“The trademark battle between Apple Computer and The Beatles’ Apple Corps record label will likely be in a judge’s hands on Wednesday. British Justice Edward Mann will decide whether to grant Apple Corps an injunction that would bar Apple Computer from using its logo related to selling music through the iTunes Music Store. The record company could then pursue damages against Apple Computer,” Jeremy Kirk reports for IDG News Service. “London’s High Court heard detailed testimony from two Apple executives on Monday and an expert witness for Apple Corps. Eddy Cue, vice president of iTunes, said he disagreed with Apple Corps attorney Geoffrey Vos that the logo used in the brushed silver aluminum bar in the iTunes application advertised music. ‘I think it is used in connection with the service, not the content,’ Cue said.”
Kirk reports, “Whether the third lawsuit is the swan song that ends all trademark disputes between the companies is impossible to gauge. Neil Aspinall, a long-time Beatles confidant who has run Apple Corps since 1973, attended Monday’s hearing and was seen speaking with Apple Computer officials after the day’s testimony.”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
Apple lawyer: ‘Even a moron in a hurry’ can tell difference between iTunes and Beatles’ Apple Corps – March 30, 2006
Apple vs. Apple opening arguments begin in UK High Court – March 29, 2006
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple goes to UK High Court this Wednesday – March 26, 2006
Apple Computer and The Beatles’ AppleCorp should stop fighting in court and work together instead – July 27, 2005
Beatles vs. Apple Computer: outcome is far from a lock for Beatles – September 30, 2004
Apple vs. Apple settlement to result in iTunes Music Store Beatles exclusive? – September 23, 2004
Apple’s iTunes Music Store to land exclusive Beatles deal? – September 20, 2004
Apple vs. Beatles could be solved with fat check and spinning off iTunes from Apple Computer – September 17, 2004
Apple’s settlement with Beatles could be ‘biggest settlement in legal history’ – September 13, 2004
The Beatles to sell songs via Apple iTunes Music Store? – June 09, 2004
Apple loses: Apple v. Beatles to be heard in Britain – April 06, 2004
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple; 1991 agreement allows for ‘data transmission services, even music’ – February 26, 2004
Apple Computer to contest Beatles’ U.K. lawsuit in court today – February 25, 2004
Jobs: Apple vs. Apple ‘could drag on for years – it’s unfortunate because we love the Beatles’ – September 28, 2003
Forbes: Apple vs. Apple; iTunes Music Store just might end up with exclusive Beatles deal – September 12, 2003
Sosumi: more on the Beatles’ lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc. – September 12, 2003
The Beatles sue Apple Computer over iPod, iTunes – September 12, 2003
The Beatles’ Apple Records could be gearing up for fight with Apple Computer – August 12, 2003
The Beatles gearing up for a fight over Apple’s iTunes Music Store – June 03, 2003
Apple Computer vs Apple Who? Nobody under the age of 45 or so has a clue who they are and could care less. I suspect that the bulk of iPods and iTunes sales are going to the younger generation who doesn’t know who the Beatles are and doesn’t care. I’m not saying that the Beatles aren’t an important group from the 60’s, but THEY ARE FROM THE 60’S – who cares any more….
maybe the judge can record his findings and put them on his ipod and play them back in the courtroom with the apple boombox.
Let’s make a deal??
MDN.
What? No childish name calling of former Beatles?
Edit – Neverind. It looks like Bill Brown will fill in with the childishness.
Perhaps Apple Corps (aka the rotted old guys) should take some advice from one of their songs:
“Help! I need somebody. Help! I need someone. “
MDN Word == help As in see above.
Judge orders Apple Corps to pay Apple Computer $26 Million for improving its image.
Yoko, infuriated, turned to speak to Paul, who interrupted with: “Let it be.”
Perhaps MDN’s April fool gag will come true.
Bill Brown –
Yes. I agree. What came from the 1960s must always remain in the 1960s. Our convenient decimal system allows us to destroy or render irrelevant everything each time the second digit from the right changes.
In fact, Apple ceased to matter on January 1, 1980. So this whole argument is pointless.
Nobody under the age of 45 or so has a clue who they are and could care less. I suspect that the bulk of iPods and iTunes sales are going to the younger generation who doesn’t know who the Beatles are and doesn’t care.
This is just too incorrect to not comment on. First, I doubt most people over the age of 45 could tell you the name of the Beatle’s record company. They can sing the songs and name the members but I don’t think the name of the company ever mattered much to most people. It was founded after the height of their success and didn’t ever do much.
