Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes 367

Posted by Hemos
from the a-tale-of-two-apples dept.
novus ordo writes "Apple is being sued in London by Apple Corps, owned by the former Beatles and their heirs. This is a third battle over the name 'Apple' in Britain. Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Beatles, Apple, and iTunes

Comments Filter:
  • by WarwickRyan (780794) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:29AM (#15001845)
    The Pope sueing anyone called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John?

    Bill Borg sueing anyone who has the ordacity to install "Outside Viewing Portals" in their home?
    • ...if that Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John had entered in a binding legal agreement not to do something which they then violated 15 years later, sure. Why not?
      • Re:What's next? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bev_tech_rob (313485)
        According to TFA, that agreement covered only PHYSICAL media like CDs or tapes. I agree with Apple computer's position, that Itunes is just data transmission...
        • Re:What's next? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nwbvt (768631)
          No, according to Apple Computer that agreement covered only physical media like CDs or tapes. Apple Records has a different interpretation. This settlement was reached long before the downloading songs was a common method of music distribution, so this concept was not specified in the settlement.
          • So let's see Apple Computer thinks its promise not to sell music meant physical media only whereas Apple Records thinks it applies to all music. If only there were some long established (800 years should do it) system of adjudicating such disputes...
    • Bill Gates sues anything called .indows

      and wins.
  • Gah? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis&gmail,com> on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:30AM (#15001847) Homepage
    I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.

    If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

    I don't see how Apple Computers is in anyway confusing people away from the Apple label. When I think itunes I don't think of the Beatles. I think of frustration at using a crappy piece of software [in light of things like GNUpod] and horrible DRM.

    Tom
    • Re:Gah? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rebeka thomas (673264)
      If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

      Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.

      Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.
      • Re:Gah? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by adjensen (58676) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:55AM (#15001954)
        If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

        Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.

        Or maybe it's because Apple Records (records? what the fug is a record?) haven't had a new release in, what, 30 years? When was the last Badfinger album?

        Personally, I thought that the Beatles' claim to the original trademark infringement was pretty tenuous. Apple Computer should have fought that one tooth and nail. At this point, it's a lot more relevant, but, again, their basis seems pretty diluted.

        At any rate, although Apple Computer (not "Apple") runs the iTunes Music Store, I don't think that they're promoting it as the "Apple Music Store". They should tell Paul, Ringo, Yoko and whoever's running the show for George to cheese off -- it's time to get this monkey off the back, even if it means a long court stint.

        • And I used up all my mod points yesterday! You are so correct it is the iTunes Music Store not the Apple Music Store. And Apple and Apple Corps are not the same thing. I really can't see Paul caring so much, maybe Ringo, what does he do nowadays? Of course Yoko has been bleeding the Beatles since she met John and I don't know who runs George's part of things.
      • Re:Gah? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hey! (33014) on Monday March 27, 2006 @09:02AM (#15002303) Homepage Journal
        Precisely proof that Apple Computer has diluted the trademark of Apple Corps to the extent that they have illegally substituted their brand for that of the original owners.

        Agreed.

        Which is why this lawsuit against Apple Computer must succeed to be fair.

        Disagree.

        The original lawuit was lawyer driven legal harassment. You can't own a common word in countries I know of, except to differentiate your product within its specific class of products. Since there was no chance that tunes from the Beatles catalog could be confused with microcomputers, the original suit had no merit. Apple Computer paid Apple Music a token amount that probably covered part their expenses bringing the suit, which meant the Apple Music's lawyers got their payday. However the lawyer's clients could hardly have been happy walking away from what their lawyers told them was a threat to their trademark, so the laywer extracted from Apple Computer what was then an empty promise: that Apple Computer would stay out of the music business.

        And the substance and letter of that then empty promise is what is at issue.

        Now, if you'll note, Apple Computer is very careful to avoid branding their muisc services as "Apple" music service. It's "iTunes(tm)". The closest you get to associating the words "iTunes" and "Apple" is that there is an "iTunes" page on the apple web site. However, in the store itself, you are running inside the iTunes program, and the web content provided doesn't say "Apple" anywhere in it. This should be surprising; companies running stores usually are drilling their names into your brain at every opportunity. You've got the "Apple Computer" logo on the iTunes program frame, but it never appears inside the content pane. Get it? You are using Apple Computer software to access the music store, but the music end of the business is not branded with Apple Music's name.

