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.
Earlier this week, David Welker (co-founder of lawfirm Welker and Rosario) left 
Earlier this year, manufacturer 
It seems that Apple's legal department have got their knickers in a knot* over an ad campaign for the iGasm, which is a rather intimate accessory for the iPod. The ads look just like the original "silhouette" iPod spots (see the ad at right), just not so much, you know, for the family.
Nancy Heinen, Apple's former general counsel who was just 
An appeals court has ruled that Apple is not entitled to subpoena information from a blog's email service provider in order to uncover the identity of Apple employees who allegedly leaked secret information to several blogs about Asteroid, a firewire interface for GarageBand that Apple was developing. The decision against Apple has implications beyond the facts of this case. It was a major victory for bloggers, webmasters, and email service providers.
A California appellate court heard arguments yesterday on a
highly charged discovery issue about a subpoena issued by Apple in its trade secret lawsuit, Apple v. Does. The twists
and turns of legal process can be a mystery to non-lawyers and even to those of us who had the dubious honor of
sweating through law school and years of practice. So here's some background that may help put yesterday's proceedings
in context.
Here's the
situation. A young girl (3rd grade) has ideas on how Apple can improve her iPod. So, she writes a letter expressing her
ideas as a class project, and sends it off to 1 Infinite Loop. She 
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
