The one getting all the attention is an offering in the Ultrabook category that’s priced at $900. It’s called the HP Folio¹³, and aside from its price, its headline feature is that it delivers a full nine hours of battery life.

The Ultrabook is a concept primarily being pushed by Intel, so much so that Intel even owns the trademark rights to the name. Inside the Folio¹³ are the latest Intel Core processors. It represents the hopes of a PC industry that has seen anemic sales with little sign of a bounceback, though that depends on whom you ask.

Major challenges have been the continued popularity among consumers of Apple’s iPad, and to a lesser extent other tablets, and the impressive sales of Apple’s MacBook Air, which now accounts for nearly a third of Apple’s notebook sales. It may not be an Ultrabook technically, but conceptually the similarities are substantial: Thin, light, sporting solid-state drives and speedy boot-up times.

And while the MacBook Air is a big winner for Apple, there’s as yet little evidence that there’s much demand for a similar product running Windows. Last month, it emerged that Acer and Asus expect to sell only 100,000 each by the of 2011, which would amount to between one third and one half of what they originally hoped.

Yes, it’s early days for Ultrabooks — machines that support Intel’s full design vision won’t be on the market for another several months. And the industry is just now starting to bang the drum seriously for the Ultrabook. Asus Chairman Jonney Shih talked about the category in an interview with Walt Mossberg at AsiaD last month.

In its press releases, HP expressed the hopes of an entire industry when it quoted IDC analyst Crawford Del Prete saying he expects PC makers — including HP — to sell 95 million Ultrabooks by 2015. At their current levels, there’s nowhere to go but up.

The suit, filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges patent and trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition. Apple is seeking injunctions, actual damages and punitive damages, as well as a finding that the alleged infringement was willful.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung said it would fight Apple’s legal action in the courts.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.”

The smartphone industry is filled with patent actions, including an ongoing battle between Apple and Nokia, suits between Microsoft and Motorola, as well as a suit by Oracle against Google, to name but a few. This one is particularly interesting because Samsung is a prominent supplier for a number of Apple products.

Apple’s lengthy court filing, seen by Mobilized, is filled with what Apple claims are examples of the copy-catting, ranging from core technology to screen icons to hardware shape. In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons.

In addition to the patent and trademark claims, Apple also alleges infringement of the “trade dress” of the iPhone and iPad, a legal term meaning they sure look a whole lot alike. Apple charges that everything from the icons on the Galaxy screen to the way the phone is packaged infringe on Apple’s designs.

“Samsung’s Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,” Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung’s tablet, like Apple’s, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons.

Even as Apple is filing its latest claims, the company suffered a setback in earlier cases it has pending against HTC and Nokia with the U.S. International Trade Commission. According to Bloomberg, ITC staff has recommended siding against Apple in those cases, which also involve phone patents.

Apple’s suit against Samsung not only contains lots of harsh words, but also has lots of pretty pictures, including some that show side-by-side shots of Samsung’s products stacked up against Apple’s patent diagrams and against Apple’s products themselves.

In one head-to-head comparison, Apple shows the iPhone 3GS next to the original Galaxy i9000 model sold in South Korea last year.

Updated 3:10 p.m. with Samsung comment.

In a complaint filed last week in California, Apple accused Amazon of improperly using its App Store mark to promote its “Appstore” mobile software developer program and the associated download service it plans to launch tomorrow. “Consumers of mobile software downloads are likely to be confused as to whether Amazon’s mobile software download service is sponsored or approved by Apple,” Apple argued in the suit.

“We’ve asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers,” Apple spokesperson Kristin Huguet told me. But Amazon has ignored the company’s appeals. According to the lawsuit, Apple contacted the retailer three times to demand it stop using the mark, with no success. Evidently, Amazon has cast its lot with Microsoft which has challenged Apple’s application for the trademark arguing “app store” is too generic a term and would prevent competitors from using it to describe their own products. And that does seem a reasonable argument; “app store” isn’t a particularly innovative turn of phrase. But as this Google Trend line shows, the phrase didn’t enter the vernacular until 2008, right around the time Apple began popularizing it…

(Thanks for the headline, Joseph)

“Having itself faced a decades-long genericness challenge to its claimed WINDOWS mark, Microsoft should be well aware that the focus in evaluating genericness is on the mark as a whole and requires a fact-intensive assessment of the primary significance of the term to a substantial majority of the relevant public. Yet, Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole.”