        In my view, this is pure sophistry, since you can't readily use the Apple iTunes software with anything but the Apple iTunes store. And Apple knows better than anyone else that the delivery mechanism is part of a unified customer experience -- that's their very strategy. Users don't differentiate between an Apple logo in the window frame and an Apple logo in the content pane.

        So now I think Apple Corps Music has a legitimate trademark beef with Apple Computer; however that's not what's at issue. What's at issue is Apple's promise about staying out of the music business. The question is, did Apple Computer's lawyers cleverly trick Apple Corps lawyers into thinkng they'd agreed to stay out of the music business, when if fact all they did was agree to stay out of the music business as it existed then, to wit: distributing recordings of music on physical media. If so, it was a sneaky (professwional from the lawyer's point of view) thing to do; computer people even then must have been aware that music could be encoded and transmitted digitally without any physical distribution media.

        The thing is, now that they've leveraged their computer business to get into the music business, it wouldn't be hard for Apple Computer to fix the trademark problem. They might have to pay a one time settlement and desist from associating their Apple Computer logo with their music store, which is easy as designing a new iTunes logo and updating their software. But if Apple Corps could sink its teeth into the very business of iTunes, rather than its trade dress, they'd be onto something magnitudes larger. Like the original lawsuit, it's a self-serving abuse of the legal systems put in place to help artists, and by which the Beatles had already profited beyond all but the wildest dreams of greed.

        And it all hinges on exactly how the concept of "staying out of the music business" was worded in the original settlement. I'll bet that Mr. Jobs and his lawyers fleeced those Apple Corps bastards and left them buck-naked in the oncoming snow storm. God help the bastard who meets a smarter bastard.

      • Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jimbolauski (882977)
        How can the beatles product be diluted when they don't own the publishing rights to most of their songs which belong to neverland inc and the recording rights which belong to capitol records. It seems apple has a name and no product.

        I have now decided to start a couple million shell companies with all the names left in the dictonary an put a nice little tm next to them. As long as I'm first with the name I don't need a product that will be diluted to make my millions suing people.
    • Re:Gah? (Score:2, Interesting)

      I'm 27, I was not a Beatles fan, My son who is 8 LOVES the Beatles.

      SO... what was your point?
      • Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        He is not saying that you have to be old to be a fan of the beatles. What he means is that only people over 50 will associate the Beatles with the Apple record label. I doubt your 8 year old son knows that Apple is the Beatles record label.
    • but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.

      People over 50 and people like Slashdot readers who keep reading about this lawsuit.
    • by nwbvt (768631)
      And if you asked that group about Apple Records, how many will respond thinking that it somehow involves Apple Computer?
    • Re:Gah? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by N Monkey (313423)
      I dunno, but only people who are over the age of 50 would even be old enough to remember the Beatles and specifically the name "Apple" being associated with them.
      I, for one, am not over 50 but certainly associate The Beatles and "Apple" so perhaps you should reconsider making blanket statements.
    • I'm 29 so a little older than 16-24, but way under 50 and just about everyone I know (incl those who have never known about the previous apple vs apple court cases) know who The Beatles record label were... perhaps that's because I'm British though...
    • Re:Gah? (Score:3, Informative)

      by soft_guy (534437)
      If you ask any random 16-24 yr old person on the street the name of the Beatles label you'll probably get a low percentage of correct answers.

      Parlophone.
  • Trademark Law is UNAMBIGUOUS - a mark is allowed for SPECIFIC goods or service ('class') in SPECIFIC countries.

    Please visit my site - http://wipo.org.uk/ [wipo.org.uk]

    Site is nothing to do with corrupt people at UN WIPO.org ;-)
    • It should also be mentioned at this point that Beatles->Apple are obliged to take action against Jobs->Apple over the trademark infrigement, otherwise the trademark will be automatically nullified.
    • by squiggleslash (241428) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:36AM (#15001877) Homepage Journal
      Apple are in wrong
      Absolutely. I hope Apple wins, taking Apple to the cleaners and resolving this issue once and for all in favour of Apple.

