What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
No new computer this year? No problem... view!
howlifeworks.com - How to make your old PC as fast as the day you first got it
135 Comments
- mark076h, on 10/05/2009, -7/+151Mother nature should take apple to court.
- badqat, on 10/05/2009, -9/+113Uh, I may be an Apple fan, but no way those two logos would ever be a source of confusion. Apple is being a bit silly.
- vtbarrera, on 10/04/2009, -9/+92That's freakin' ridiculous!
- wjappe, on 10/05/2009, -5/+78Perhaps they will sue apple tree farmers for marketing something that looks too much like their trademark.
- entrepreneur75, on 10/05/2009, -9/+60Thats absurd to say the least. Tomorrow if some company has Mango in its logo (or maybe Company name), Apple would take it court because Apple and Mango are fruits.
- nmanguy, on 10/05/2009, -12/+62Wow, this is so lame, stealing Apple's logo. They created that logo from SCRATCH and they deserve to use it alone. Who care's that it's a piece of fruit that they are trying to copyright. After all, Apple was the FIRST and will ALWAYS have that logo for itself.
Well, except for the Beatles' record label, but Apple was totally alright using an Apple as its logo.
/s
Seriously Apple, get your heads OUT OF YOUR ASSES. 30 years of continual *****. This, the Google Voice App, calling Microsoft a monopoly while tethering ipods to prevent competition, outrageous commercials with blatant lies that only people who already have Macs find any value in while calling Microsoft's laptop hunter's "unfair", etc.p - Telexen, on 10/05/2009, -10/+52It's official. Apple is a douche.
- InactiveUser, on 10/05/2009, -7/+46So Apple computer have effectively copyrighted the apple stencil in all its forms and colors? Hey planet Earth, tell your children how America can copyright foods and images of them even though they have been in cultivation for 6000 years.
Everyone on earth should mail apple an apple.. - macslut, on 10/05/2009, -25/+53The issue here is that you have to protect your trademarks. It seems silly, but Woolworths screwed up (or was just too aggressive) here with their filing. Think of it this way, if that W logo was used on a computer or MP3 player, certainly we'd expect a lawsuit or objection to the filing. That's the problem with the filing, Woolworths went with a generic filing describing all goods and services. Apple's objection may just end up with Woolworths redefining the goods and services to exclude computer/MP3 products and such.
If Apple didn't object now, Woolworths could obtain the trademark and release competitive products with the logo which may result in others using similar logos for competitive products as well. Apple's objection could just allow a simple definition to be added to the filing preventing this potential conflict. - macapplejobs, on 10/05/2009, -7/+26Next: Apple sues God for giving Adam and Eve an apple tree.
- haydenk, on 10/05/2009, -8/+24Dugg for actually posting a sensible argument.
- DaviDTC, on 10/05/2009, -1/+16Seems that you are the stupid one here.
- AndrewDB, on 10/05/2009, -1/+14No, because we don't use it.
- NeddieSeagoon, on 10/05/2009, -0/+13Trademark attorneys will get confused over anything if it means a nice drawn-out court case for them.
- AlanCayce, on 10/05/2009, -1/+13Adam: your honor, I trademarked that ***** as soon as my bitch took a bite.
God: I saw it happen. - grafenberg, on 10/05/2009, -1/+12apples and oranges
- SystemicThought, on 10/05/2009, -4/+15What's sad is when another company, Apple Corps., tried to sue Apple Computer for infringing on THEIR trademark, Apple Computer won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_C ... - DaviDTC, on 10/05/2009, -2/+13Which logo is for which company? Would have been nice of them to put the companies name under their respective logo.
- Wilsomatic, on 10/05/2009, -0/+10That wouldn't affect Woolworths anyway, because Woolworths already own a business that specialises in consumer electronics named "Dick Smith Electronics". Any electronics become branded DSE and sold in Dick Smith stores. If Woolworths were to sell consumer electronics in their stores (grocery stores), they would sell existing big brands or budget brands (maybe even iPods).
Knowing that Woolworths paid a massive amount of money for the brand development, I could only see them going "Ok, we won't brand consumer electronics." - Lavarock, on 10/05/2009, -10/+19URP DURP IM STARTING A COMPANY CALLED "A", THE LOGO IS JUST A TIMES NEW ROMAN "A", AND IF YOUR COMPANY HAS AN "A" ANYWHERE IN IT I'LL SUE YOUR ASS BACK TO THE MOTHER ***** STONE AGE
- xeyne, on 10/05/2009, -2/+11ye, they should totally go all the way and sue nature for making fruits that look like their logo. i mean like, hellooooo, wtf does nature get off on doing that? i'm pretty sure that a bunch of lab monkeys created those fruits just to piss off Apple.....i mean seriously...a fruit that looks just like a logo? what are the chances of that? And then other companies come along and wanna make their logo similar and say "er....it's like the fruit". Puhleez, you ain't fooling anyone with that. We all know Apple Inc was here 1st, so there's absolutely no way that any company should be allowed to make their logo like that lame ass, obviously fake fruit
=_=' - Quartzblade, on 10/05/2009, -0/+9dugg for "URP DURP"
- theCoffee, on 10/05/2009, -0/+8No, you are stupid because you do not get the sarcasm. And no, it is not hard to tell it is sarcasm.
- SystemicThought, on 10/05/2009, -0/+8If Monsanto and Apple ever merge, that's a distinct possibility.
