Very Bad Apple ...

[Ian Robinson]

Apple have their knickers in a knot over Wooly's new logo ..... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html

What's the bet the new logo disappears ?

[Octane]

Woolworth's filed for registration in all 43 goods and services categories. Not sure why.

If Apple is contesting the registered mark, it'd be contesting under the categories they've filed under.

[En1gma]

wow. just wow

how stuck up can they be.:screwy:

Rob.

[TrevorW]

Not even remotely similar to the trained eye

[supernova1965]

OHHHHHHHHH Please

[Robh]

Get rid of the crescent on top of the W.
Problem solved.

Regards, Rob

[Octane]

You have no idea what gets contested every day.

Cadbury vs. Darrell Lea Chocolate over the colour purple.
BP vs. Woolworth's over the colour green.

And, a heap of others.

Apple is well within their right to contest the registered mark under Australian law. Whether they get anywhere remains to be seen.

I'll be keeping an eye on it at work.

Regards,
Humayun

[pgc hunter]

Okay, the Apple logo looks *NOTHING* like the Woolworths one. Incredibly stupid, and what a waste of time, money and resources.

Bunch of dingbats :screwy:

[Robh]

Does anyone associate Woolworths with an apple?
Solution ...
It could go pear-shaped! :D

Rob

[matt]

Simply laughable...

[dpastern]

edit: my original post removed - as I'm concerned with the litiguous nature of Apple Computers, I don't want to say anything that might give Apple Australia the opportunity to take legal action against Mike & IIS. I've done this of my own volition, no interference or pressure from Mike.

Dave

[Octane]

Bag Apple all you want.

This happens every single day, over seemingly trivial issues. If it is laughable, the contest will be thrown out. The law is there to protect intellectual property (which costs a lot of money).

My colleagues and I will be watching this with great interest due to it's high profile nature.

Regards,
Humayun

[matt]

Well...I'm not sure about 'bagging'...but for my part it's simply a call by the OP as to whether or not we agree with what they're doing, in this specific instance?

Secondly...yes, I'm certainly aware this sort of thing goes on every day. That's what makes it even more laughable.

It's fine protecting intellectual property etc...but that doesn't give a company the right to believe its control extends beyond the seeable universe!:rofl:

My colleagues and I will also be watching this with great interest, and I daresay many of us will 'bag them'mercilessly when a court rules they are not the Masters of the Universe;)

[supernova1965]

I could understand it if it looked anything like the apple logo but it looks nothing like it. I personally love Apple products by the way that all companies make ludicrous claims about logo's that have no possible connection to their own. Just another waste of time and money in my opinion.

[Octane]

Matt,

You weren't bagging them.

Regards,
Humayun

[matt]

No worries.

I just assumed you were responding to me when I saw your use of the word 'laughable' immediately after I'd posted it.

As you say, ultimately the court's will decide this one, but hey.... Apple has plenty of money to make sure 'justice' is served...:D

BTW - I'm a fan of their products. Got an iPhone...iPod....iBlah Blah Blah

[Octane]

Matt,

Same, same. I'm no fanboy, do like the products, though. :)

I work for IP Australia, so, have a great interest in this topic. :)

Regards,
Humayun

[OzRob]

I think the world has gone mad!!!!...:screwy:

[dpastern]

edit: my original post removed - as I'm concerned with the litiguous nature of Apple Computers, I don't want to say anything that might give Apple Australia the opportunity to take legal action against Mike & IIS. I've done this of my own volition, no interference or pressure from Mike.

Dave

[Enchilada]

Reverse is true too. I.e. Just like the Aussie Ugg boots. :mad2:

[Waxing_Gibbous]

Cr*p products. All style and no substance. Never had one work properly.
Customer service non-existant. Would anyone here consider a screen with 134 hot and 118 dead pixels "fit for purpose"? I didn't and complained Apple disagreed and said is was within "manufacturing parameters". Fortunately I was buying for work and the company I worked for could have bought Crapple with its Christmas party fund. When they found out, the thought of loosing our business sent them so far up my a**e I could taste Job's hair lotion!:rofl::rofl::rofl:
But that's beside the point. Crapple's logo is a long way from being unique (one of the mainstays of copywright infringment). Virtually every Apple (real) I've ever bought in the last 35 years had some kind of stylised apple as its logo. Wooly's logo looks to me as much a pumpkin or a melon as it does an apple. People are hardly likely to walk into Woolworths expecting to find a computer mega-store based on a logo rather than a name (another mainstay of copywrite law).
I largely support most IP and copywright legislation as the product of someone's mind and the right to be recognised and paid for it is pretty important to a free society.
Apple's just being ridiculous and petty. I'd love them to go toe-to-toe with the Scientologists over something. Now lawyers could retire on that one!

