Apple mounts legal challenge over Woolworth’s ‘apple’ logo

“Woolworths’ recently introduced logo is a stylised W resembling a piece of fruit (echoing its ‘fresh food people’ slogan),” Stephen Withers reports for iTWire. “But Apple thinks the new logo is too similar to the stylised apple design it has used in various forms and colours since the early days of the company.”

“Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem. Trade marks are granted for specific categories of products and services, allowing Hyundai and Microsoft to use the same trade mark (Excel) for a car and a computer program,” Withers reports. “But Woolworths is trying to register its logo as a trademark in Class 9 (among others), which includes ‘apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images… calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers… computer devices and computer peripheral devices… [and] computer hardware and software.'”

“Apple has products in all of those categories,” Withers reports. “Another issue is that Apple already uses its logo to identify its retail stores.”

Full article here.

Julian Lee reports for The Age, “Apple will have to convince IP Australia, the Federal Government agency that governs trademarks, to knock back Woolworths’ application – filed in August last year – to trademark its logo.”

“Woolworths’ application includes a wide class for electrical goods and technology, putting it in direct competition with Apple should the retailer choose to brand computers, music players or other devices,” Lee reports. “Woolworths has gone into credit cards and mobile phones, so the likelihood of it going into computers is not too remote.”

“Trademark lawyer Trevor Choy said it was common for Apple to prevent others from using anything that resembled an apple in a logo or marketing,” Lee reports.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Clearly, Apple is right to protect themselves against the possibility of Woolworths slapping said logo on some random phones, music players, PCs and/or other electronic devices and potentially confusing consumers and diminishing decades of hard work and money that Apple has invested in their brand’s logo – one of the most valuable in the world.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Judge Bork” for the heads up.]

79 Comments

  1. Now I wonder if this business will go the same way as the UK chain of the same name: bust.

    Honestly, if you muck up marketing like that, who will trust you to buy from you? Zune users?

  2. Um, did you chowderheads *read* what was in the article? Including the snippet about Woolworth’s wanting to register this logo such things as ‘apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images… calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers… computer devices and computer peripheral devices… [and] computer hardware and software’? Seems like Apple is, at the very least, right to be concerned about this.

  3. MacItnosher,

    Woolworths is a highly successful and profitable Australian retailer. Australian consumers focus more on price and retailing experience and I bet “Woolies” can afford millions to convince Oz consumers about such a change

  4. @XJM: You apparently didn’t read the article. This may be the most important trademark suit that Apple has ever pursued in its history as a company, because of what Woolworth’s is trying to do with the (very similar-looking) logo.

  5. I would’ve said Apple is tainting their brand by this stupid stuff but if indeed woolworth does intend to put the logo on said electronic items, that is coming too close. Good catch that Apple caught it so quick

  6. Hmm. Thought Woolworth was bought up by some shoe company in the states. Yep, they are known as Foot Locker.
    It appears a separate company overseas licensed the name for their retail stores.

  7. I submit that anyone who could EVER confuse Apple’s logo with the one which Woolworth’s is proposing needs to get their eyes examined.

    If the W had a bite out of it, Apple’s apparent anger might be justified. But, since I doubt that even a drunk colorblind person would confuse the two logos as currently designed, Apple’s legal department needs to calm down!

    PS: I hope that Apple’s rainbow-style logo makes a comeback in the near future…

  8. I don’t think Apple has a case. The W looks almost nothing like Apple’s logo. I think it is well designed and clever. They should just change the direction of the stem, and that should be enough.

  9. @iworker

    Woolworths in the UK, which was a huge chain, went out of business because of a lack of appeal and dodgy finances. I understand the differences, but the shops with that name all seem to have marketing issues!

  10. I meant to go but a mac book but since I was unable to tell the green “w” apart from white apple logo I accidently bought a 5 dollar Woolworth calculator oops

  11. OK, people, try reading the article before spouting off about something which you don’t know anything.

    One of the primary concerns of any trademark holder is protecting your mark. If you don’t protect it, it can get watered down or you may lose your rights to exclude others from using it. Apple is not only within its rights to oppose the trademark, it really must oppose it in order to protect its own brand.

