Apple vs. Apple: computer company not liable for trademark infringement
Posted by Dennis Sellers 
May 8, 2006 at 8:49am
Apple Computer isn’t liable for trademark infringement against Apple Corps, the music company owned by the Beatles, a judge in London’s High Court ruled today (May 8), reports Reuters. “I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated,” Justice Mann said in his judgment. “The action therefore fails.”
The Beatles and Apple Computer had faced off in court in London in a trademark dispute triggered by the computer company’s move into the music business via the iTunes Music Store. Apple Corps Ltd.—owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison—had sued Apple Computer twice before over the companies’ competing fruit logos and who owns the name “Apple.”
A 1991 settlement resulted in a $26 million payment by Apple Computer and an agreement to limit the use of the Apple trademark in the music business. In the most recent lawsuit, Apple Corps claimed that Apple Computer’s use of its trademark in advertising and software for the iTunes Music Store violates that agreement. The Beatles’ company sought a judgment of liability and an injunction against Apple Computer.
Geoffrey Vos, a lawyer representing Apple Corps, argued in Britain’s High Court that characterizing the download system as an electronic device was a “perversion” of the constraints laid down in the agreement between the two companies. Steve Jobs, co-founder and chief executive of Apple Computer, has said the downloading of music from the Internet was the same as buying an LP in the modern world.
Frank Petrie Says:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Posted on May 08, 2006
Trolling for Money Says:
Eventually someone was going to beat this money trolling cabal of lawyers. I’m glad Steve Jobs didn’t cave and gave them a legal punch in the nose. It was long overdue.
I’m all for people protecting their trademarks, but Apple Corps as a record label is and has been dead for a long time. Name one new release under the Apple Records label (not a repackage or re-release) since the Nixon Administration. There hasn’t been one. It’s a non-functioning record company.
This was nothing more than using lawyers already on retainer to troll for money. When Apple was going down the tubes and has the famous (sosumi) chime, in violation of their previous agreement, these folks didn’t come calling. However, once they sniffed money, they got religion about trademark protection.
Whatever happened to ‘I don’t care too much for money, Money can’t buy me love’?
Posted on May 08, 2006
Random Number Generator Says:
1) Apple Corps is not allowed to publish music, but not make computers using their “granny-smith apple” logo.
2) Apple Computer is not allowed to publish music on CD’s, tapes, vinyl, etc. using their “bite out of the apple” logo. But, they may use their apple logo computers for music, to play, record, compose, transfer, etc.
Apple Corps believes Apple Computer is using its iTunes software-store on computers, to publish music with an apple logo, contrary to the argreement. But, Apple Computer argues (a) that it is not publishing music, only selling music published by other labels, and (b) the bite of apple logo is associated with the computerised iTunes store, not the logos of the published music labels.
Apple Corps cannot ever sell their music over the internet, not through iTunes nor any other computer based music subscription service; Apple Computer could sue the pants off them if they did.
Posted on May 13, 2006
Random Number Generator Says:
Spot the correction:
1) Apple Corps is allowed to publish music, but not make computers using their “granny-smith apple” logo.
2) Apple Computer is not allowed to publish music on CD’s, tapes, vinyl, etc. using their “bite out of the apple” logo. But, they may use their apple logo computers for music, to play, record, compose, transfer, etc.
Apple Corps believes Apple Computer is using its iTunes software-store on computers, to publish music with an apple logo, contrary to the argreement. But, Apple Computer argues (a) that it is not publishing music, only selling music published by other labels, and (b) the bite of apple logo is associated with the computerised iTunes store, not the logos of the published music labels.
Apple Corps cannot ever sell their music over the internet, not through iTunes nor any other computer based music subscription service; Apple Computer could sue the pants off them if they did.
Posted on May 13, 2006
Jack Says:
What are they thinking about? Apple Computers were earlyy then Apple Corp and it has all right on brand “Apple”. If I was a judge I make Apple Corp change there name and brand
Posted on May 13, 2006
BiffBop Says:
Correction Jack, not quite:
Apple Corps—1969
Apple Computer—1976
Posted on May 15, 2006
JJ Says:
Why are you all so hung up on this have you nothing better to do i was doing research and saw you arguing its pointless! Whatever you say you think that there gonna give a shit?
Posted on May 16, 2006
Article Information
Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This
Contributor
Dennis Sellers
Dennis has been a newspaper editor/reporter (seven years) and teacher (seven years). He has over 4,000 magazine, newspaper and online articles to his credit. He has also covered the Mac and tech industries for over a decade for such online publications as MacCentral, MacMinute and now MacsimumNews.
Recent Articles
Sprocket999 Says:
Well it appears, that once again, common-sense has won the day. At least until the appeal. I particularly had to chuckle at the image used in the BBC story that showed the Apple Corps logo on a VINYL LP lable. Perhaps a shot at Apple’s relevance in the 21st century? Who knows. I had to chuckle, though. (Oh yes, I have been a fan since seeing them on the Ed Sullivan show the first time. That was history in the making! Wow!)
Posted on May 08, 2006