[MrB]

I get a lot of customers wanting to buy 3rd party accessories for their iWhateveritis.... pods, FM transmitters, cables etc etc, they rarely work.
An imessage pops up on the iscreen saying something like... "this is not a genuine Apple accessory"
:shrug:

[Enchilada]

My iMac here works absolutely perfectly, day in day out, and so does the other older eMac 2003 model too. :thumbsup:

The service I've had is excellent, the operating system is stable, and better still easily does the work I need to do without fuss. :thumbsup:

As for the gripe about the screen missing pixels, it is certainly not the norm. Since I bought the Mac I've never worried about the screen at all. How old was this machine? Was it a G3 Mac or even older? As to "Never had one work properly." Well how many Macs have you had? I know of about a dozen - no one had any gripes at all - and mostly sang their praises,

As for the Apple logo, well I suppose you could say the same for the Apple logo used by records by The Beatles too? How about Isaac Newton and the apple that fell on his head?

Sorry, the wishy-washy arguments here (and said by a few others) seem a little twisted. Apple have the right to legally challenge anything they wish, especially when you consider the billions of dollars in investment they place in their brand. I can think of many others who have done the exactly same. I.e. McDonald an their paranoia with anything "Mc" in front of it (perhaps McIceInSpace might frighten them into action! :lol:)

Apple could also say the same for the use of "i" in front of hardware or software associated with Mac's I.e. iSight or iWork (as eluded by MrB); Also have also never seen on the screen on any Apple computer that says; "this is not a genuine Apple accessory" — though it is very rarely written on the packaging of some hardware you can buy.

I do admit "I Love My Mac" (rabid apple fanboy, if you must) but I also love a computer that works, and works well. For what I use it for, well nothing else really matters. :)

Rating my experience with my Mac(s), I give Apple ★★★★☆

[iceman]

There's no doubt Apple polarises a lot of people. They either love them or hate them.

But please keep personal insults out of this thread and off IceInSpace.

[Enchilada]

I thought that was Microsoft, not Apple??? :confused2:

[GrahamL]

Lawyers have got to eat to !! :thumbsup:

And aside whos right or wrong , both companies look to be picking up some dirt cheap national advertiseing.. ...seems to be working we are talking about there products;)

[DJDD]

I thought it looked liek an apple.
And Woolworths is reported to have not denied that they may get into the "computer" market, and if so, I can see why Apple may be unhappy about it.


i wonder if I trademark and copyright my body would it extend down to my genes? :lol:

for the trademark: my product would be the effort of my body in creating goods and services...
for the copyright: all of my works are originals (there is no one like me!) and could only have come through innovation. :lol:

DJDD's grasp of all things IP is a bit weak...

[Ric]

I was just having a look at the two logo's side by side and fail to see any similarity whatever.:confused2:

Tell em their dreaming.:lol:

[erick]

Worth reading:-

Apple Corps versus Apple Computer 1978-2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer

[Paul Haese]

I see no passing off here. The logo does not even remotely look like to the other one. Not the same colour, same shape and as mentioned not in the same industry. More than likely this will be rejected by the court.

Intellectual property is a bit of a problem now. I can foresee in maybe 10-15 years time when copyright will be abandoned. The same for trademarking. China is the emerging market and they care little for either of the concepts.

BTW Woolies are no angels either. Their practices are questionable too with regard to smaller sellers in the malls they occupy. Perhaps this is part of Karma.

[starlooker]

I can understand Apple's concern.

The similarity is that both logos are of a single apple, and the Apple brand is visually defined by the picture of an apple(their namesake). Woolies isn't visually defined by an apple. They could have chosen any fruit or product.

If people associate an apple with the Woolies brand, that dilutes the Apple brand. And if Woolies can use an apple, what's to stop other companies?

I think it might have been lack of forsight on Woolies' part.

[matt]

Indeed

[Octane]

DJDD,

Much like how words are not copyright-able individully, neither are genes/germospores. :)

Regards,
Humayun

[Peter Ward]

Apple and their lawyers really should take a hard look at a case that went before the UK courts some years ago.

