If you think Facebook.com has been overly aggressive in its defense of their trademark going against sites starting with the word “Face” or ending in the word “Book” you should see the lawsuit Walgreen’s just filed over the letter “W”
This week, Walgreens filed suit against Wegmans Food Markets Inc., a New York-based supermarket chain over the letter “W.”
According to the suit filed in Virgina , Walgreen says The “W” that Wegmans uses in its logo is too close to the style of the “W” in Walgreens.
Walgreens says its “flying W” deserves trademark protection because it has been in use since 1951.
Wegmans said the scripted “W” it adopted in 2008 is actually a copy of logos used by the supermarket in the 1930s.
“We were surprised to learn of this lawsuit, since Walgreens did not contact us with any concerns prior to filing it,” said Jeanne Colleluori, Wegmans spokeswoman.
“Our script design has been in use since 2008, and was crafted to look like the logos our company used in the 1930s and 1940s. We don’t think that there is any real risk of customer confusion between the two companies.”
Yup not only are words subject to claim of ownership but so are letters and the style of a letter.
f-ing crazy…CVS gets my business from now on 🙂
Walgreens: http://img2.walgreens.com/images/logos/walgreens.gif
Wegmans: http://www.wegmans.com/wcsstore/B2BDirectStorefrontAssetStore/images/wegmans-logo.png
I think Walgreens needs glasses.
Apples and oranges. It’s not the W letter, it’s the design. See here http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/Legal-battle-centers-around-letter-W they are quite similar
maybe, they try to enter in the Guinness Book of Record in a “crazy ideas” section… 🙂
This is getting out hand. I know we are all still facing rough times with the “recession” but this is just downright ridiculous. All major pharmaceutical companies should sue walgreens for their generic branded items – such as “wal-dryl” now comparable to benadryl… BOOM lawsuit.
what about the Washington Nationals (baseball) W? http://washington.nationals.mlb.com
Walgreens was granted a Word Mark for the letter “W” (Serial Number: 77621928 or search TESS for ‘walgreens’). They are simply enforcing their trademark, which they are required to do or risk losing it. It’s more a “hate the game, not the player” than it is Walgreens being the bad guy.
@Laura – As far as why Wegmans but not Washington Nationals, I’d imagine that Wegmans is infringing on one of the trademark classes that Walgreen’s wordmark/trademark applies to and that Walgreens doesn’t have a trademark related to sports teams.
“I think Walgreens needs glasses.”
I agree with Tia.
However looking at the “e” and “g”, Walgreens may have a case.
🙂
Just kidding.
I thought George W Bush owned “W” 🙂
What a ridiculous waste of time. Can Wegman’s successfully sue Walgreens for wasting their time?
If Walgreens would have the “font” protect and Wegman would use the same font, I could understand, but it is a different font.
It just maybe that Walgreens is infringing?
Wegmans store states that they have concrete proof that they
were using this Font in the 1930/40,s will they motion
to cross file and ask to have the complaints joined.
Is Walgreens just exercising routine Copyright protection or
are they trying to preempt Wegmans because they
are using this original font / logo ONCE AGAIN …
were they worried Wegmans would lay a reverse claim against Walgreens
for infringement or is this recent discovery just that … accidental?
I would think that Wegmans would have had
common law protection of there mark back then,
but that would have to be reserched, uniquely interesting.
This may have opened a can of worms
that Walgreens may end up regretting?
and yet they Don’t bother the washington nationals, and thier W is a heak of a lot closer to the Walgreens W than the Wegmans W