– Apple defends its right to trademark “App Store”

“Any secondary meaning or fame Apple has in ‘App Store’ is de facto secondary meaning that cannot convert the generic term ‘app store’ into a protectable trademark. Apple cannot block competitors from using a generic name. ‘App store’ is generic and therefore in the public domain and free for all competitors to use.”

– Microsoft appeals to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny Apple’s application to trademark the term “App Store

In an appeal to customers today, Groupon co-founder and CEO Andrew Mason explained in a blog post why it is suing an Australian competitor, Scoopon.

And the story is pretty juicy: Gabby and Hezi Leibovitch, two brothers who started Scoopon in Australia, have purchased the Groupon.com.au domain name, registered the company name of Groupon Pty Limited and tried registering the Groupon trademark in Australia.

“The way we see things, this is a classic case of domain squatting–an unfortunate reality of the Internet business,” Mason wrote. “As Groupon became internationally known, opportunistic domain squatters around the world started to buy local Groupon domain names, thinking that we’d eventually be forced to buy them at an insane price.”

But wait, there’s more: Groupon offered the brothers $286,000 for the Groupon.com.au domain and trademark, and Mason claims they accepted the offer.

Then they changed their minds (presumably around the time Groupon turned down $6 billion from Google, and then was rumored to be raising nearly $1 billion in fresh capital). No doubt, the Leibovitch brothers now have a much richer number in mind.

To that end, Mason says his company is choosing the path of last resort: “Left with no other options, we’ve filed a lawsuit against Scoopon, claiming that their Groupon trademark was filed in bad faith (amongst other things).”

In the meantime, the nearly $300,000 offer continues to stand, and Groupon has opened shop under an alias: www.stardeals.com.au/.

If a court doesn’t come down on his side, Mason is hoping customers will: “Apologies–we don’t like to bother our customers with these things, but felt you deserved to understand why it’s taking us so long in Australia,” he wrote.

A “Groupon in Australia” Facebook group has been created to raise awareness of the situation, and by this afternoon had already counted 568 members.

Certainly it doesn’t take a big leap to imagine Myte as a name for the the next iteration of the Palm Pixi, which is rumored to be smaller than its predecessor–perhaps even “the smallest smartphone ever.”

And Veer and Gyst? Who knows. Maybe HP’s branding team has been reading a bit too much Chaucer lately.

However, the European Court of Justice’s advocate general, Niilo Jaaskinen, in giving his opinion, said eBay could continue to purchase advertising keywords, including L’Oréal trademarks, in order to direct users of Internet search engines to its site.

The ECJ said L’Oréal can prohibit the sale of “testers and dramming bottles, often marked with the words ‘not for sale’… supplied without charge to the trade mark proprietor’s authorized distributors,” because they “cannot be considered as being goods put on the market with the consent of the trade mark proprietor.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

A federal court has permanently enjoined the New York company from distributing its software, which lets users upload and download free, often illegal, copies of songs and other media. But earlier this week a new version, “LimeWire Pirate Edition,” surfaced online, purportedly created by a “secret” team of software developers.

“We demand that all persons using the LimeWire software, name, or trademark in order to upload or download copyrighted works in any manner cease and desist from doing so,” said a statement on LimeWire.com. The statement also asserted that the company is “taking all steps to comply with the injunction.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The search giant objected over the similarity of the Groggle name to Google’s own when the founders of the Australian drinking site applied for a trademark application as they prepared to launch their service in April, the Sydney Morning Herald reported. After a six-month legal battle, Groggle’s co-founders said that they had settled with Google last month, and they changed the name of their site to Drinkle.

The Groggle–or Drinkle–team announced on Facebook and Twitter that they were “forging ahead” after the trademark fight delayed their launch. They added that they were going to “celebrate by drinking Australia’s most [expensive] bottle of beer”–Crown Ambassador 2010 Reserve, which is made by Australia’s Foster’s and has a list price of $90. (The lager got a good review on Twitter from one of the site’s co-founders, who said it had “deep golden colour and rich complex flavours.”)

