the article, I gather that it's not so much that the logo looks so much like Apple's logo right now, but that Woolworth's may well be planning a line of computers with their new stylized logo on it.

            While folks here at /. would know the difference, you must admit that there would be a plethora of users who would think they had an "apple" computer.

            This is a pre-emptive move by Apple to protect their computer brand. I'm no Apple fanboi by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but I can see why they are being so paranoid.

            -JJS

            • by ta bu shi da yu (687699) on Monday October 05, 2009 @06:54AM (#29642793) Homepage

              Believe me, almost all Australians know what Woolworths is, and the very, very tiny percentage of the population who don't know the difference between the Woolworths grocery-inspired apple logo and Apple Computer's Apple logo probably a. don't use computers in the first place, and b. can't afford a computer. So no real threat of market dilution there.

            • Trademarks belong to categories (at least in U.S. - I think it's the same in most countries?). So, that is why you can have an "Apple" in the sound recording category, and an "Apple" in the computer and consumer electronics category.

              So, Woolworth should be, I think, fine using that logo for retailing groceries. Even for selling computers, I think there's enough difference that it's *probably* protected. But at least for selling food, I should think this would be an open and shut case in favor of Wooworth, s

        • by 4D6963 (933028) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:41AM (#29641685)
          What? It looks just like the Apple logo! ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOJOBS!!
        • by Canazza (1428553) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:56AM (#29641751)

          not even a moron in a hurry [wikipedia.org] would confuse the two

        • Apple is ass (Score:4, Interesting)

          by syousef (465911) on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:42AM (#29641981) Journal

          And yet the Woolworths apple logo looks absolutely nothing like the Apple Computer logo. Nice.

          In other news Apple files against every company on the planet for daring to use a logo.

          Seriously every time I turn around Apple is doing something nasty and trying to shit on EVERYONE from their own customers to a supermarket chain. I mean Woolworths sucks for other reasons but they don't deserve this. What the fuck exactly is it going to take to see that Apple has lost the plot and does not deserve our support? I mean seriously, do they have to invade Poland? Start WWIII? What exactly?

          What's the bet this gets modded up then gradually gets modded down as Apple fanboi losers come back days later when no one is reading it and mod down. Has happened without fail to any post where I've criticised Apple lately.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by enrevanche (953125) *
            Since the Mac was introduced Apple has been a control freak company (except maybe the period when Jobs was booted out for a while). They require massive marketing to promote their image which is mostly what they provide (i.e. an image). Since we are in a society awash in propaganda, it is unlikely that their near term financial success will change unless a substantial change in society occurs. What you see and value is not what most of those who buy their products see and value. Some of these consumers may
      • by Aluvus (691449) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:03AM (#29641479) Homepage
        Because the surviving Beatles, Yoko Ono, and George Harrison's family have collectively opposed making the Beatles' catalog available on any such service. They were slow to jump to CDs as well. It has nothing particularly to do with Apple (the computer company).
      • WHA? (Score:5, Informative)

        by LKM (227954) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:55AM (#29641747) Homepage

        Some facts might be helpful:

        1. The Beatles are still not on iTunes
        2. It's not Apple who's preventing it
      • by Jurily (900488) <jurily@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:30AM (#29641917)

        Why do you think it took so long for the Beatles to be on iTunes?

        They had some lyrics that could be interpreted to be about fruit?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tink2000 (524407)

        Don't see how this is insightful because:
        1. The Beatles still aren't on iTunes
        2. The Beatles aren't on any legal download service (that is to say, they haven't excluded Apple).

    • by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish@info.gmail@com> on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:08AM (#29641193)

      From the company that complained bitterly when sued by Apple Records.

      Wow, that's the very first thing I thought when I saw this story.

      Here's the skinny [wikipedia.org] for those not up on their Mediaeval History.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrMista_B (891430)

      It's not hypocracy.

      Why?

      Under international trademark law, if Apple /doesn't/ defend their trademark (the Apple logo), then they /lose/ it. /That/ is where the blame and fault lies.

      • by Kierthos (225954) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:25AM (#29641281) Homepage

        Look at the logos, though. It would be one thing if the Woolworth's logo was silver, or looked like an apple with a bite out of it. It's neither. It's bright fucking green. It also looks like a stylized lower case 'w', as well as maybe looking like an apple. But honestly, are any Apple-fanboys going to confuse the two? No. Is anyone going to mistakenly assume that the store labeled "Woolworth's" is really an Apple store in disguise? No. Is anyone going to go to the Woolworth's web-page and wonder "Where the fuck are the iTunes downloads?". No. No. A thousand times no.

