I guess I get to bump this up...
I had heard of this issue before, but it was more a sentence about "Their logos are really similar." Walgreens is apparently doing a serious advertising push these past few weeks. The first time I saw one of the ads, maybe two weeks ago, I was convinced it was a Nats ad at first - I saw a flash of a curly red W as I was hitting my 30-second skip, did a double take and hit rewind.
So... this has been an issue for a while, clearly. Obed said you can't copyright typeface, etc. That may well be true, but it's not just using a certain font in a logo for a store that has a name that begins with W. It's using that font *and* using that coloration *and* using just the W as a pseudo-symbol. Anybody can use whatever font they want to, sure, but when you use that font and the *exact*!!! same color scheme - white on red - problem. Curly W and red on green, yellow on blue, black on gray - a plethora of combinations. Non-curly W with red/white... well, even that would be potentially confusing. I'd argue it's less the typeface, and more the color scheme plus a standalone W utilized as a symbol.
Of all the color schemes in the world, out of 26 letters in the alphabet, and the rarity of using a curly/cursive style font, I do not see how both parties could continue on if either ever raised an objection in court. I did a fast Google, came up with this page:
http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/WalgreensAccording to that, it looks as though they only evolved to the stand-alone curly red W logo in 2006. Yes, Walgreens used a curly typeface with red text for their branding for decades, but it was, apparently, always as 'Walgreens'. If true, point goes to the Nats, born in '05.
What these recent ads have brought to my attention unlike before is that Walgreens is taking it a step above and beyond - they are now using just a red curly W as their logo. They dropped the 'algreens', having just the solitary curly W prominant on all advertising and signage apart from 'Walgreens'. Their signs, their ads, everywhere, it appears as though they are rebranding themselves to be synonymous with and identified by just a red curly W. That? That's *really* a problem.
I'm no trademark lawyer, although I just might have played one on TV once, but I see a red on white curly W used the way both parties use it as more of an image or extraordinarily distinctive symbol. Again, not versed in this field of law, but I would imagine a critical test judges would use is the likelihood confusion can arise by their appearance and utilization - is it unique enough, distinctive enough, for an average person to see it and immediately associate it with the company/team?
I don't see how the Nats can let this go, at least now that Walgreens is unleashing an advertising blitz in our area that they hadn't done before. It seems to me either Walgreens is expanding their reach into the DC area lately, or their ad agency has recently decided to dramatically emphasize the stand-alone curly red W as their logo/brand. Bottom dollar, I'd heard murmurs of this issue in the past, but never actually saw anything like their recent ads where I literally believed it was something from the Nats. So unless I simply was oblivious to all this and this isn't something new/expanded, it seems like Walgreens decided to push its luck of late.