A small company wanted to used McChina for their asian food stores....and predictably a large USA hamburger joint objected.

The Judge thought differently, and rightly pointed out they didn't have a monopoly on all things "Mc" particularly in Scotland where the American hamburger guys were very latecomers indeed! McChina won.

I personally thought the new woolies logo looked like stylised bannanas....

[TrevorW]

[QUOTE=nightstalker;503870]Lawyers have got to eat to !! :thumbsup:

Since when

:P:D:rofl:

[TrevorW]

I pose a question if I put a picture of an actual apple in my logo does this mean that Apple has the rights to this and I can't use it !!!!

or I open a shop and call it Apple Pie (because thats what I'm selling) they have the right to the word Apple

I don't think so, in context their is nothing unique about the word apple or a logo depciting an apple, unless I was selling computers or Ipods

[Outbackmanyep]

I sometimes shop at Woolworths, i don't own an Apple computer.......not that i'd want one anyway....

[FredSnerd]

For the moment

[Octane]

Trevor,

This is exactly what I said. Woolworths has filed for registration under all 43 goods and services categories, which includes IT. Why? Woolworths has a relatively large internal IT section, perhaps they were thinking of outsourcing their own services to other organisations? I don't know, maybe they already do.

Anyway, Apple will be going after them for the registration in the categories which applies to them.

Regards,
Humayun

[TrevorW]

Fair enough too but Apples for Apples is not Woolworths regardless if woolworths sells computers or outsources IT, if you get my drift

[matt]

I feel sorry for Chris Martin and Gwynneth Paltrow.

What are they going to do about their little 'Apple"???:lol:

[FredSnerd]

I assume this is said in tongue and cheek. Its an apple, an apple, a fruit, a part of nature since Adam and Eve. I don’t give a *&^% what the law or the commercial world says about who may or may not be right in this instance. Just because some company purloins the apple image (so it can sell more computers of all things), we’re supposed to be restricted in the use of that image from now on. And we accept that? And worse still we say things like “if Woolies can use an apple, what's to stop other companies?”. Oh dear, maybe our half of the human species simply doesn’t deserve to survive. I’m sure that’s what the executives of Woolies and Apple must be thinking while we argue about who is Legally or commercially right in this instance.

[Octane]

Claude,

Apple has spent squillions of dollars across every country it trades in, to protect its corporate identity. In this case, by registering a mark of an apple with a bite taken out of it.

They are well within their right to protect what's theirs legally. I understand and appreciate that this topic can become heated because of the triviality of the mark in question: a humble silhouette of a bitten apple. But, that is no grounds to go and bag the company. I wonder if we'd be saying any different if it were anything other than an apple, or, fruit in general.

If, as people say, the two marks bear no resemblance to one another, then the contest will be thrown out. This is the job of the trademarks hearings and oppositions people, who are the only ones qualified to make and pass ths judgment.

Regards,
Humayun

[Omaroo]

Not to mention the millions of shareholders whose interests any like company would be obliged to protect. These are huge, listed national or global companies we're talking about here. They're not small businesses that you or I own or work for. They're playing a very different game and have far more at stake. Belittling their modus operandi based on our own standards is somewhat irrelevant.

Besides, Apple's trademark is one of the top two or three most recognised logos in the world. I'd be pretty unhappy about another major company going anywhere near it.

Here's a classic example - and it's happening to ME. My company. The following page shows my corporate website design alongside our competitors. We (on the left) were first with the blobby button look by several months. Our customers, and more recently our competitor, liked it and they did nearly the same. Do you think I'm angry? My corporate identity is more than endangered - customers confuse us all the time now. If I could fight it I would. You'd deny me my visual "difference" because they look "nothing like one another"? I beg to differ. Brand names have been blurred on purpose.

[FredSnerd]

Hey Humayun how are you by the way.

Lets see. A computer company wakes up one morning and says I know from now on this image of an apple with a bite taken out of it belongs to me. And I’m supposed to accept that? No not me sorry. Not everything in this world is up for ownership. There are certain basic things of nature that we inherited when we were born and the simple image of an apple in all its manifestations is one of these things. And so if Apple chooses something as basic as an apple to symbolise its company (to sell computers for gods sake – what on earth is the connection) then it does so at the risk that someone might copy it.