        There's "defend the trademark" and then there's "rampant corporate paranoia".

        • by Macman408 (1308925) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:36AM (#29641339)

          Yes, but they're doing this for legal safety; either Woolworth's trademark claim gets denied (Apple wins), Woolworth settles (Apple wins), or the government determines that the logos are sufficiently distinct and grants Woolworth's application (Apple still wins). Otherwise, say somebody makes a logo that the government decides does infringe on Apple's trademark; if the offenders can make the case that Woolworth's did it first and Apple didn't protect their trademark, then Apple loses it. But having a definite decision that Woolworth's did not infringe on Apple's logo gives Apple ammunition in future lawsuits.

          • by mjwx (966435) on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:03AM (#29641793)

            Yes, but they're doing this for legal safety; either Woolworth's trademark claim gets denied (Apple wins), Woolworth settles (Apple wins), or the government determines that the logos are sufficiently distinct and grants Woolworth's application (Apple still wins).

            BZZZZZZT, but thanks for playing.

            In Australia when plaintiff makes a false claim against another person they are legally permitted to sue the plaintiff under our woeful deformation laws. Given the obvious difference between the two logo's there is no way for Apple to win this so at the very least Apple will have to pay for Woolworths legal costs as well as their own (Apple loses).

            This is not a trademark defence, this is an egotistical and paranoid corporation attempting to enforce its will on other corporations by using the wrong law as a bludgeon. Apple will lose this one like they lost their suite against NYC in a remarkably similar case. [engadget.com]

            • by syousef (465911) on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:38AM (#29641959) Journal

              In Australia when plaintiff makes a false claim against another person they are legally permitted to sue the plaintiff under our woeful deformation laws.

              I really really hope you mean defamation otherwise as an Australian let me say I'm very very scared right now.

            • by asifyoucare (302582) on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:59AM (#29642057)

              In Australia when plaintiff makes a false claim against another person they are legally permitted to sue the plaintiff under our woeful deformation laws. Given the obvious difference between the two logo's there is no way for Apple to win this so at the very least Apple will have to pay for Woolworths legal costs as well as their own (Apple loses).

              That is not correct.

                  1. (Non-excluded) corporations cannot sue for defamation in Australia.
                  2.Allegations raised in court would be privileged (in a defamation sense)
                  3.Allegations of infringement could be easily defended as honest opinion. It is easy to sue for defamation, but to win you need a case. To even get close, Apple would have had to impugned somebody - e.g. Apple might have said "Mr X, an executive at Woolworths, decided to use our logo because he is a dishonest cheating bastard" - that might be defamatory.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by rtb61 (674572)

              This is lawyers being lawyers, some executive somewhere at apple in the marketing department is trying to justify their inflated salary. Then it is off to lawyers to see if it is worth challenging and, of course the answer is yes, no money for the lawyers otherwise.

              The logo, apart from looking pretty bad, is really generic, so apple, tomato, pumpkin, peach, apricot, nectarine in fact in round fruit/vegetable that has stem near it leaf and, to be honest I wouldn't have seen any fruit at all if not for the

          • by Delkster (820935) on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:14AM (#29641859)

            I might have believed that until I checked out the logo of Adults Only, the channel over which Apple is suing Foxtel.

            The Woolsworth logo contains no apple but it just might be considered similar in appearance to the Apple logo, mostly thanks to the stem-like shape above the "W". The AO logo, on the other hand, contains an apple, but certainly could never be mistaken for the Apple logo. It's got a small apple figure which makes up 1/6 of the logo at best, and instead of a consumer electronics label the intended connotation might be the forbidden fruit or something. Here's a direct link to just the logo on the channel's website [aotv.com.au], in case you want to take a look without going to the rest of the site.

            I repeat: the only common feature is the shape of an apple. Does Apple really claim that all logos containing the fruit might infringe on their trademark even without any other similarities? That's either paranoia or extreme arrogance.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              This is the same company that insisted it was illegal to run OS X on any computer that did not have an Apple logo on it. Why would you be surprised that they would try to claim that anything resembling an apple, even the logo for a grocery store chain (which undoubtedly sells apples) is an infringement on their trademark?
        • Apple Porn (Score:3, Funny)

          by lewko (195646)

          It's bright fucking green.

