If I remember correctly (and I could well be wrong), Apple Computer paid off Apple Records.

There had also been stinks when (ca. 15 years ago) an Apple product (computer) was internally named “Sagan” and later, a language was called “Dylan” (for “Dynamic Language”). Bob, of course, thought that a compact disc saying “Dylan” on it would confuse people or something, although I (in my personal opinion) would think that, played on a standard CD player, his CDs would sound a bit better.

(That had apparently been a hinge-point on some of the legal issues, when software began to be distributed on CDs.)

Nonsense. No corporation is required to assert a facially baselss claim, in order to defend a future legitimate claim. They do, for the reasons you suggest, but they don’t have to. Indeed, if they assert this, they should be required under the law to pay all the attorneys fees for the company they bother with this nonsense.

You can’t trademark a fruit. Or a word of the English (or any other) language. Or a surname. Etc. Apple is all of the above.

See Nissan Motor Company Vs. Uzi Nissan/Nissan Computers for obnoxious court battles that take a decade(and counting) and millions of dollars to drag to a close when any idiot on the street can answer it in 3 seconds. It’s the guy’s name. He has a right to it.

Can Apple show they are losing significant money from people going into their stores to buy groceries, meat, fruit and veges?

How much money are Apple losing from people who go to Woolworths to buy a computer and leave with dinner for the night?

Amusing though.

I would like to know what Apple thinks they are losing because of this logo? People go to Wollies thinking that they’re going to an Apple store? People start associating Apple with actual apples? People have tried to explain these kinds of things to me before, and I never get it.

This makes Apple ultimate hypocrites – Woolworths actually sells apples, and Apple doesn’t.