      The great thing is, after this lawsuit is over, whatever the outcome, you and I will be able to say "I told you so." ;-)

    • Well yeah.

      One Apple sells Beatles songs to British people in record stores.
      The other Apple sells those same Beatles songs to British people over the internet.

      Don't you think that there is perhaps grounds for confusion here?
      • Apple computer doesn't sell Beatles songs to anybody. With the exception of one collaboration album, the Beatles are not distributed via iTMS.

        From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes_Music_Store [wikipedia.org]

        There are no tracks from The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Metallica or Radiohead in the iTunes online catalogue (with the exception of an album collaboration between Tony Sheridan and the Beatles, and two Radiohead songs).
        • Apple computer doesn't sell Beatles songs to anybody. With the exception of one collaboration album, the Beatles are not distributed via iTMS.

          Even if they only sell one album, they are still selling Beatles songs. Remember that the overwhelming majority of artists in the iTMS music store only have one album in the store too.
  • by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:30AM (#15001851) Homepage Journal
    Watch as three multi-billionaires (Paul, Ringo and Jobs) tussle endlessly over the right to become even more insanely, incomprehensibly wealthy.
  • by seanyboy (587819) * on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:32AM (#15001854)
    Apple seem to be relying on the "It doesn't come on physical media, so it doesn't apply" argument. I wonder if the fact that Apple produced the special U2 iPod (A physical product containing "music") will be held against them.

    Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers. The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers, and the stupidity of current trademark legislation.
    • Actually the U2 iPod didn't come with the music loaded. Some of the media reported that, but I checked one out at the store and what it had was a coupon for $50 off the price of buying the entire U2 collection.
      • How do you buy the entire collection? U2 is still a pretty active band, I could see them releasing another couple of albums. Even after they're all dead they can still release albums. Tupac did it. Besides, anybody who is a big enough fan to buy all the available albums, probably has half of the albums anyway. Why would they rebuy the stuff they already have. I really don't understand box sets.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27, 2006 @08:17AM (#15002054)
      It *was* resolved years ago, in 1991: Apple Computers got to use the name so long as they didn't get involved in the music business or set themselves up as a record label. Since that was explicitly set out in the settlement, and was the basis of the agreement, it's hardly surprising that iTunes has got up their nose.
    • Generally though, this is nonsense. The Apple Group are just trying to get money out of Apple Computers.

      Yes. Apple Group are trying to get money out of Apple Computer for breaking the agreement that they came to in 1991.

      The fact that this wasn't resolved years ago shows both the incompetence of the Apple Computer Lawyers

      (smacks forehead).... no, no it doesn't.
      • Uhh... the agreement specified physical media - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.
        • Re:Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

          Uhh... the agreement specified physical media - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.

          Uhh... the agreement specified that Apple "could not use the title "Apple" for any works "whose principal content is music and, or performances." - that of course assumes you read the article which you obviously haven't.
  • Confusion! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TangoCharlie (113383) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:32AM (#15001856) Homepage Journal
    I must admit, When I hear "All you Need is Love" on the Radio, I
    immediately think: "Wow that was a good record by Steve Jobs! Why
    he ditched music and went on to start a computer company is completely
    beyond me!" Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
    Jobs at all... it was Woz! Sheesh I'm an idiot!
    • Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve
      Jobs at all...


      No! It's wasn't your fault. Jobs deliberately, deceptively, decieved you. All along his goal was to usurp Apple Corps rightful place as master of the recording industry by insidiously starting up a "computer" company, with the sole intention of eventually moving into the music industry.

      Clearly the owners of Apple Corps, whose ancestors worked so hard so that they might profit, are long overdue for a modest sum from the duplicitous Jobs
      • Fantastic! Now I'm completely unconfused....
        So, Steve Jobs is actually Stevey Wonder!
        I've always wondered.
        Now everything is clear.
        I will definately not be buying anymore Apple Walkmans!
    • by anothy (83176)
      Woz was always the real talent and soul behind the band. Jobs just had the business smarts to get the deal, and better hair, so he got to be the front man.
      • There was always tension between Jobs and Woz after Jobs met an artsy chick and started dressing in black turtlenecks.

        When the Newton died the band stopped touring.
    • by genooma (856335)
      Then I realise that I'm confused again, and it wasn't Steve Jobs at all...