Read the rest of this post on the original site

035: Retail store services featuring computer software provided via the Internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; retail store services featuring computer software for use on handheld mobile digital electronic devices and other consumer electronics

042: Maintenance and updating of computer software; providing information concerning computer software via the Internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; providing search engines for obtaining data via communications networks; providing temporary use of computer software and online facilities to enable users to access and download computer software; providing online non-downloadable computer software that generates customized recommendations of software applications based on user preferences

That should go a long way toward preventing other companies playing in the mobile space from using similar slogans in their marketing efforts. With this mark in place, I doubt we’ll see Verizon (VZ) revisiting its “There’s a Map for That” campaign anytime soon.

The company, called Ongo, filed a trademark registration in April. In the filing, Ongo describes itself as providing “computer and telecommunications software for use in aggregating and viewing news and syndication feeds.”

The reason for the Times’s investment in Ongo was unclear. As news organizations have grappled with how to deliver their content to digital devices and make money off of those readers, there have emerged a number of efforts to collaborate on packaging and selling content. News Corp. (NWS), which owns the Wall Street Journal, has been talking to media companies about creating a cable TV-type business for news, allowing consumers to set up one bill to access digital content from multiple media companies.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Here’s the release:

PING Golf Announces Trademark Agreement With Apple

PHOENIX, Sept. 1 /PRNewswire/ — PING and its parent company, Karsten Manufacturing Corporation, announced today that they have entered into an agreement with Apple under which Apple will use the PING trademark in connection with Apple’s innovative new social music discovery feature in iTunes. Apple introduced the iTunes PING feature today.

Founded in 1959, PING is a famous premium brand that holds more than 1000 trademark registrations around the world, many related to golf equipment. The company also owns trademark rights in PING for social networking and other online services.

This announcement involves two companies that were founded by visionaries who created products that greatly impacted their industries. Karsten Solheim invented the PING® putter in his Redwood City, California garage and went on to revolutionize the golf equipment industry. The groundbreaking first Apple® computer was developed in nearby Palo Alto in 1976.

“We are pleased to enter into this agreement with Apple,” said John Solheim, Chairman and CEO of Karsten Manufacturing Corporation and PING. “Like PING, Apple carries a reputation for innovation and quality. I have always had great respect for companies that have changed and improved the ways things are done and I continue to model PING along those lines. Apple is a truly great example of this kind of enterprise.”

The mechanics of the transfer aren’t entirely clear. As Patent Authority, which first spotted the new assignment, notes, Apple (AAPL) challenged the validity of the mark last September. The company then requested a trio of 60-day extensions, presumably to negotiate its purchase from Fujitsu, which had been using “iPad” as the name for a Windows CE point-of-sale device it has been peddling since 2002.

FURTHER READING:

Launch Day iPads Sold Out

iPad Available at “Most Best Buy Stores” This Saturday

Apple Grabs iPad Trademark From Fujitsu

Apple Now Accepting iPad App Submissions

Early Supplies of iPad Accessories Dwindling?

Initial iPad Demand Greater Than Initial iPhone Demand

iPad TV?

Apple’s Tablet: Read Different?

Rumored Apple Netbook Actually an E-book?

Coming Soon From Apple: Big Touch?

iTablet: Apple’s Killer App for Higher Ed

COMPLETE IPAD COVERAGE

[Image credit: Bitolithic]

While “iSlate” is classier and “iTab” or “iTablet” more descriptive, BoomTown is making an all-in bet that Apple will use “iPad” as the brand name of its new tablet computer, which is expected to be launched one week from today.

Interestingly, there was an intriguing post on MacRumors today that pointed to new trademark filings from what it claims is a dummy Apple (AAPL) corporation, suggesting that iPad could be the moniker of the much anticipated device.

While I claim no such source for my own Miss Cleo prediction, here’s what occurred to me driving home on a rain-soaked highway on the long car ride back from Los Angeles last night:

1. iPad sounds like iPod, so marketing would be easier.

2. iPad is the simplest choice and a familiar term related to touchpad, pad of paper–much as iPhone was the most obvious one.

3. iSlate–a name Apple also appears to have trademarked too–feels too much like it belongs in an episode of “Little House on the Prairie” and that chalk needs to be involved in its use.

