I await the day when Apple sues Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al. for featuring an Apple with a bite out of it in their origin story which is in clear violation of Apple's established trademarks.
Apple: some of the whiniest bitches on the planet. "No, you can't use our trademarked glossy chat bubbles in your $5 iPhone app! We own rounded rectangles with gradients! The ratio of people to cake is enormous!!"
Seriously, as a longtime user of trendy/overpriced Apple products, these stories piss me off and "erode confidence" in Apple as an honest and aboveboard company. The more successful they become, the less I like how they comport themself in the marketplace. Nothing wrong with defending your legitimate trademarks, but this sort of shot across the bow really makes Apple seem, on the whole, like a gaggle of paranoid hubristic geek bitchmongers.
As much as I agree with you that this probably isn't much of an infringement, I do know that the job of the legal department at companies like Apple is to jump on every single instance of a trademark that might even remotely infringe on Apple's own trademarks. As far as I'm aware, sometimes Apple (or [insert big company name here]) may not even think it's very much of an infringement -- they may just make the application to cover their asses. If they didn't pursue every potential trademark infringement, they could find themselves in a world of pain ten years down the road.
I think it's important to make a distinction between Apple, the company that ships those shiny insanely great products, and Apple's legal department, the people whose sole purpose is to protect, above all else (even at the price of looking like d'bags), Apple's ownership of Apple's stuff.
This example is too new to determine one way or the other. But the example cited by cunninglinguist above (regarding the chat bubbles) was one that went way beyond the legal department. Chess Wars was rejected by iPhone app approval (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/09/01/chess-wars-app-up...)
Moreover Apple has a history of aggressively pursuing anything that remotely violates their trademarks.
To speak in Apple's defence here: I'm not sure this is 100% overreaching. Woolworths (and Coles) are producing a whole lot of branded in-house products.
That now includes Mobile Phone SIM cards. (Not handsets that I'm aware of - YET)
It might also include stuff like blank CD's, MP3 Players, and whatever other stuff they have down the stationary aisle. (I'll check tonight and reply later)
Certainly that logo would look suspicious on a MP3 player. (And also certainly - apple have no complain against a home-brand muesli)
Apple might have learnt from their past - think Apple Records and the fact that "Apple computer" weren't in the same business as them..
Pretty sure they offer mobile phone handsets, though I'm not sure how they're branded.
How I know this: I heard an in-store advertisement last week at Woolworths for a mobile phone (a Nokia, I believe). It boasted "polyphonic ringtones." I laughed.
Before everyone jumps on the Apple-hate bandwagon, keep in mind that unlike copyright, which is implicitly granted upon authorship, and patent rights, which are guaranteed upon successful filing, holding a trademark demands a vigorous defense. If Apple were not to lodge complaints like this (and the one against PlaNYC), then they run the risk of becoming the next Xerox or Kleenex.
In other words, the goal here is not necessarily to get Woolworths to change their logo, but rather to get it on the record that they were defending their brand.
13 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 41.5 ms ] threadSeriously, as a longtime user of trendy/overpriced Apple products, these stories piss me off and "erode confidence" in Apple as an honest and aboveboard company. The more successful they become, the less I like how they comport themself in the marketplace. Nothing wrong with defending your legitimate trademarks, but this sort of shot across the bow really makes Apple seem, on the whole, like a gaggle of paranoid hubristic geek bitchmongers.
I think it's important to make a distinction between Apple, the company that ships those shiny insanely great products, and Apple's legal department, the people whose sole purpose is to protect, above all else (even at the price of looking like d'bags), Apple's ownership of Apple's stuff.
Moreover Apple has a history of aggressively pursuing anything that remotely violates their trademarks.
What is the distinction here? What measure of a legitimate trademark defense does this action not meet?
That now includes Mobile Phone SIM cards. (Not handsets that I'm aware of - YET)
It might also include stuff like blank CD's, MP3 Players, and whatever other stuff they have down the stationary aisle. (I'll check tonight and reply later) Certainly that logo would look suspicious on a MP3 player. (And also certainly - apple have no complain against a home-brand muesli)
Apple might have learnt from their past - think Apple Records and the fact that "Apple computer" weren't in the same business as them..
How I know this: I heard an in-store advertisement last week at Woolworths for a mobile phone (a Nokia, I believe). It boasted "polyphonic ringtones." I laughed.
In other words, the goal here is not necessarily to get Woolworths to change their logo, but rather to get it on the record that they were defending their brand.
(see for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining_trademark...)
The way they question the Woolworths logo looks sort of like a huge monster trying to crush a small fly with their iron-covered feet.
This has got certainly nothing to do with defending a trademark logo, but more to do with extreme intolerance and total isolation from the world.