    Apple has one of the most valuable brands in the world, which has been built through years of work. It has to protect that value.

    Also, note that this is a new logo for Woolworth’s. Although the article doesn’t say, it is very likely that Apple filed an objection to the logo for usage in the specific categories which overlap Apple’s business.

    In other words, this is part of the typical trademark process. An applicant files for a trademark, a notice of pending application is published, and there is an opportunity for anyone to file an objection to the trademark and/or the categories to which it is being applied. This appears to be what Apple is doing. This is NOT a lawsuit.

  12. I agree that the logo doesn’t look much like Apple’s. It does however have the same basic shape, and they are going to put it on many of the same kind of products that will be sold by Apple. It’s simply brand protection as Bizlaw wrote. Only time will tell if they win, but I doubt that they will lose money over this.

  13. I think apple has to object to this logo. Keep in mind that putting that logo on electronic devices, it’ll be much smaller in many cases, and less obviously different. Just because it’s obviously different side by side with Apple’s logo, doesn’t mean it will look so different by itself and a smaller size without an actual apple logo to compare it to.

  14. It’s funny, because the Woolworth’s logo is one that was featured prominently (in a special focus section) in the LogoLounge 5 book, which is one of the premier showcases of new logo designs. They showed how it was designed, various alternates that were considered, etc. Personally I don’t find them close enough in style to be the least bit confusing. But the courts will have to decide.

  15. I agree with some of you poster that Apple, Inc is right to sue to protect its brand image from any company wanting to use something too similar.

    As noted Woolworths also sell electronic devices such as computers and music players.

    Remember brand recognition is very important to any commercial business after all for many corporations it is the brand imagery that enabled that business to succeed. For instance Hoover the brand maker of vacuum cleaners, it is because of their brand imagery why we tend to call vacuum cleaners here in the UK, Hoovers, even for vacuum cleaners not made by Hoover!

  16. Me In LAThe logo is FINE – sans the leaf.
    Why would Woolworth’s need that if not to spark ire with Apple?
    Explain that, then I’ll decide.

    Before you show what a dope you are – do some research on the topic…oops, too late.

  17. Me In LAThe logo is FINE – sans the leaf.
    Why would Woolworth’s need that if not to spark ire with Apple?
    Explain that, then I’ll decide.

    Before you show what a dope you are – do some research on the topic…oops, too late.

  18. Well,
    If Apple wants to protect its trademark at all, it is required by law to do so vigorously. And of course, Apple’s trademark is one of the most recognized and respected in any industry. Its customer service satisfaction record also makes it one of the most valuable trademarks.
    As to who is blind, . . . take a good look at the top, bottom and sides of each of these and they are the same, with only minor exceptions, . . . right down to that stem. Then ask any graphics professional about the shadow contouring.
    And lastly, I see a lot of new names on the board, today. Could it be astroturfing day?

  19. “…and potentially confusing consumers and diminishing decades of hard work and money that Apple has invested in their brand’s logo – one of the most valuable in the world.”

    If Apple’s logo is one of the most valuable in the world, wouldn’t it be easy to tell apart from a stylized green “w”?

    Maybe I’m just that much more perceptive than the rest of the world, but I have absolutely *no* problem telling the two logos apart. I think Apple is overreacting.

  20. Department stores often create their own brand and market products with that label.

    Kirkland’s Signature, Trader Joe’s. Safeway Select.

    This can extend to whatever the company wants to sell.

    There is nothing wrong with the logo. It’s fresh, original, is NOTHING like the Apple Inc. logo. If anything, though, this controversy is great advertising for Woolworth’s. Apple can’t win in this one. They will look like the bad guy no matter what.