      It was Ballmer, and the song wasn't exactly "All you need is love".
      • by amliebsch (724858)
        You're thinking of Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band, which starts with:

        Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band
        With A Little Help From My Friends in the Justice Department
        Windows in the Sky With MS Hearts
        Getting Better For Our Next Release
        Fixing a (Security) Hole
        She's Leaving Microsoft
        Being For the Benefit of Mr. Gates
        Lock-in You, Lock-out You
        Service Pack Sixty-Four
        Lovely WMA
        Good Patch Tuesday, Good Patch Tuesday
        Steve Ballmer's Lonely Developers Club Band (Reprise)
        Blue Screen of Life

        -1 Lame,

  • by johnjones (14274) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:32AM (#15001857) Homepage Journal
    err its their fault

    AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music )

    and now they are acting like a record label

    so the courts will hear all the evidance and decide

    regards

    John Jones

    p.s. this is a story ?

    • The whole record industry moved into computers though.....
      • The whole record industry moved into computers though.

        So? They never promised not to. On the other hand, Apple, a computer company, did promise never to move into the music industry.
    • AFAIK they broke the contract (which promised not to go into music ) and now they are acting like a record label

      RTFA. The (abbreviated) terms of the current agreement are there:

      Apple Corps was awarded rights to the name on "creative works whose principal content is music" while Apple Computer was allowed "goods and services . . . used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content".

      Critically, however, the agreement prevented Apple Computer from distributing content on physical media. Thi

    • and now they are acting like a record label

      Actually, they are acting more like a Record Store, not a Record Company

      iTunes Music Store is like Tower Records or Best Buy.

      They are NOT currently fulfilling the role of a record label (which I believe is to leech money from the artists and provide no value to the end customer).

  • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:32AM (#15001859)
    From the article -- "The court will be treated to a demonstation of an iPod, but it is unlikely to play a Beatles song, as they have not been licensed for download and it would therefore be illegal." How is that true? I checked the iTMS and there are 16 Beatles songs available, including the appropriate-for-this-lawsuit track "Baby You're a Rich Man." Are they just off base or is there something I'm missing here?
    • "not licensed for download" still "16 beatles songs available" maybe not on the UK itunes store.
    • Or you could just - you know - rip an album to MP3 and copy it to your iPod. Last I checked we still had that fair use right. :\
    • I looked on the UK iTMS, and there are 16 songs, but they're "Pro Backing Tracks", not actual Beatles songs. The rights over the Beatles' compositions and the Beatles' recordings are held by different companies, it's only the company who licences the Beatles' recordings (Apple Corps) that doesn't like Apple Computer. Sony ATV Music[1] presumably don't care if covers of Beatles' songs appear on iTMS, as long as they get paid.

      [1] There are some Beatles songs held by other companies AFAIK, just Sony ATV is the
  • I know it sounds ridiculous. But this suit will probably hold up. Even though they settled before.

    The fact of the matter is that Apple Ltd. became Apple Corps which had many components. One of which was Apple Electronics. Then Apple (Macs) were made and it's clear that this could be an infringement on the products that Apple Electronics makes (if any).

    Now that Apple's Ipod is so involved in music, I'm certain the other divisions of Apple Corps would like to have a go at the computer maker sinc
    • What would be kind of funny is if a generic consumer electronics manufacturer went to Apple Corps and asked to license the name for an MP3 player. Ironically, this would be one case where Apple Computer infringing on Apple Corp's trademarks might actually work to the benefit of Apple Corps.
    • Does Apple Corps have any other active divisions other than the record label though? I thought most of the other stuff like the boutique etc. folded several decades ago.

      Plus any previous agreement with Apple Computer probably waived any rights for Apple Corps to use "Apple" for computer equipment etc. Apple Computer would probably win against other companies using the name Apple for electronics. Apple Corps may win this battle against Apple Computer for using Apple to distribute music.

      Anyway, need to hoover
  • The article says

    Any damages for this latest clash could amount to tens of millions of pounds because it concerns Apple Computer's hugely successful iTunes Music Store and iPod digital music players.