4. iTab is not enough, and iTablet sounds like some digital drug of the future.

5. The JesusTablet is probably sacrilegious, as is iMoses or iAmThatIAm, which is what God told Moses his name was. (Teasing!)

But why don’t you weigh in here with choices I selected in this poll or add one of your own (not that Apple CEO Steve Jobs cares what we think!). I will publish any really good names you come up with tomorrow:

“Here’s what we know at this point. Our MSN China joint venture contracted with an independent vendor to create a feature called MSN Juku that allowed MSN users to find friends via microblogging and online games. This MSN Juku feature was made available to MSN China users in November and is still in beta.

Because questions have been raised about the code base comprising the service, MSN China will be suspending access to the Juku beta feature temporarily while we investigate the matter fully.”

– Microsoft’s statement on the Plurk-Juku debacle

If Microsoft didn’t know what a Plurk was before, it knows now.

The software giant has suspended MSN Juku, its Chinese microblog site, following accusations that it copied the design and code of Plurk, a Twitter rival popular in Taiwan and Indonesia.

In a blog post earlier this week, Plurk alleged that Juku bore an uncanny resemblance to its service, right down to the code base and data structures.

“From the filter tabs, emoticons, qualifier/verb placement, Karma scoring system, media support, new user walkthroughs to pretty much everything else that gives Plurk its trademark appeal, Microsoft China’s offering ripped off our service,” the company claimed in a blistering blog post.

“We’re still in shock asking why Microsoft would even stoop to this level of wilfully plagiarising a young and innovative upstart’s work rather than reach out to us or innovate on their own terms,” the post continued. “Of course, it just hits that much closer to home when all your years of hard work and effort to create something unique are stolen so brazenly. All the more ironic considering Microsoft has often been leading the charge on fighting for stronger IP laws and combating software piracy in China.”

Indeed. If this is a theft, it’s a serious and embarrassing infraction for Microsoft (MSFT)–even if, as the company claims, Juku’s code was provided by a third-party vendor hired by its MSN China joint venture. Microsoft should have vetted the vendor more thoroughly, particularly since the software giant just suffered a similar embarrassment with its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool, which borrowed a bit too heavily from the GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project.

UPDATE: Microsoft has determined that the company that developed MSN Juku did indeed copy Plurk’s code. “The vendor has now acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied,” Microsoft said in a statement. “This was in clear violation of the vendor’s contract with the MSN China joint venture, and equally inconsistent with Microsoft’s policies respecting intellectual property.”

Microsoft said it is now suspending access to Juku “indefinitely. We are obviously very disappointed, but we assume responsibility for this situation. We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation.”

Here’s Microsoft’s full statement about the incident:

On Monday, December 14, questions arose over a beta application called Juku developed by a Chinese vendor for our MSN China joint venture. We immediately worked with our MSN China joint venture to investigate the situation.

The vendor has now acknowledged that a portion of the code they provided was indeed copied. This was in clear violation of the vendor’s contract with the MSN China joint venture, and equally inconsistent with Microsoft’s policies respecting intellectual property.

When we hire an outside company to do development work, our practice is to include strong language in our contract that clearly states the company must provide work that does not infringe the intellectual property rights of others. We are a company that respects intellectual property and it was never our intent to have a site that was not respectful of the work that others in the industry have done.

We will be suspending access to the Juku beta indefinitely.
We are obviously very disappointed, but we assume responsibility for this situation. We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation.

In the wake of this incident, Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors.

Under the terms of the agreement, Psystar will pay Apple (AAPL) damages totaling $1,337,550 for all the copyright, DMCA, and breach of contract claims against it and another $1,337,500 in attorney fees and additional damages. In return, Apple will drop all its trademark, trade dress and unfair competition claims against Psystar. Cupertino has also agreed not to “seek to execute on the money judgments…until any and all appeals in this matter are concluded or the time for filing any such appeal has lapsed.”

Not that Apple is likely to collect that money, anyway. As I’ve noted here before, Psystar’s total assets, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

The agreement if full, below.

Apple Psystar Settlement Agreement

Further details are yet to come, but in a U.S. District Court filing Monday, Psytar said, “Psystar and Apple today entered into a partial settlement that is embodied in a stipulation that will be filed with the Court tomorrow. Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple’s copyright claims in exchange for Apple’s agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded. Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this Court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple’s copyright claims.”