          Funny you should mention that. From the article:

          Apple is also taking action against a music festival promoter, Poison Apple, which has applied to trademark an apple with a bite out of it atop crossed bones, and Foxtel, whose branding for a new pornography channel, Adults Only, is an apple together with an arrow and a devil's tail..

          Crunchy!

      • by lewko (195646) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:51AM (#29641425) Homepage

        It's not hypocracy.

        Okay. Well how about hypocrisy?

      • by aussie_a (778472) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:11AM (#29641517) Journal

        If they have to sue Woolworths then they also have to sue Taco Bell. Because that's how close the the trademarks are.

        I certainly understand in the case of Poisoned Apple and Foxtel. But Woolworths? Seriously?

        I don't see how any lawyer could in good faith say "there could be an issue with the woolworths logo, we should sue just to be on the safe side."

      • by 4D6963 (933028)

        It's not hypocracy.

        Sometimes I doubt anyone really knows what the -cracy suffix means. If they did I doubt anyone would say hypocracy (hypo+cracy = a weak/lack of governmental rule?) for hypocrisy or idiocracy for idiocy.

        Etymology, people!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mjwx (966435)

        Under international trademark law, if Apple /doesn't/ defend their trademark (the Apple logo), then they /lose/ it. /That/ is where the blame and fault lies.

        The only thing is that Woolworths is not using the Apple logo in any way shape or form. There is nothing here for Apple to defend and this will be thrown out of court in short order.

        Only fanboys could come up with such a far fetched explanation and consider it plausible. But Apple is doing what Apple has always done, sued anyone who has anything th

    • by solferino (100959)

      Actually, I think you meant hypocrisy.

      Hypocracy is government by Hippos.

      Mud, mud, glorious mud!

    • Would that be like a government of hypos by the hypos for the hypos, or would hypos be more like a ruling class governing all the other classes?

  • L.C.D (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Monday October 05, 2009 @12:44AM (#29641091)

    Having seen the logos (I read the article. sorry) my first thought was, "How stupid do they really think people are?"

    I myself could easily identify the difference after my 3rd day awake in Vegas with a .28 and a swollen left eye received from an offended stripper.

    Upon further reflection though the lowest common denominator really is the lowest common denominator. If there are people out there stupid enough to believe a prince in Nigeria is going to give them a million dollars, send txt messages to American Idol at .99c each, pay the infinite profit margin for txt messaging period, and participate in the various money sinks present in the banalities on the Internet... then perhaps Apple does have a valid concern.

    As much as I hate to agree with greedy megacorps, Apple's premise is that the majority of people are stupid enough to confuse the logos, and unfortunately I can't seem to argue that they are wrong.. with their premise.

    • Re:L.C.D (Score:5, Insightful)

      by purpledinoz (573045) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:11AM (#29641197)
      That means Apple owns all logos that are apple shaped? Also, I think it's totally wrong to cater to the "lowest common denominator". At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. This thinking is a huge problem in America. Whenever something happens, the first question is "Who do I sue?"
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by EdIII (1114411) *

        That means Apple owns all logos that are apple shaped?

        I think that is illogical and I disagree. What I am unsure of is how trademark law treats it.

        Also, I think it's totally wrong to cater to the "lowest common denominator"

        Not exactly wrong in this case. On the face of it I would agree with you of course. However, to my understanding trademark law is about whether it would be reasonable to assume someone could mistake the logos. Keeping that in mind, the lowest common denominator really does come into p

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Threni (635302)

          > don't we both know some people that would mistake it?

          We both know people who think black people are inferior, but that doesn't mean you can neglect to hire black people in your company because you're worried some people would notice that and not use your services. It's understood that some people are ignorant and you don't have to alter your plans to accomodate them.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by EdIII (1114411) *

            Your missing my point and throwing out hyperbole in your post like it is candy.

            There is trademark law, and what is reasonable. Reasonable does not have to be correct. Although you and I agree that we should not have to cater to the lowest common denominator, trademark law seems to do just that.

            Trademark law, just like slander and libel laws, takes into account what the average person would perceive, and what they might conclude. Your argument bringing racist hiring practices into the discussion is pointl

      • Re:L.C.D (Score:4, Funny)

        by 4D6963 (933028) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:51AM (#29641725)

        Whenever something happens, the first question is "Who do I sue?"