    How cute of them. Try hundreds of milliions of pounds. Apple Computer keeps shaving as much off that settlement as they possibly can, and they're going to have to pay sooner or later. The best thing would be a settlement for a few hundred million pounds, a disclaimer ("iTunes and Apple Computer are not affi

    • How cute of them. Try hundreds of milliions of pounds.

      Why? The courts are not a lottery. Any damages paid to Apple Records should be based on actual damages suffered by Apple Records due to the dilution of their trademark. Apple Records did not invent or market the iPod, and as far as I am concerned, the value of their trademark is minimal.

  • It's not music, it's just data? Wonder how that affects RIAA and the DRM debate.
  • by NigelJohnstone (242811) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:34AM (#15001868)
    Just so you know, The Beatles were a popular beat combo in the 1960's and 1970's, Apple was the name of their record label at the time.

    'Records' were large black circular discs with grooves in them made from Vinyl, a metal needle would run over the disk and make sounds (mostly popping and scratching sounds).

    Vinyl is a fragile black plastic that was popular at the time.

    There were no video games back then, which is why music was so popular.

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:36AM (#15001879)
    You never give me your money
    You only give me your funny paper
    and in the middle of negotiations
    you break down

    I never give you my number
    I only give you my situation
    and in the middle of investigation
    I break down

    Baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man, baby you're a rich man too.
    • I sue you and you sue me and so sue we and we are all together.
      See Apple sing for a piece of Jobs' bling, see how they fly.
      I'm crying.

      Sitting with lawyers, waiting for the judge to come.
      Corporation success, stupid bloody iPod.
      Jobs, you been a naughty boy, you made ~your~ Apple rich.
      We want the profits, you have the profits.
      We are the bastards!

      GOO GOO GA JOOB

  • by aidanjpadden (314134) on Monday March 27, 2006 @07:42AM (#15001906)
    What actually do Apple Records do nowadays if they don't hold the back catalogues?

    I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?

    Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs other media corporation, Disney, to just buy Apple Records?

    As for the point of the remaining Beatles licensing the back catalogue to Apple to make available via iTunes, wouldn't it actually be Michael Jackson who would be in the position to do that?

    Seeing as he's in financial trouble lately from what you hear with all the news reports maybe it would make commercial sense for Apple Corporation to buy the back catalogue from him, which I think would really wind up the existing Beatles.

    Surely as a band they would want to make sure that their music is available to the largest possible userbase. The world has changed since 1960 and this would appear to be the way forward?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      What actually do Apple Records do nowadays if they don't hold the back catalogues?

      They don't have to "do" anything, they hold an active trademark on the brand name "Apple."

      I'm guessing they don't release the new Beatles records, so is it just a holding company to look after the existing assets?

      Yes. They distributed music other than the Beatles.

      Maybe in this case it would be more effective for Apple Corporation to buy Apple Records - or maybe it would be even more appropriate for Steve Jobs
    • How do you suggest that they will "buy them"? Apple Corps is a private company, and Apple Computer can't just buy them just like that. The owners of Apple Corps might say "Nope, we are not selling". Or they could demand 10 billion for their shares.
    • I think you're confusing the rights to the songs / compositions (mostly owned by Michael Jackson and Sony through their Sony ATV Music company) and the Beatles' recordings (owned by Apple Corps). Apple Corps is still an active record label, even if they only release Beatles stuff nowadays, and therefore want to protect there trademark as a record label, which they think Apple has infringed.
    • Apple Records exists mostly to look out for the Beatles interests. The Beatles have been involved in some VERY lengthy court battles with their record labels (essentially Capitol in the USA and EMI everywhere else. That's not 100% accurate as Capitol was in Mexico too, but it's close enough to accurate.). The Beatles reached a deal with EMI/Capitol where basically they got paid a lot of money, all future releases have an Apple logo on them and the Beatles basically don't challenge EMI/Capitol's technical
      • by tepples (727027)

        The price that Apple Computers will continue to pay until the end of time is that they will have to keep forking money over to Apple Records because they used a name too close to that of the Beatles' organization.

        "Until the end of time" my behind. Apple Computer could probably just spin off its iPod and iTMS business into a wholly owned subsidiary "iTunes Inc." and leave the bit-apple logo off future iPod players. The "iPod" and "iTunes" brands are strong enough that Apple Computer could probably get aw

  • Last time I checked Sir Paul McCartney and the rest of Apple Music were not short of cash. Either they are doing this from some misguided principle or they're going crazy.