Odd that Apple (AAPL), which just days ago seemed intent on hanging Psystar’s lifeless body from the gates of 1 Infinite Loop, would agree to such a thing. Odder still, that it would do so when Psystar is petitioning to have its Rebel EFI utility–which enables Apple’s Snow Leopard OS to be installed on generic PCs–excluded from any injunction.

In any event, it’s good news for Psystar, which had previously been facing damages of at least $2.1 million and the shuttering of its business.

“Psystar…has built its business on infringing Apple’s copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple’s research and development efforts, and trading on Apple’s hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers,” Apple said in its motion.

“Psystar’s appropriation of Apple’s intellectual property and goodwill has been systematic and brazen, from the name of Psystar’s ‘OpenMac’ computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple’s Mac OS X,” the company added.

“Psystar even seeks to profit from Apple’s efforts to protect its rights, extolling this litigation as Psystar’s ‘opportunity to gain market share,’ in a pitch to venture capitalists….Unless Psystar is permanently enjoined, it will not stop its unlawful conduct–conduct that is causing irreparable harm to Apple’s business, brand and goodwill.”

Catch that? Psystar was pitching VCs on its plan to use Apple’s IP to “compete directly against Apple.” Shameless. Little wonder Cupertino is so intent on burying the would-be rival.

And make no mistake, Apple legal is going to grind Psystar into fine silicon dust. In addition to the injunction, Apple is requesting compensation for legal costs and statutory damages owed under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And according to Apple’s expert witness, statutory damages for the former should run “between $1500 and $300,000″ and for the latter “between $449,500 and $4,495,000.”

Suffice it to say, that’s quite a bit more than the current value of Psystar’s assets which, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

What exactly did Adconion buy? Some of Joost’s technology, as well as its trademark, and about a dozen of the company’s remaining 25 employees, a spokeswoman says.

So what does that leave? Does any part of the original Joost survive as an operating company? “I believe so,” says the spokeswoman, who is going to get back to us about that.

Price? Your guess is as good as mine. But I’m guessing it’s not going to be very much, and nothing close to what investors like Sequoia, Index and Viacom (VIA) were hoping when they plowed $45 million into the company more than two years ago. Index, by the way, is also an investor in Adconion and led an $80 million C funding round in February 2008.

In any case, this is all a matter of “i” dotting and “t” crossing, as Joost has officially been in hospice mode since June, when the company laid off most of its employees and replaced CEO Mike Volpi. Prior to that, Volpi and his investors had been trying to broker a sale of the company, hoping that they could convince a big infrastructure player like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) to bail it out.

No dice, though Time Warner Cable did end up hiring some technical help from Joost.

ADCONION MEDIA GROUP ACQUIRES JOOST ASSETS

New Capabilities Provide Advertisers, Content Owners and Publishers with an End-to-End
Cross-Channel Video Solution

SANTA MONICA, CALIF. – NOVEMBER 24, 2009 — Adconion Media Group (www.adconion.com), the largest independent global audience and content network, announced today that it has acquired certain assets from privately-held Joost, the online video service. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

“Video is a top priority for our company, and through the acquisition of the Joost assets we will be able to provide advertisers, content owners and website publishers with an end-to-end global video platform and cross-channel video and display ad-serving solution,” said Tyler Moebius, CEO, Adconion Media Group. “This acquisition immediately brings additional scale and content to the Adconion video pre-roll network for clients who are looking for a safe, cost-effective alternative to achieve the maximum value of online video advertising. We’ll also continue to operate Joost.com, providing clients with a destination site to showcase and distribute their branded entertainment content.”

In June, Joost announced a change in its business strategy to focus on providing white-label video platforms, and Adconion plans to pursue this strategy. On Friday, Adconion announced its first long-term licensing partnership as the exclusive display and video ad-serving solution for the Goldbach Media Group in Europe.

