Added: 2 years ago
From: OnePotChefBlog
Views: 1,338
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (36)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • woolworths said when it was released that it was a lettuce but I always thought it was an apple

  • They look nothing like each other, if you're going to make your company logo so fucking vague, don't throw a tantrum when another company uses one that looks similar.

  • did they win?

  • @wingscancer No idea - I never heard what happened. I don't even know if it ended up going to court, or if it got quietly settled. My guess is the latter.

  • I think woolworths is pathetic. you'll love coles all the way from now on. I hate that woolies is trying to associate with Apple to get publicity. Of course it wants to affiliate with apple, their only the most innovative company in the world. i mean it woul've made sense to have a Watermelon as a symbol becuase for one it starts with a W and 2. its a smily face, but there was no reason what so ever it should be an apple apart from maybe it having the first letter A...why not an apricot?

  • in the end who won??

    i work for woolworhts lol

  • Apparently settled out of court (translate as: Woolies paid Apple some token amount to send them away)

  • i honestly thought the Woolworths "w" was meant to look like a pumpkin...well it looks like one to me!

  • There is no way known that the Woolies'

    logo resembles the Apple logo-i had to look carefully to make out that the Woolworth's one was a stylized Apple-ridiculous...

  • i reckin Woolworths apple looks more like a capsicum..Apple are just greedy bastards! seriously, are they gonna sue every company just cause they have a apple or look-alike apple on their logo?!?!?

  • lol I always thought it looked like an apple peel actually, didnt cross my mind that it was infringing or being derivative of anything popular :S until now lol

    I think Woolworths will win, apple is ridiculous in thinking this.

    MS

  • Please lets get our facts right - this case has nothing to do with copyright whatsoever - it's a trade mark issue only - and it's because Woolworths filed a trade mark application for its new logo for a very wide range of products including electronic devices (and the last time i looked Apple was selling lots of those sorts of products) . All Apple has done is opposed the registration of the Woolworths logo for electronic devices - it hasn't alleged any "violation" by Woolworths of anything.

  • i havent looked at it but i believe that they might as well sue me for taking a bite out of an apple while righting this comment.

  • typical Americans they always have to whinge about somthing hey apply i going to draw a pic of a apple r u going to sue me this is a fucken joke

  • nice vids. keep up the good work

  • As much as I despise Woolworths, and love Apple products, I think Apple is being absurd to claim that Woolworths' new logo looks anything *remotely* resembling Apple's logo. And in any case, isn't it far more appropriate for a grocery store to use a stylised fruit symbol than a computer company???

  • I'm surprissed Apple hasn't been sued by the agricultural industry ?

  • So apples pictures/logos are now copyright of the Apple company? How pathetic imo.

  • they is no way Apple is going to win for many reasons........

  • Tht is upsettin woolworths is still open in major citys and is closed all over england :( coz of Liquidation and i hink it looks like a Apple but is it white and does it have a bite out if it i think it is stupid if Apple is wanting to complain about it woolworths is in a huge money problem as it is and Apple is wanting more money for it if it was Copyright wouldnt of apple complained and made them change it or is it that they are Jealous and thinking tht is a nice logo why didnt we think of tht

  • Just to clarify, Woolworths in Australia is not connected with or owned by the Woolworths stores in the UK, they are separate companies.

  • thanks just wondering and it looks it little bit like apple but wouldn't of noticed if no one said

  • Woolworths is stupid. They only care for shareholders and people line up in queues coz they're too stingy to hire enough staff. So i hope Apple take a bite out of them.

  • I understand your feelings towards Woolworths, as a former employee I know exactly what they are like!

  • Same here, Woolworths was crap to work for. I like Apple products, however I think Apple are being a little over the top in this case.

  • Part of the problem is that in order to keep their trademark and copyright for their products, Apple *must* do its own policing and enforcement. If this logo is deemed to be too similar (and I can see how it is, but don't agree myself), and Apple successfully defends their property, then it's a good thing for the trademark holder.

    But yeah, this is silly.

  • Totally different:

    * one is particular colour & athe other is not.

    * one is a 3-D graphic design the other is not.

    ... Perhaps this is just a clever ploy that will not only bring awareness to the Apple brand but also to Woolies. I think Woolworths is safe if it went to court

  • Agreed - most people didn't even notice the "apple" design in Woolies new logo until it was pointed out. I myself thought it was a "W" (which it is) - but Apple are kidding if they think people are going to be confused by the two logos :P

  • Yep, I think this one is a bit far fetched.

    Apple is "electronics"

    Woolworths is "food"

    If Woolworths was electronics as well, then there may be the slightest chance of a problem, but as pointed out, they hardly look the same. Apple doesn't have a trademark over the picture of every apple( just their own half eaten piece of...). Silly Rabbit...

  • It's interesting that Woolworths recently launched it's own Mobile Phone business - selling pre-paid phones under their own network - could this be related???

  • I doubt the case will even go to court. Anyone can clearly see that it is a W, resembling the shape of an Apple. Woolworths Limited have never once mentioned that their new logo was an Apple, and to be honest when I first saw it I had to look twice to see what the heck it was, lol.

    If the case does go to court and Woolworths loose....They will have to spend hundreds of millions reRE branding their stores, trucks, media, unfiorms etc...not only in Australia, but Countdown in New Zealand too!

  • Woolworths claims the logo is not an apple per se - it is simply meant to represent fresh food without specifying any particular fruit or vegetable - but to me it's clearly apple peel!

    I think Apple are kidding themselves - this reminds me of McDonalds and their endless copyright suits of anything with "Mc" in the title.

  • LOL! In this case, I think apple's getting quite full of themselves. woolworth's logo is just a nice play on the letter W. Will apple sue anyone who uses a logo remotely resembling an apple?

  • Apparently so!

  • They're nothing alike. If Apple wants to go after them, they'll have to go after every company that uses an applpe in it's logo, and I know for a fact there are at least 4 I see every day on the way home from work. They're just money-hungry.

  • It does seem a little implausible that Apple could believe consumers might confuse a supermarket for an Apple store :P

  • That's possible - but when viewed side by side - the logos look nothing alike. Unless Apple owns the copyright on the fruit itself (which is unlikely) their case is a bit odd.

  • you would be suprised about what companies have tried to copyright. cadbury tried to copyright or trademark the colour purple and coke the red. they will obvoiously lose in court. they didnt invent the apple so the cant own it. ever. but they will try.

  • WATCHoutFORthis..Purple actually is a registered trademark of Cadbury, however Red is not a registered trade mark of The Coca-Cola company.

  • I recall something about the "Purple" thing - Cadbury tried to sue Darrel Lea Chocolates over their purple packaging, but I think the court rejected Cadbury's case as there was no legal basis for copyrighting a colour.

    That's my recollection, correct me if I'm wrong ;)

  • Yeah I read about that case as well, but from what I've read after appealing the decision Cadbury has been granted a retrial because Justice Heeray in the first hearing ignored expert advice she was given, just jumping to the conclusion that Cadbury can't own a colour. Which is untrue because Trademark number 883892 is Purple, which is registered to Cadbury.

  • Eh...the Woolworths logo is a highly stylized ribbon coiled into an apple shape, while the Apple logo is an embossed metallic stamp. Unless Apple is prepared to copyright the fruit itself, they really need to free up their thumbs by not SITTING on them!

  • My thoughts exactly - Apple will have a hard time proving their case if their only evidence is "their logo is apple-shaped and ours is an apple!"

  • Dont you love how they have money to burn

  • Yeah I know - why use their wealth and power to do something positive in the world when they can pay lawyers to pursue stupid cases!!!

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more