Apple, Woolworths in Australian trademark dispute, media in hysterically confused panic
By Nilay Patel 
posted October 5th 2009 2:07PM
posted October 5th 2009 2:07PM
We'd also like to note that all these stories today have but a single source, and that Apple actually filed their notice of opposition in March but no one noticed until Woolworths talked to The Age. If we had to bet we'd say this is a tactical move by Woolworth's PR team to churn public opinion before a decision is issued -- and if it is, well, congratulations to them, because it certainly looks to us like the reality of this story has been totally overshadowed by the second, slightly more fictional story the tech media would like to tell. Sure, it'll be big news if Apple's opposition is successful and Woolworths registration is denied -- and we'll obviously cover it if it happens -- but chances are that Woolworths and Apple's highly-paid attorneys are going to quietly go through the trademark process and come out with an agreement, and we'll never hear about this again. Until the next time everyone gets this story wrong.
Update: Oh, and just to make this perfectly clear, Woolworths' application covers "Retailing and wholesaling services including... electronic stores," so there's definitely overlap here.
Update 2: You know, we've actually covered this exact same territory with Apple in the past -- will anyone ever learn?
Read - Original story in The Age
Read - Woolworths trademark filing 1258297
Read - Woolworths trademark filing 1258298
There's a grocery store near my house that sells apples...
they sell apples? SUE THOSE SOBs!!!!
WTF the one on the left looks like a "w" while the one on the right looks like a logo for a company that sells marked-up poop to hipster wanna bees who frequent cafe's on the corner block while livin off their parent's trust fund and finishing a social major in poop too dubm to figure out haow to install windows 7...
I suppose our local apple orchard is next...
http://www.minnesotaharvest.net/
Whatever you do, don't take a bite out of any!!
And don't even think about eating an Apple! They'll ask you to remove it from your organs before it becomes crap.
Woolworth can't sell apple products with that logo
From the comments thus far, it appears that no one has ever gone through the trademark process, or comprehended the post. Looks like it's knee-jerk reaction Monday. (Not that I haven't done this myself)
Will Woolworths Limited prevail against Apple's claim, more than likely, but it's quite automatic, well it should be, for a company to protect it's brand. Failure to protect one's brand/service mark can cause fan/hateboys to react in an entirely different way once others have began using another's trademark to describe their products, or services.
"Netbook" anyone?
OMG, Macintosh copied their logo from Apple too! Now that's who they should sue, does anyone else see an uncanny resemblance?
There is a grocery store near my house that actually uses Apple's old "rainbow" apple logo...
Oh, and I guess Apple lawyers haven't seen this:
http://www.freeshop.com.ar/ES/index.html
@poop
You are one bitter, bitter person. Did Steve Jobs steal your girlfriend once? LOL, of course that's crazy talk... you've never had a girlfriend.
I think the logo looks more like a pumpkin then an apple.
As long as the apple isn't half bitten, it's fine.
i think Apple is just trying to be an ass.
Do they also sell computers and potentially music/movies online ? .. are they a billion dollar company like Woolworths ?
Apple Records should sue Apple Computer for using an Apple as their logo and company name. That'll show 'em.
@erik1080, you are kidding right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
I'm guessing the reason Apple is doing this is because Woolworths can potentially brand electronics with this logo (Woolworths produced MP3 players etc. through Dick Smith).
Oh yes, because I as a consumer am SO confused by those two logos...they are SO similar. My grocery store sells Apples too, AND the bag has a picture of an Apple on it...so what you are saying, is that since it has an Apple on the bag, it MUST be a computer! Who knew Mac's had gotten down into the 99cents a pound range?
i dont get it.. there's the Apple and there's the Apple peel... are we all blind?
The issue is not about what is happening now but what could potentially happen in the future. If Woolworths were to "do a Walmart" and start selling music or movies online then ordinary Woolies folks could potentially become confused (oh wait your not from Australia are you !!)
Lets sue Apple Savings Bank while we are at it!
Durrr it R confusin mehh!1!11!!
The point exactly. Apple's filing, assuming they get round to one, will be a rather interesting read. I dare say their .AU trademark lawyers have taken their reading of the close and substantial connection rules too literally, and IP Australian will likely reject their BS claims without a second thought.
Who thinks that some of the comments (like yours Christian) will end up in IP Australia's rulings and final decision on the trademark application... which I think was the entire point of Woolworths feeding the story to the press in the first place.
God forbid somebody else uses an apple as a logo.
That's just like Monster Cable suing people for even saying Monster.
Monster...
but monster does
the monster under my bed got sued for using the name monster.... now it goes by the name of "scary perv under the bed" he is on anti-depresants now because all over the world no one is afraid anymore if its ilk...
now the ghost of Michael jackson, thats another story!!!
they should probably also sue applebee's
It is very apparent that you (and most people commenting here) have never been involved with the trademark process. If you had actually read the post, you would see that this is a very common practice by all companies that own a trademark. It is obviously only a big deal because it's Apple and you troll's love to jump on any reason to attack Apple (or Microsoft for that matter). It is more about the fact that Woolworth wants to use the logo in the same space (retail electronics). Obviously there is no overlap with applebees since they are a restaurant and not a consumer electronics provider.
Hey, umm, Mr. Tavarez?