To be frank I don’t care how much $$$ Apple has spent. Do you think Apple gives a damn about where the moral/legal rights lay. When they purloined the Apple image do you think they cared less that they might be infringing the rights of the beatles to their Apple image. The very law that they want us to respect they were more then happy to flout when it suited them. Honestly, we must be the only part of society that considers the rights and wrongs of things and will sacrifice our own interests if we think its “the right thing to do”. Do you see Apple sacrificing its interests because “it’s the right thing to do”. We are such mugs and our survival is not guaranteed esp if our automatic reaction is to see things from their perspective. Instead of worrying about how much Apple has spent what about our rights and the rights of our kids. Who did apple pay to own such a basic image and to restrict not only me but my children and my children’s children from using it.

As technology gets more powerful and invasive, as resources dwindle and laws get more and more restrictive and as everything is turned into something to buy and sell (including a simple image of an apple) we need to be worrying for ourselves and not the likes of Woolies or Apple. Don’t worry, they can take care of themselves believe me.

[AstralTraveller]

That is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge. Applied to trademarks it is innocuous enough but what about if it was IR or OH&S?

"Oh we can't afford to treat our employees decently, we have to consider the shareholders."

There are some standards that are relevant irrespective of the size or nature of the organization.

[Omaroo]

Here's the connection Claude - and I don't think that you can deny that it's a pretty good one.

1) The original Apple logo featuring Isaac Newton under the fabled apple tree.

2) The rainbow "bitten" logo, used from late 1976 until replaced in 1998 by monochrome themes.

3) The monochrome-themed logo maintained the same shaped as the rainbow theme it replaced. It is still used and often appears in various colours on various products, such as packaging and advertisements in 2003. An Aqua themed version of this logo was used from 2001 through 2003, and a "glass" themed version from 2003 on.



The last sentence is the most important here. Apple Computer doesn't even to need to use the letters "A P P L E" to make people recognise theur brand identity. That's pretty powerful stuff. It's what EVERY corporate wants, and very few get to have.

[Omaroo]

I agree with you David, but maybe we're splitting hairs a little here. We're discussing corporate identity - nothing more than that.

[FredSnerd]

Translation, they are so rich and powerful the usual moral and legal standards don’t apply to them. Why would you concede to others such a power over your life. You are bound by rules but they are not.

Besides, Apple's trademark is one of the top two or three most recognised logos in the world. I'd be pretty unhappy about another major company going anywhere near it.

Yes by all means lets worry ourselves about preserving the integrity of Apple's trademark.

Here's a classic example - and it's happening to ME. My company. The following page shows my corporate website design alongside our competitors. We (on the left) were first with the blobby button look by several months. Our customers, and more recently our competitor, liked it and they did nearly the same. Do you think I'm angry? My corporate identity is more than endangered - customers confuse us all the time now. If I could fight it I would. You'd deny me my visual "difference" because they look "nothing like one another"? I beg to differ. Brand names have been blurred on purpose.

I think you make the point. You cant really own these things because they make no sesne ion the real world. The ownership of these things cant be enforced because they are not suseptible to ownership.
[/QUOTE]

[starlooker]

Exactly. :thumbsup:

It's about trademark. Why bring up IR/OH&S?

[dpastern]

I'm going to leave this thread alone from now. It's probably best for others to do so, given the litiguous nature of Apple, and it might be wise to tone down or remove anti Apple sentiments etc. I'd rather not endanger IIS.

Dave

[Omaroo]

You might not get far in court with that Claude.... "it's the vibe" doesn't work. We have copyright and trademarking for a reason. Weather you personally agree with it or not - the current law is the current law.



Huh? I gather it doesn't worry you personally Claude, but it certainly does concern those at stake. LOL! Whether you approve of it or not, trademarking has been around for a long, long time and has been the backbone of brand loyalty and recognition for many (now) large companies.

I think I'll go and start an airline, call it "Skippy Airlines" and whack a roo on the tail. Think Qantas will mind?



Tell that to the layers suing you for breach of intellectual property rights.

[Paul Haese]

Just another small point here. I was passed by a woolies truck this morning and while overall the shape looks like an apple, it could also be seen as a pumpkin too. Besides the bottom sections really is a W anyway and the little bit coming out of the top is just something like an apostrophe. Anyway not a traditional apple shape as that of the computer company. I bet if this happened in China nothing would be said. Apple would be told to go away before we start copying your computers.:lol:

[TrevorW]

Hey Paul don't give them any ideas but if they did what would they call it "Apple Sour" or "Apple Blossom", or "Red Apple"

[AstralTraveller]

Because saying there is one rule for corporations (especially large ones) and one rule for others is very dangerous, because corporations already try to play by rules the rest of us can't (or wouldn't) and because the general public suffer from that practice. I wasn't having a go at Chris but anything which has overtones of 'one rule for the rich and another for the poor' sets off my radar.