        Yeah, that's just wrong. Shouldn't it be "Whom do I sue?"

    • Re:L.C.D (Score:5, Informative)

      by clowds (954575) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:20AM (#29641249)
      From what I understand (from a local news report) it appears to be over the fact that Woolworths is doing a blanket trademark of every type of trademark item with the new logo.

      Now considering that some of the classes of trademarks in Aus are computers and electronics and mobile phones/communication devices; if Woolworths stuck that logo all over the front of a shiny new home brand/Woolworths MP3 player (which they're getting into), there's bound to be some idiot who buys the thing and expects it to work with his iTunes.

      The fact that Wooloworths already sells rebranded sim cards and mobile phones this isn't that far a fetch. Granted, I don't see the problem, they're easily distinguishable, but even the smallest similarity and a few dumb customers and Apple has bad press.
    • Does that mean Google owns lower-case "g"?
    • Re:L.C.D (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:22AM (#29641267)

      Apple should modify its logo to make it more unique. May I suggest splitting it into 6 horizontal stripes each with a different rainbow color.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hurricane78 (562437)

      And we all strongly and specifically worked very very hard, to create, foster and support the lowest common denominator. Who would have died out in a healthy ecosystem.

      It has nothing to do with it, and is very unfair to everyone who achieved something in his life, but we call it "being social" anyway.

      So all in all, we wanted it, we got it, and now we deserve it.

  • by ZackSchil (560462) on Monday October 05, 2009 @12:48AM (#29641107)

    I don't think Apple has it out for Woolworth's and I don't think Woolworth's meant to make a logo that's similar to Apple's. I see the similar shape but no one would ever mistake the two. This is really just reflexive litigation where the party that potentially faces dilution issues just wants to get the issue in front of a judge for some ass covering. Whether they win or lose, Apple can point to this and say they tried to defend their trademark. And if they lose and in the future, the logo condenses and the bent dash starts to straighten out and it really does look like the Apple logo, they can point to this case again and use it as leverage to say "yeah, we saw this coming, we're not only suing now that it's established".

    tl;dr: It's just some cover your ass litigation and nothing more.

    • I don't think Apple has it out for Woolworth's and I don't think Woolworth's meant to make a logo that's similar to Apple's. I see the similar shape but no one would ever mistake the two. This is really just reflexive litigation where the party that potentially faces dilution issues just wants to get the issue in front of a judge for some ass covering.

      Ahhh the efficiency of the free market at it's finest!

  • IMHO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 05, 2009 @12:58AM (#29641145)

    I'd love to see New York City sue Apple over the rights to using an Apple as a logo. And then force Apple to come up with a new logo.

    WTF, I like my iPhone, and I enjoyed using OS X at my last job, enough that I considered buying a Mac. But man, Apple is such a prick. I think I am going to leave Apple products unless they change their policies.

    I'll put it this way. The #1 thing improving Microsoft's image with me is Apple. Yes, that's right. Microsoft is starting to seem darn friendly when standing next to the pretentious prick that Apple has become. (And Apple were always pretentious pricks, now they've just push themselves to a much higher

  • by zekt (252634) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:23AM (#29641275)

    Okay then... it's a lime. Now go take a running jump.

  • Really?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl.excite@com> on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:29AM (#29641303) Journal

    Having looked at the two logos, they're easily distinguishable. Apple's logo is solid, the "W" is made of two overlapping loops. Apple's logo has the "bite", the W has no similar feature. Apple's logo is silver, the "W" is green. And on from there...

    The article goes on to say that Apple is also trying to prevent someone else from using a logo of an apple with a devil, and all manner of things. That seems a misuse of trademark law. Trademark law is intended to prevent confusing similarities—something like making an MP3 player with a logo of an apple with the bite out of the opposite side, and calling it the "Appel miPod". It's not intended to prevent use of a common fruit in any type of logo anywhere, or to prohibit something with a vague, passing similarity in geometric shape but an obvious difference in any other way.

    In fact, I seem to remember Apple making similar arguments themselves, when sued by a certain Apple Records...

    • If apple made porn movies, maybe an apple and a trident ect might make the association between apple and porn or the sex industry.

      Trouble is that both marks are inspired by the apple in the garden of eden and the tree of knowledge. Apple like it because they make computers bringing knowledge to people. Porn well obviously carnal knowledge.

