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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Apple’s first logo, designed by Jobs and Wayne, depicts Sir Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree. Almost immediately, though, this was replaced by Rob Janoff’s “rainbow Apple”, the now-familiar rainbow-coloured silhouette of an apple with a bite taken out of it. Janoff presented Jobs with several different monochromatic themes for the "bitten" logo, and Jobs immediately took a liking to it. While Jobs liked the logo, he insisted it be in colour, as a way to humanize the company.
The original hand drawn logo features Sir Isaac Newton, and one theory states that the symbol makes reference to his discoveries of gravity (the apple) and the separation of light by prisms (the colours). Another explanation exists that the bitten apple pays homage to the mathematician Alan Turing, who committed suicide by eating an apple he had laced with cyanide. Turing is regarded as one of the fathers of the computer. The rainbow colours of the logo were rumoured to be a reference to the rainbow flag, as a homage to Turing's homosexuality.
However, Rob Janoff stated in an interview that the alternate theories are all wonderful urban legends, but, unfortunately, "B.S." The Apple logo was designed with a bite for scale, so that people would recognise that it was an apple, not a cherry, and the rainbow colour was not a coded reference to homosexuality or prism light, but was conceived to make the logo more accessible and represent the fact the monitor could reproduce images in colour.
In 1998, with the roll-out of the new iMac, Apple discontinued the rainbow theme — supposedly at the insistence of recently returned Jobs — and began to use monochromatic themes, nearly identical in shape to its previous rainbow incarnation. However, no specific color is prescribed throughout Apple's software and hardware line. The logo's shape is one of the most recognized brand symbols in the world, identifies all Apple products and retail stores (the name "Apple" is not even present) and has been included as stickers in nearly all Macintosh and iPod packages through the years.
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.
.... 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.
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]
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.
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.
Quote:
Yes by all means lets worry ourselves about preserving the integrity of Apple's trademark.
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?
Quote:
The ownership of these things cant be enforced because they are not suseptible to ownership.
Tell that to the layers suing you for breach of intellectual property rights.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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, 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 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Regards,
Humayun
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.
My iMac here works absolutely perfectly, day in day out, and so does the other older eMac 2003 model too.
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.
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! )
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 ★★★★☆
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. $600 down the drain. I wont buy anything from them again.
Apple smapple, over priced proprietry rubbish. Who gives a @#$%. 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.
) remember when the Beatles record label tyred to 
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. 