  21. It seems that many posters were not privileged to read Twain in school. As a public service, we now bring them an extraordinarily relevant quote from Mark Twain:
        Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

  22. woolworths looks like it is composed of bananas at best. At worst its ambiguous and has not apple-like features…no apples involved as far as I can tell. Though I’m no art critic and therefore not adept at seeing exactly what my prejudices and preconceptions tell me I should be looking for….its like that silly suit apple brought against NYC’s emblem. Talk about idiotic. It’ll get laughed out of court…as it should.

  23. just change the direction of the stem…..

    NO ! Don’t HAVE ANY stem.
    Why would a W have a stem? the letter i might.(for the dot)
    I’ll tell you what the stem is for:
    You already know why—– to make it look like Apple’s.
    Come on.

  24. @rattiemouse

    Apple Fan boys? What are you, a Disney knockoff?

    It’s not about what any of us can tell, it’s about the possibility that similar goods will have a similar logo, diluting Apple’s brand. The differences will be far less noticeable on a small version of the logo, particularly where no real Apple logos are nearby. So, I think they have a valid case.

  25. @ Jim – TIV,

    “It does however have the same basic shape …”

    Yeah, and so does my wife’s fat arse. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />

  26. Neither GreeNYC, nor VSBT, nor Woolworth’s use of an apple reminds me in any way Apple’s apple, yet Apple has taken legal action against all three companies.

    I’m not a lawyer, but in my opinion it is the bite that makes Apple’s apple special. How long until Apple goes after the dozens education companies which use an apple as a logo?

  27. rattlemouse,

    I take insult dear sir! Not all MDN users are one-eyed fanboys. Maybe we should take down a list of the one-eyed users and compare it to the legal outcome. At this site there are mac users, fanboys, and astroturfers (the latter are usually pissed off neo-cons who are still stunned over last year’s U.S. Presidential election results). I’m just a mac user; and if you look at about 25 percent of the posts so are they. As for the rest…???!!!

    P.S. At this site the way some people think, Apple should sue apple growers as well, but then again maybe I’m being a tad facetious.

  28. Woolworths are a pretty big force here in Australia. I think Apple are best to be apprehensive with Woolies trying to register it’s logo in Class 9. Woolies have recently (last couple of years) actively developed their own brand of groceries (excellent quality) which are just a bit cheaper (sometimes a lot cheaper) than all of the competitors. This has forced many smaller grocery producers to go under or disappear from one of the 2 big grocery chain stores shelves (or make groceries direct for Woolies at a lower margin…). Woolies do produce a great product (and they have a huge, almost complete range of groceries) but it’s a bit too big brother for me. When all of the competitors have gone, there’s no doubt that the prices go up (and quality will get diluted). I must admit that I never mistook the new Woolies logo as an Apple rip-off, but if they start selling “W” brand electronics, a tiny “W” logo may look pretty damn similar (and cheaper) to the real thing!

  29. Just imagine the “fun” Psystar could have with computers sporting this new Woolworth’s logo:

    “Why yes, we *can* license our Snow Leopard virtualization technology to Woolworth’s. Why? Because their computers are “apple”-branded! So it’s okay!”

  30. @rattiemouse

    You blazing idiot, I didn’t say “I” thought they looked the same, but I did see why Apple was concerned. You, and others here are comparing the logos side by side on a screen, where the difference is extremely obvious. But people NOT familiar with Apple’s logo specifically, say people who’ve never had an Apple product, if they saw what clearly is an apple (the proposed Woolworth logo) at a tiny size could very well think it’s an Apple product they’re looking at. For instance, if it were on the back of a small cellphone.

    Some people (you for instance), have such rotted mental processes they cannot think through anything they’ve read or process what they’re presented with logically.

  31. This is patently ridiculous and a non-debate.

    Apple have registered an Apple shape logo, so therefore own the rights to everything even remotely apple like in shape, colour or heritage.

    Nobody else should use or refer to Apples, even in casual conversation, because we own the conceptual rights. This also applies to anything else that in passing could resemble an apple (eg. all fruits, vegetables and the letter “W”).

    In addition, anything with the letter “i” at (or near) the beginning is also our intellectual property, as is anything made from white plastic.

    You’ve been warned!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.