      Really as an old testament story the apple is part of religious symbolism and these apple based symbols are both derivative and both symbols can stand.

      A more interesting q

    • by Rocketship Underpant (804162) on Monday October 05, 2009 @04:48AM (#29642241)

      You're right, of course. Not only are the logos not similar, it's irrelevant. Trademark law permits companies to have similar logos and names so long as they don't compete in the markets and there is no likelihood of reasonable consumers getting confused about which company they're doing business with. No one is going to go to an Apple store to by fresh produce, and no one is going to shop at Woolworths to look for a Macbook Pro. And even if they tried, they'd fail.

      Trademarks are not copyrights. They're a consumer protection device, not a government-granted monopoly on an idea, word, or symbol.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jonwil (467024)

        From what I read on another site, Apple are concerned that Woolworths is filing for a broad trademark across multiple markets and may use the logo (or a derivative of it) on products or services closer to those made by Apple in the future.

      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday October 05, 2009 @05:25AM (#29642411) Homepage Journal

        No one is going to go to an Apple store to by fresh produce, and no one is going to shop at Woolworths to look for a Macbook Pro. And even if they tried, they'd fail.

        Woolworth's wants to keep open the possibility of putting the logo on all types of devices. One thing they very likely will sell branded with their logo is mp3 players. Many mp3 players copy the look of an Apple player, so it is highly likely that Woolworth's will sell mp3 players which look like iPods, branded with the W logo. I could sell mp3 players branded with my logo, I could have them here within two weeks. Anyone want to buy several?

        With that said, the logos should be considered substantially different, because they are. Also, Apple computer cannot be permitted to end up with a monopoly on fruit-related logos. That's just insane.

  • ehh (Score:3, Funny)

    by voodoowizard (1557839) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:29AM (#29641305)
    Looks more like a peach to me. Anyways... really Apple you have to go after that? I would never have seen the similarity if you did not point it out. Of course that similarity is like drinking fancy beer then after reading the label you think ... yeah it does taste like a ripe banana with clove spices. /.Kellerwies is a happy beer, wait this feels wrong.
  • Trademark Guidelines (Score:5, Informative)

    by cjfs (1253208) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:34AM (#29641327) Homepage Journal

    You may not use an image of a real apple or other variation of the Apple logo for any purpose. Third parties cannot use a variation, phonetic equivalent, foreign language equivalent, takeoff, or abbreviation of an Apple trademark for any purpose. For example: Not acceptable: Appletree Jackintosh Apple Cart PodMart

    Source. [apple.com]

    Now I don't know whether to go with a produce joke, or a Jackintosh one.

    • Those guidelines are for parties who wish to use Apple trademarks in advertising-- computer stores, for example. An apple cidery is unlikely to sell ipods on the side, and would have little need to license the logos for use in its own advertising.

      • by cjfs (1253208)

        An apple cidery is unlikely to sell ipods on the side

        Do not underestimate the apple missionaries. Where most turtleneck and beret wearers would have turned back, they persevere.

    • by initialE (758110)

      Yes. Now all that's missing is the part where you sign it. Not there? Then who agreed to Apple Computer's terms? Can they really lay claim to a piece of natural produce? Doesn't God have prior art?

  • by ad454 (325846) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:47AM (#29641393)

    That new Woolworth's logo looks to me like a peeled apple skin, which is a part of the apple you throw away to avoid wax, pesticides, filth, etc.
    Coincidences? Maybe not.

  • by Khyber (864651)

    Or, more precisely, their lawyers are.

    If someone gives me the addresses of these lawyers I'll be more than happy to make a bunch of stickers of this logo and plaster it over every square inch of property they own! With the amount of crack theymust be smoking, they probably won't notice it and think it's all part of their landscape.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by MrMista_B (891430)

      Under international trademark law, if Apple doesn't defend their trademark against any and all percieved infringements (that is, this story), they /lose their trademark/.

      The silliness doesn't originate with Apple, but with international trademark law.

  • by MosesJones (55544) on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:57AM (#29641455) Homepage

    We all know that Australians throw prawns on the BBQ and drink Beer. We have never heard any Australian on any programme ever refer to fruit.

    Therefore Apple's case is completely valid as no Australian knew what an Apple was before Apple showed them the picture, in fact it wasn't until the mid-90s that Australians knew that there was a fruit called the Apple rather than it just being about a computer.