- Natnie, on 10/05/2009, -3/+10They took their time on this... Woolworths has had that logo for many months now. Also, they sell groceries, not computers. Also they are already the most popular supermarket in Australia so it's not like you could make the argument that they were trying to piggyback off Apple's success.
Woolworths also sells prepaid iTunes credit. If Apple takes them to court I hope they stop doing so. - SONYDVDR, on 10/05/2009, -0/+7When is apple going to sue banana phone?
- ShadowXOR, on 10/05/2009, -3/+9I love Apple and those logos are nothing alike. The other one is actually really nice too.
- robwhite1979, on 10/05/2009, -4/+10Those logos look nothing alike. This is stupid.
- Oddish, on 10/05/2009, -1/+7Silly? Try ***** retarded. Apple needs a good punch in the face.
- Boohickey11, on 10/05/2009, -0/+5Woolworth's CEO was heard to say,
"...and stay out of Woolworths!" - Gizza, on 10/05/2009, -0/+5This is the Australian Woolworths which is the largest retailer in Austalia/NZ. It is also the 19th largest retailer in the world according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolworths_Limited
As for the logo, the actual Woolworths labelled stores are supermarkets. They sell groceries, hence the apple like logo (which still looks nothing like Apple's logo). - the8thbit, on 10/05/2009, -4/+9"Think of it this way, if that W logo was used on a computer or MP3 player, certainly we'd expect a lawsuit or objection to the filing."
No we wouldn't because the two logos LOOK NOTHING ALIKE. - BREZZZ, on 10/05/2009, -0/+4I think american airlines and the american automobile association would like to have a word with you.
- Pyroteq, on 10/05/2009, -3/+7I live in Sydney and I see the Woolworths logo everywhere. I have never even thought about the similarities to the Apple logo.
This lawsuit is pathetic. - Myztry, on 10/05/2009, -0/+4A company that turns over $38 Billion doesn't exactly need to go bobbing for apples.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/woolworths-rin ... - tradeplumbing, on 10/05/2009, -0/+4The thumbnail is wrong. The actual image under discussion is at the top of the article. The image shown in the thumbnail is a previous lawsuit Apple filed against the Victoria School of Business and Technology, Canada for having a similar mark.
As for the suit, yes it looks ridiculous at first glance but if Apple don't protect their brand from potential infringers, they run the risk of others filing similar trademarks and claiming that because Apple let Woolworths register a similar mark, they should be granted their mark too. As a corporate entity, you cannot allow any sign of weakness to show or you'll be fending off challenges and cancellation actions left, right and centre. You have to at least be shown to be attempting to enforce your mark. - MerchantofPanic, on 10/05/2009, -2/+6The legal dept has to do something for their money.
- czarcasm, on 10/05/2009, -0/+3Thats a 'Granny Smith' apple not a 'McIntosh'. Apple has no case..Yes McIntosh is really a type of apple.
- lilstubthumb, on 10/05/2009, -0/+3Apple must think their customers are idiots!
- datdamonfoo, on 10/05/2009, -0/+3I'm on Apple's side on this one.
Apple users are too stupid to discern the difference between two fruit logos. - gordigor, on 10/05/2009, -9/+12Apple. Sucks.
- Elranzer, on 10/05/2009, -0/+3Apple Corp (Lennon/Ono) should take Apple, Inc (Jobs) to court.
Oh wait... - sierrabravo, on 10/05/2009, -0/+3Get your title correct. "Apple is taking Woolworths to court over a new logo..." It's in the very same article you posted.
- cliffzdude, on 10/05/2009, -2/+5But they don't look the same, it doesn't matter if Woolworths were to use their new "W" trademark on a line of portable media players and computers, the trademarked logo has to cause confusion in the marketplace. Its ludicrous to say this green-swirly "w" could be mistaken for Apple's logo.
- penguinofspades, on 10/05/2009, -1/+4first comment on page:
"FYI, no one is, as of yet, suing each other. It’s simply a trademark application and an opposition to that app." - Giga, on 10/05/2009, -2/+5You may be accurate, but you don't have to be an ass about it.
- macslut, on 10/05/2009, -3/+6***** I hate the anti-fanboy mentality.
As far as the dumb child part...sure IANAL, but...I've gone through trademark issues time and time again with lawyers representing Fortune 500 companies, and this is a very common situation that I've come across in my own trademark filings and battles.
It's pretty simple really, don't use anything that looks like an Apple for computer, MP3, phones, or any other consumer electronic device, or Apple is going to file an objection when you apply for a trademark. In this case, since Woolworths didn't define their category specifically to exclude consumer electronics devices, when the trademark was posted for review, Apple filed an objection.
Now you can have anti-fanboy *****-erotic fantasies all you want, but apparently at least one lawyer getting paid the big bucks at Apple sees things this way.
It may seem silly, and it may seem like an unrelated logo design, but that's all subjective, and we'll see what happens when the USTPO rules on the filing. - inactive, on 10/05/2009, -1/+3Yep. He's got it. Lawsuits like this aren't about what IS happening as much as what COULD happen. And, for the record, any major corporation will do what Apple's doing. Yes, it's stupid... yes, it's childish... but it's the corporate world that co-exists with sane people.
- webchimp32, on 10/05/2009, -0/+2"d'ya think he just meant the ones in Australia or everywhere?"
- TheOther1, on 10/05/2009, -0/+2The tree is OK. They will file suit against Satan for talking Eve into removing the fruit of said tree, thusly exposing their beloved trademark logo to the tireless assault of copycats.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
