Jump to content

Walgreens sues Wegmans over new logo


SteveR

Recommended Posts

Ha! I called it 2 years ago!

Upgrade by a long shot IMO.

Although its got a bit of a Walgreens vibe, seeing that they are in different industries, not a huge deal.

Unlike the Brooklyn one, these are similar industries (which I didn't realize at the time of my post) so I can see Walgreen's beef all the way...

But I also just found this:

https://www.wegmans.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10052&krypto=G2fxk6p%2BKn%2BeE9bnEUF7GeBMSFUDV5lXMIqFUfFCTW0Y5DYQ%2FdFoTic0l633SMZn&ddkey=http:ProductDisplay

Look at the 30's and 40's marks. Those were decades before Walgreen's. Maybe they can flip this into "You infringed on US!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! I called it 2 years ago!

Upgrade by a long shot IMO.

Although its got a bit of a Walgreens vibe, seeing that they are in different industries, not a huge deal.

Unlike the Brooklyn one, these are similar industries (which I didn't realize at the time of my post) so I can see Walgreen's beef all the way...

But I also just found this:

https://www.wegmans....:ProductDisplay

Look at the 30's and 40's marks. Those were decades before Walgreen's. Maybe they can flip this into "You infringed on US!!!

The one across the street from my work uses the latest logo, while the one a few miles up the road still has the '90s logo. Aesthetically, I kind of think the '90s logo looks better on the building, but I definitely think that the latest one is more fitting for the store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Senators were first with the curly W, hence why the Nats continue to use it.

Or maybe the MLB has deeper pockets than Walgreens.

As much as I like baseball, I'm sure prescription drugs has a far deeper pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Senators were first with the curly W, hence why the Nats continue to use it.

Or maybe the MLB has deeper pockets than Walgreens.

As much as I like baseball, I'm sure prescription drugs has a far deeper pocket.

Considering WAG could have paid cash for the Nats last year and still would have cleared $1.7 B in profits... yeah, I think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.