*whoosh*
Maye every apple should be changed shape so that they dont get confused with ipods
i look at this a little different
1. better to get any possible opposition out of the way now before there is the risk of a lawsuit that will cost more time than money
2. in tv fandoms,at least here in the US, there is a joke that you haven't made it until someone, preferably the Parents Council, files a complaint against your show for being obscene. In the computer world perhaps that should be you haven't made it until Apple files a complaint about your logo. in which case, welcome to the party Woolworths. just whatever you do, don't try to sell hackintoshs
Most grocery stores don't sell computers.
@JeezWhiz87
I believe aldi's was selling netbooks or something a while ago.
If they turned the "leaf" the other direction, it would be pretty hard for Apple to complain.
Still... Is Woolworth's in Australia known for apples? Why an apple? Here in the states they were always a department store, and apples are the last thing I think of when I think of Woolworth's.
Woolworths Australia is a different company. In Australia, Woolworths is a grocery chain. They're "The Fresh Food People."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolworths_%28supermarket%29
Woolworth's Australia got their name from the F.W. Woolworth company. Per the Wikipedia (which is never wrong!) page, the AU company's founders were trying to come up with a name when one of them suggested Woolworth's (apparently just to be a smartass). They looked it up to see if it was available and as no one was actually using it, they went with it.
not to contradict the all-knowing wikipedia, but i believe the companies are historically related, as are the stores in the UK. having shopped there, i can report that they sell all the things Woolworth's used to sell here--groceries are just one part of it. i bought a blanket, pillows, CDs, and DVDs, among other things. it's like 5am there now, but once the Australians wake up a bit, i hope they can set us all straight.
oh, and guess which store is older, by more than a few decades?
@m:
Not that I'm doubting you (the Wiki comment, by the by, was meant to be sarcastic), but this is what I've got:
F.W. Woolworth's/Venator/Footlocker: 1878
Woolworth's Ltd.: 1924
But I would be interested to see how this turns up, regardless. And, as one other has mentioned, I wonder if Walgreen's has any stores in AU/NZ which would go after Woolworth's.
I'm from Australia and I can tell you that Woolworths is related to the recently bankrupted British version of the company. They have both been around for ages but they were in England first. I honestly don't know why they have to change their logo, the old one was fine.
Woolworth's here (Australia) is mainly grocery's. They have some supermarkets under the name Safeway but I think they are all changing to the name woolworths. They own other shops such as BWS and Dan Murphy's (alcohol).. Dick Smith/Tandy (Electronics) and a few more..
I'm an employee of Woolworths, and I just want to re-assure a few things that have been said above. Yeah the apple is the new logo, it is meant to be a sign of "fresh-ness" - basically it is a nice facelift :). Also, the Safeway stores are also changing their names to "Woolworths".
I found in an article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/28/2432756.htm that "Both the Australian and British Woolworths have their origins in the same US company but are completely independent.".
And here: http://woolworths.com.au/aboutus/ourstory/default.asp It shows no relation to the british chain
And here: http://www.woolworthslimited.com.au/phoenix.zhtml?c=144044&p=our-history
Does anyone remember when there was a computer line named "Orange"? I think it was by Wang, but I don't remember. Because I'm so old.
"Orange, wang, so old", something's wrong here.
funny, i work for the company wang evolved from. We don't manufacture anything anymore. Its all just IT services now.
You know, I think Foot Locker (the remaining portion of the original F. W. Woolworth Company, which and still owns the rights to the name in the US and from which the unrelated Aussie company took their name) should file an amicus curiae with the Australian courts telling Apple to (in highly legal terms), "suck it."
Foot Locker wouldn't do that because they're pretty dependent on Nike, and Nike is partnered with Apple. It wouldn't do to insult a partner's partner.
" Sure, it'll be big news if Apple's opposition is successful and Woolworth's registration is denied -- and we'll obviously cover it if it happens.."
Well it'ld be obviously covered since Engadget has Apple in mind to win. Now imagine it was Nokia.
Breaking NEWS:
Apples Inc. is suing Washington Apple Trees and the bug that took a bite out of the apples grow on those trees.
They're doing this as precautions, if they won't do anything now and just wave it off as "It's just using an apple like we are, not that similair" now, the next time a company uses an apple that does look extremely similair to the Apple apple that company will just say: "Yeah, but look at all those other companies using apples as logo's, those are "similair" as well, but they aren't getting sued."
"TT" has the issue exactly on point. If you dont defend your trademark, it becomes "generic" (e.g., escalator, hang glider, kerosene).
This is a formal matter that Apple must do to protect its trademark should a real threat ever arise. Otherwise their mark will be considered generic and totally unenforceable. Any half-baked attorney would counsel to submit the opposition, and most big companies have at least handful of these each year. Dont believe me? Just TRY to mark a producty with anything that sounds like Kleenex or Xerox (non-generic to date).
By analogy, for all of you out there who own property, in many jurisdictions if you let your neighbor park on your yard or build a shed over your property line, and you do nothing about it, they can eventually claim ownership of the land or at least keep YOU from booting THEM from your property.
So, for all of the naysayers to Apple above, I assume you would happily let any random person build a storage shed on your property without at least notifying them ("notice") that they have built on your property? Uh huh, thought so.