[joe_smith]

They all sue each other seems like having a apple in your logo is cursed (just ask Eve :) ) remember when the Beatles record label tyred to sue Apple (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/may/08/citynews.artsnews), over apples use of a apple in their logo and lost in London. Big business should start living in the real world apples, windows ect ect are all real world objects what gives them the right to trade mark them :screwy: seems like these company's have money to burn shame they don't help the world they are trying to control, and help the poor, Oh that's right you can sue a man with no money. :question:

[FredSnerd]

Hi Chris (and Humayun),

I wasn’t ignoring you. Just other things I needed to get to. This post also caught my eye. I personnally cant be so complacent about this state of affairs.


I had hoped I made the point that what a court of law decides does not matter to me because the law itself is crook. Tomorrow a court may decide that the Woolies symbol is not sufficiently close to infringe Apple’s trademark. But we all know that that will change and in 10, 20, 30 years from now a court is more then likely to decide the other way and then we will see the ownership of basic words and images and colours and every time we want to use them we will have to pay (and who would doubt that in time technology can make this possible).

And tell me how can a court possibly decide a case whether Cadbury has the right to the exclusive use of a particular shade of purple without those who will be dispossessed (that’s us) even being represented. You just got to love Capitalists dont you. They'll argue that an image as remote as the Woolies apple infringes their rights but limit our right (and the rights of our children down through the ages) to see the colour purple and we don’t even have standing to appear. That’s the state of the law today and the extent to which the law protects our rights.

[FredSnerd]

I bought an iPod for my daughter for her birthday a few years ago. It clapped out 11 or so months after I bought it. I sent it back to be repaired. It was returned with the same problem. In the end I gave up. $600 down the drain. I wont buy anything from them again.

[Enchilada]

If Woolworths are "the fresh food people" the logo must be clearly either meats, fruits or vegetables. It sure looks like a well known piece of fruit!

[marki]

Apple smapple, over priced proprietry rubbish. Who gives a @#$%. Woolies sell a lot of crap so let them fight til the cows come home. As to the comment about gene patents, they are a lot closer then you think. You wouldn't want to be icelander coz your genetic makeup is for sale.

Mark

[starlooker]

This case reminds me a bit of the Absolute Voda vs Absolute Beach case from 2001.

http://www.dilanchian.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:brand-trade-mark-dispute&catid=37:in-the-news&Itemid=62

To make a long story short, Absolute Vodka, the giant international spirit maker took the little Aussie swimwear business Absolute Beach to court(in several different countries) for trademark infringement.

Absolute Vodka won, wiping out Absolute Beach.

At least Woolies is big enough to survive any outcome.

[Redshift]

I bought my MacBook about 3 years ago. I've really thrashed it day and night without a single problem. Maybe next time I won't but the extended warranty.:thumbsup:

[Enchilada]

Yeah right, and as customers we will be paying through the nose for the legal bills and any compensation through the supermarket check-out!

Either way, you lose! :mad2:

[TrevorW]

Apple can no longer refer to it as a MacBook

as McDonalds have lodged a copyright breach

pundits say the matter will be resolved once Apple eats pie at McCafe

[dugnsuz]

This is bloody madness!
How is even the slightest resemblance of Woolworth's logo to Apple's likely to affect the latter's computer/ipod/iphone sales?
Maybe all of you get bogged down in corporate identity semantics when looking at vastly different images of apples but I can work it out!!
Jeez!

[Octane]

Doug,

It might be litigious nonsense, but, the law was set up for a reason; and, it allows this to occur.

Regards,
Humayun

[dugnsuz]

It is litigious nonsense, pure and simple. The legal system is dynamic and reflective of a changing society and values - given!
But, as Enchilada stated a few posts up, the legal costs of these nonsensical "battles between the gods" trickle down to us humble IIS posters!

[AstralTraveller]

Q. But was it a good one?



A. Nuff said.

[FredSnerd]

I dont understand Humayun. Is this offered as a justification? You know like, "I know its nonsense but dont worry its OK because the law says so.". My problem with this is that it seems too trusting to me especially when all the signs indicate that the law simply does not operate for us.