Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple Corporate, Bad Apple
Apple versus Woolworths: logo smackdown
UPDATE 2: Be sure to read Engadget's analysis of what appears to be a non-event here.Apple is apparently getting hot and bothered over Australian/New Zealand supermarket chain Woolworths' new logo. Woolworths insists the logo is merely a stylized "W," but Apple's
Apparently, according to trademark lawyer Trevor Choy, Apple does this fairly often, trying to make sure that some other company's branding can't be mistaken for its iconic logo.
I'll admit that at first glance the logos look similar (to me, anyway – my ex-graphic designer wife doesn't agree). Even so, it seems kind of a stretch to assume anyone is going to confuse Woolworths, a supermarket chain based only in Australia and New Zealand that mostly sells, you know, food, with Apple, a worldwide company that sells computers. Trust me, I shop at the Woolworths here in Palmerston North every week; it's a decent grocer, but nobody's going to wander in there looking for a MacBook Pro.
What do you think? Does Apple have a case here? Or is it sort of ridiculous for Apple to claim that anything roundish with a leaf on top endangers its trademark? Sound off in the comments.
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.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
michaelbushnell said 9:36AM on 10-05-2009
I am an Apple shareholder, and as such the company is charged to do what's in my best interest. Pursuing something like this is a waste of their money, and is definitely not in my best interest.
Reply
Fozzy Bear said 9:45AM on 10-05-2009
Yeah, you're right. A trademark worth billions isn't worth defending. They should let anyone encroach as they wish.
Anyone knowing anything about trademarks knows you have to defend them in order to maintain control over them. Blame the law, not Apple. Plus, I believe Woolworth's wants the trademark to extend to electronics they may or may not ever sell.
So yeah, sorry you think they're wasting you little investment. Sell off and get out now, the ship is obviously sinking...
/eyeroll
macserv said 10:52AM on 10-05-2009
Any time another company comes remotely close to using infringing upon Apple's property, they are obligated (without exception) to go after the potential violator with their full force. A single failure to do so sets a precedent, which can be cited later by any other company who wants to try it ("...but you let *them* do it!").
The fact that Apple does this without fail should make you, the Apple shareholder, more secure in your investment. They are taking their brand seriously and acting as any corporation with a many-billion-dollar-logo *should* (and does) act. If they were *failing* to protect their brand, even once, that's when you should be upset.
MJZimmer88 said 11:03AM on 10-05-2009
Does anyone else remember the T-Mobile/Engadget debacle over the color magenta?
Seems fairly similar in ratings on the how-much-rediculousness-is-there scale...
MJZimmer88 said 11:05AM on 10-05-2009
Also... while it's a fairly valuable logo... the apple itself with a bite taken out of it is definitely not worth billions.
A couple hundred thousands to a few millions maybe... but not billions...
Either way though, still worth protecting.
michaelbushnell said 11:23AM on 10-05-2009
I disagree macserv. Yes, they should protect their trademark. However, they should not waste money on ridiculous stuff like this. No rational person is going to look at that logo or walk into a grocery store and get confused as to which brand is which.
Sebastian said 12:35AM on 10-06-2009
MJZimmer88: Actually, it is in the billions - 15.4 billion to be exact - if you believe the likes of:
http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx?year=2009&langid=1000
SpinThis! said 12:19PM on 10-05-2009
I love all the armchair trademark/servicemark attorneys coming out of the woodwork here saying it's a waste of money who think they k now better than Apple's slew of legal people...
All legal opinions aside, we all know Apple are tightwads when it comes to money. If they feel this is validated, then it obviously it is or they wouldn't waste money protecting the mark.
Fozzy Bear said 12:19PM on 10-05-2009
So you're blaming Apple for US and international trademark law and precedent?
Interesting strategy...
In addition, you're concerned that the lawyers they have on retainer are asked to file a brief with some government agency in Australia because it's a waste of money?
They're sitting on $30 billion+ in cash with no debt. You can probably get this done on legalzoom.com for a few hundred bucks (exaggeration, don't be so serious).
It's hardly a waste when it is what must be done to ensure your trademark can remain yours. You can't cherry pick who you defend against here. You just have to do it. The outcome of the decision isn't important, it is that the effort was made. I'm sure cares less about a decision in their favor and more about ensuring they can keep there trademark in this particular case.
Like I said, if you feel it's stupid, sell your shares... clearly the folks at Apple have no idea what they're doing.
Jeff said 1:13PM on 10-05-2009
Macserv is right, FYI.
They're obligated to protect their trademark.
marzy said 9:38AM on 10-05-2009
From aus: This would be the first time that I think that it looks like the apple logo. The only thing is the "leaf" on the top.
Reply
Jon (Aussie) said 10:32AM on 10-05-2009
yeah mate, and, the only 'apple' product they sell is itunes cards (which is in fact cheaper than buying it directly in itunes).
I think apple's ridiculing woolies' logo. it's actually the first time after reading this article that I actually think about their logos looking similar.
Okay, so are they not going after some other companies that actually intended to copy their stuff and rip it off directly (e.g. the hiphone)?
Erick said 9:39AM on 10-05-2009
Breaking News! Apple sues God for making the fruit the shape of Apple Corp's logo...
Reply
bayxsonic said 10:22AM on 10-05-2009
Soon, son, just wait.
jim said 9:43AM on 10-05-2009
From what I have read elsewhere, the crux of the issue seems to be that Woolworth's has applied for the new logo to be put on all manner of merchandise, including electronics. While it's unlikely they'll start making their own computers, I can understand that Apple might want to stand their ground on this as they could be, at least on paper, competing in the same rough market space.
Reply
pjmaybe said 9:42AM on 10-05-2009
Back when Woolies was also Winfields over here in the UK, the logo looked EXACTLY like that, but flat 2D white on red, with no leaf on the top. And that was a very long time before Apple existed.
Reply
"Bob" said 9:44AM on 10-05-2009
Apple is required to protect their trademarks. The logos do have a similar shape, and in order to be able to defend their trademark against other similarly-shaped logos, they MUST challenge this trademark.
I don't believe the logos are close enough to cause confusion, especially considering the difference in the industry. But what if the same logo was used by a computer company called Wapple? Then Apple might have a case, and in order to make sure THAT case would hold up, they must pursue this one.
Reply
GadgetGav said 9:45AM on 10-05-2009
Nice try Erick, it would be funny except that Apple Corp is the Beatles record label.
As for the Woolworths logo - it's a stylized W, sure, but stylized to look like an apple. What other reason is there for the leaf at the top? I'd think they're going to have a hard time arguing that they weren't trying to make a logo that looked like an apple, and Apple already has that as their trademark...
Reply
Erick said 9:52AM on 10-05-2009
Actually, that's Apple Corps.
Fozzy Bear said 9:46AM on 10-05-2009
As opposed to mortally NOT killed?
Reply