The acquisition of Joost assets adds many dimensions to Adconion’s existing video services and further will solidify its position in the online video and content syndication market. Prior to the acquisition, Adconion offered targeted distribution of content, including video and television commercials, to audiences around the world via Adconion.TV; as well as customized branded entertainment solutions for clients through its exclusive relationship with the digital studio RedLever. Through the Joost acquisition, Adconion.TV will add to its library of professionally-produced video content available for targeted pre-roll advertisements across 2,000 premium publishers.

Janus Friis, co-founder of Joost, said, “Over the past few months we have been actively exploring strategic options for Joost, and have concluded that the sale of certain of its assets to Adconion is in the best interests of Joost. Adconion has a strong technological platform and a compelling business model, and we believe that both businesses will benefit as a result of this acquisition.”

A leader in advertising innovation, targeting and distribution, Adconion reaches nearly 300 million unique users on a monthly basis. Prior to the Joost acquisition, Adconion was serving more than 80 million video streams per day to targeted audiences across 2,000 global websites.

“iDon’t have a real keyboard
iDon’t run simultaneous apps
iDon’t take night shots
iDon’t allow open development
iDon’t customize
iDon’t run widgets
iDon’t have interchangeable batteries
Everything iDon’t
DROID DOES”

Shown on Fox and CBS (CBS) during a pair of NFL football games Sunday afternoon, the ad clearly positions Droid as the mythical iPhone killer. And while that might seem foolhardy, perhaps even hubristic, those who’ve seen the Motorola (MOT)-designed device say it’s at the very least a worthy iPhone rival.

Says Boy Genius: “[This is] the Android device to beat, and easily the most impressive. From what we’ve been told, Google had a direct hand in the Motorola Droid. Something to the point of almost dictating every move Motorola made when designing and making the phone….the Droid, even in its non-final form, is the most impressive phone we’ve used since the iPhone. It’s positively amazing.”

A gushing endorsement of an unreleased device and as such, to be taken with a grain of salt. That said, it’s hard to believe Verizon (VZ) would go all out here without good reason. And make no mistake, the company is going all out, even to the point of licensing the “Droid” trademark from Lucasfilm.

This past weekend’s TV commercial and a Droid teaser site are clearly the beginning of a major marketing push intended to position Droid as the Apple (AAPL) iPhone’s better, or at least its equal. Little wonder then that Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt was so upbeat about Android’s future during the search engine company’s earnings call last week.

“Android adoption is literally about to explode,” Schmidt said. “You have all the necessary conditions, you have the vendors, you have the distribution and so forth. This is a very critical period with all of everything being delivered.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Verizon to iPhone Users: “Want Five Times More 3G Coverage? There’s a Map for That.”
• Perhaps by “Devices Like the Pre,” Verizon CEO Meant the iPhone?
• Analyst: AT&T Screwed Without iPhone Exclusivity
• Q: Should Apple Bring the iPhone to Verizon? A: Yes.
• Apple, Verizon and the iPhone LiTE

“• It is a stylised ‘W’ for Woolworths with the addition of an abstract leaf symbol representing fresh food;
• It is reminiscent of one of the most famous Woolworths logos of the 1970s;
• It represents a person–as in ‘The Fresh Food People’ and the Woolworths focus on its customers.”

– Woolworths announces its new logo.

Woolworths Supermarkets describes its new logo as “an abstract leaf symbol” intended to represent fresh food. But to Apple, the stylized “W” looks far too much like its own namesake fruit, which could be problematic should the supermarket chain someday decide to peddle its own brand of consumer electronics. And so Apple is petitioning IP Australia, the local agency that governs trademarks, to reject the Woolworths application for the mark.

It seems an overly litigious move, even for Apple (AAPL). As Hans Hulsbosch, the Woolworths logo designer dryly notes, “Based on this logic, they would have to take action against every fruitseller.”

That said, the Woolworths application is for a blanket trademark on a broad range of goods, including electronics, specifically “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.”

While it might seem unlikely that the supermarket chain would ever manufacture devices, it did recently begin dabbling in cellphones, so it’s not entirely out of the question. Said a Woolworths spokesman: “While we can’t rule [computers, musical players, or other devices] out, we haven’t got any plans at the moment.”

This isn’t the first time Apple has challenged a trademark. Last year the company went after New York City’s GreeNYC campaign claiming its logo would create confusion in the marketplace. And in 2007, Apple settled a long-running trademark dispute with The Beatles’ parent company, Apple Corps.