    Quite clearly therefore Apple owns the right to every apple-esque or indeed fresh fruit like Logo that is possible to be created.

    In separate developments they also own the concept of 3D in Germany.

  • by lewko (195646) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:04AM (#29641483) Homepage

    Thus far, this thread is full of little more than repressed anti-Apple feelings being vented with zero analysis of either the logos or the issue at hand. You know, "facts".

    As an Australian, I can say that Woolworths has been (allegedly, cough) involved in anti-competitive practices for years in the grocery, and now petrol markets. As one of the two (and effectively only) major supermarket chains in this country their activities and pricing has stifled competition and cost consumers' back pockets plenty. This is not your typical David vs Goliath situation.

    So before everybody rushes to their defence, and makes Apple out to be a big corporate bully, it would be worth looking at the behaviour on both sides.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mjwx (966435)

      As an Australian, I can say that Woolworths has been (allegedly, cough) involved in anti-competitive practices for years in the grocery, and now petrol markets. As one of the two (and effectively only) major supermarket chains in this country their activities and pricing has stifled competition and cost consumers' back pockets plenty. This is not your typical David vs Goliath situation.

      For all the evil that you can blame on Woolworths they are nowhere near as bad as Apple. For all the damage Woolworths ha

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by whisper_jeff (680366)

        Up until recently Apple kept a "gentlemen's agreement" with most major electronics chains that only Apple MP3 players could be stocked and promoted in exchange for not opening an Apple store.

        Source? No, really - can you cite a single source for that claim because the only store I've ever been in to that _only_ stocked iPods was an Apple store. Every other store that stocked iPods _also_ stocked other companies' mp3 players. And not just recently - ever since iPods were first introduced it's been this way. iPods may have been given prominent shelf space but that happens to every market leader so that's not unexpected.

        So, again, provide a source for you bold claim please.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      My God! If only I had known! The fact that there is very little merit to the claim is now wholly irrelevant in the face of the defendant's wholly unconnected anti-competitive practices!

      Now, how do I file a claim against Microsoft for the fact that my cat was run over?

    • by Nazlfrag (1035012) on Monday October 05, 2009 @05:02AM (#29642301) Journal

      Well, your post is little more than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on Woolworths with zero analysis of the logos or situation at hand. Whatever unrelated Woolworths behaviour you care to mention doesn't make Apples actions any less idiotic, and Apple not only have a history of such idiocy but are quite the hypocrites from when they defended their logo from Apple Records.

      Woolworths aside, are Foxtel and Poison Apple also fair game thanks to unrelated activities?

    • by twostix (1277166) on Monday October 05, 2009 @05:12AM (#29642351)

      Yes,

      I was trying to buy an expensive boutique computer the other day and I ended up coming home with nothing as there was this store that tricked me into going in with their shop as they have a logo that looks *just like Apples*. It turned out to be a bloody grocery store!! The nerve, a grocey chain using an Apple as their logo! Then I looked around and noticed that they're everywhere here in Australia and I mean *everywhere*.

      I swear who does this grocery store with over 700 stores in Australia think they are using the same type of fruit as an obscure American computer companies logo. I mean Apple has a whopping three stores in this country!

      There should be a law...

  • by sitarlo (792966) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:06AM (#29641495)
    I don't think the logos aren't similar enough to prove an infringement of trademark, especially international. This is going to be a big waste of money and time for Apple. Why attack Aussie businesses with fruity logos anyway? Don't they have anything better to do? Like, maybe fix the iMac "Big Yellow Line" display problems.
  • I kinda hope Apple wins this one, mostly because I'm tired of corporate rebranding campaigns, and I find this whole new Woolworths logo tiresome, and an attempt to be clever that failed. The old logo was just "Woolworths", which said all it needed to say. Enough with logos already. Thank goodness the Australian government put a stop to government agencies all having their own logo. That was also boring and tiresome, and thankfully has been squashed.

  • by SalsaDot (772010) on Monday October 05, 2009 @03:22AM (#29641879) Homepage
    Its obvious why Apple feels threatened... Too many things in Woolies are iChewns compatible.
  • by I don't want to spen (638810) on Monday October 05, 2009 @04:12AM (#29642113) Journal
    ... but they'll win on a-peel ...

The bugs you have to avoid are the ones that give the user not only the inclination to get on a plane, but also the time. -- Kay Bostic

Working...