    An an exercise think of the last album released on the Apple records label.

    I'm waiting..............

    Just what I thought. Apple records are no longer in the music business.

    Ed Almos
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 27, 2006 @08:08AM (#15002002)
    "Apple Corps has previously been awarded $26M by Apple Computer for the use of the name."

    Wrong. They weren't awarded anything. They settled. As far as I know, this didn't even get to court.
  • spin off itunes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rogueuk (245470) on Monday March 27, 2006 @08:11AM (#15002014) Homepage
    So I guess this would be another reason for Apple to spin off iTunes into their own company.

    I would think Apple records would have a harder time suing iTunes Corporation
  • They could get super-fly rich. First, sue Jobs and Apple. Then the people who invented the game Jacks. Or maybe that singer from the '70s, Terry Jacks. Uh oh, he's a Canadian so maybe that won't fly in court. OK, how about anyone famous with the name Jack. That's close enough for the purposes of suing. Jack Daniels, Jack Nicholson, Jack Palance (oops, he's dead), Jack Lemmon (is he dead?), and so on. You get the picture. I wish I had something to sue for so I could get rich too :(
  • Atlast (Score:5, Funny)

    by dotpavan (829804) on Monday March 27, 2006 @08:22AM (#15002076) Homepage
    .. there is a lawsuit which compares apples to apples :)
  • by 3-State Bit (225583) on Monday March 27, 2006 @08:38AM (#15002166)
    That none of the the iPod or iTunes marketing material uses the trademark "Apple"! At most, they use their trademarked slick stylized fruit.

    Go ahead, search for the word "Apple" on this page:
    The fact is, the trademark they seem to be using for anything music related is a stylized fruit, along with the trademarks "iPod" and "iTunes". When have you ever heard a phrase like "the Apple iTunes store". It's just the iTunes store, it's just the iPod, and the posters just use a stylized fruit (sorry, there's no html entity I can insert for it.), which is Apple's trademark.

    They can't help having a certain company name, which they don't use in their music business! Not because it wouldn't add value, but because (in music) it's not their trademark to use. They don't infringe. [wikipedia.org]
    Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers.
  • by IainMH (176964) on Monday March 27, 2006 @08:55AM (#15002257)
    I find it hard to care about some very very rich people [bbc.co.uk] suing some equally rich people [appleinsider.com].

    IANAL but the case wont have too much impact on future law. Apple Computer said that they will never be in the music biz so were alowed to use the name. Now they are they've renaged on the deal so they will have to pay. It's the cost of doing business in that segment. The only question is how much.

    Neither of the parties will have any less bread on their table as a result.
  • I've a few contacts within the record industry, one of whom has dealings with the German division of EMI. It appears that the two Apples were close to a deal last year, and the Beatles catalogue almost appeared in the iTunes Music Store. But somehow things have gone wrong.

    Apple Corps were also due to remaster the Beatles' back catalogue, issuing it on both CD and DVD-A. Due to disappointing sales in the UK of the later format, this was shelved, but the CD remaster will still go ahead. The current legal disp
  • http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/07/ 207215 [slashdot.org]

    Maybe it's news because a lot of people forgot about it, but this is the continuation of a lawsuit that's been delayed for a long time.....
  • http://www.applehomes.net/ [applehomes.net] There's a shop round the corner from me....
  • by bloobloo (957543) on Monday March 27, 2006 @10:04AM (#15002769) Homepage
    List of goods and/or services
    Class 09: Sound recording and sound reproducing apparatus and instruments; radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments; video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments; and parts included in Class 9 for all the aforesaid goods.CANCELLED IN RESPECT OF:All goods except sound recording, sound reproducing, radio transmitting and radio receiving apparatus and instruments and parts for all the aforesaid goods, none being computers or goods of the same description as computers, but not cancelled in respect of video and sound records in the form of discs, films, tapes or filaments.
    I.e. Apple Records' trademark only covers physical recordings.
  • by AnalogDiehard (199128) on Monday March 27, 2006 @10:50AM (#15003194)
    It's spelled Apple, but pronounce it Throat Warbler Mangrove.

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

Working...