Second the Beatles remain incredibly popular, especially with the young generation. I’m 20 and listen to them regularly, as do many of my friends. Of the young, iTunes using, iPod toting, music sharing (legal and otherwise) population, I would guess that half have a significant amount of beatles music. I have 256 megabytes of it. So the band is a big deal and it is still important, especially to iPod owners. Resolving this and getting the beatles’ stuff on the iTMS would be huge, and would probably sell quite nicely.
Hey duper — SCREW!
The “Beatles” were never as “revolutionary” or “inventive” as is always claimed. Anyone who’s a trained musician with a background in music history and/or music theory can tell you that. As a matter of fact, compared to much of the classical and jazz libraries, the Beatles’ “music” is trite and pedantic. And don’t even get me started on how they treated Pete Best or how absolutely worthless Ringo Starr is as a “drummer”.
So, yaah, I hope Apple Corps gets their f-cking ASSES handed to them. Just like McCartney — with his efforts to change “Lennon-McCartney” to “McCartney-Lennon” — they’re a bunch of money-grubbing assclowns who are too stupid to realize that (a) they don’t matter anymore, and (b) they could be making more money by actually PUTTING THE F-CKING BEATLES CATALOG ON ITUNES!!!
Screw them.
I have one better than the MDN April 1st article:
Apple Computer needs to BUY apple music and then start signing artists who are sick of Virgin, Sony, Universal, etc…
That way, the artist could get a bigger cut, apple could get a bigger cut – everyone wins (except the old school record labels.)
Just think – buying a physical CD could become an iTunes music store option. (Watch out Amazon…)
Perhaps you could even do what you do with iPhoto where you could pick the songs you want on your CD and they mail it to you (or mail it out as a gift to someone…)
– Oh the possibilities…..
For the year ended Jan. 1, 2005, Apple Corps claimed a loss of nearly $950,000. It noted in financial statements that more than $2.2 million each was paid for the “promotional services” of McCartney, Starr, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison.
A more accurate way to put things for Apple Corps is that the name no longer means anything outside of the world of Beatles fans, and any Beatles fan who knows of Apple Corps knows that it has nothing to do with Apple Computer.
If the case was brought in the United States it would have likely have gone nowhere based on a case in 80’s where the owners of the Lexis legal database service sued Toyota for using Lexus as a car brand name. The Lexis owner (Mead) claimed that Toyota would dillute the Lexis trademark since the likely buyers of Lexus automobiles included lots of lawyers who use Lexis. Their claim got bounced because the court decided that anyone familiar with the Lexis trademark would be sophisticated enough to not confuse a legal database service with a car.
The same thing applies here, unfortunately the case is in the wrong country–anyone who is aware of the Apple Corps trademark is sophisticated enough a music buyer to not confuse Apple Corps with Apple Computer.
DreamTheEndless >
Actually, Apple should go one better and purchase EMI Group plc and/or the 50% of Sony-BMG that Bertelsmann have now decided is no longer as important as not having shareholders that they don’t want.
Purchasing EMI Group for $3 billion or thereabouts would – as I have said on numerous occasions – control of a massive catalogue of artists and licensed repertoire, including EMI, Virgin, Parlophone, Capitol Records, Charisma, Chrysalis and others. Artists would include Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Pet Shop Boys, Peter Gabriel, Genesis, selected works by King Crimson, Janet Jackson, and many others.
Other benefits would include a massive music publishing empire, but also a seat within IFPI and the various national bodies (RIAA, BPI, et al) which would be a great way to disrupt the “groupthink” mentality of a record industry dominated by a few international conglomerates who can’t see the future staring them in the face and who still think that increasing prices is the way to increase sales.
Just as in France, Apple Computer would pull its UK iTMS before they are forced to follow a country’s insane laws/ruling, and then allow public pressure to chance things back.
While some people have chosen to miss his essential point and chalk it up to either name calling on some hatred of the past, I agree with him.
Without trying to address the importance of the Beatles in pop music, the fact remains that those under 30 may know the Beatles, but likely do not know Apple Corp. I’m over 30 and before all of this, I had no idea that Apple Corp was the Beatles music corporation (ah, anecdotal evidence…).
Granted, the case is actually about whether Apple violated the contract, but the if judge feels that the Apple Corp is not recoginzable to the majority of iTMS customers, it could factor into the decision (clearly, the Apple lawyers feel this is the case, based on some of their arguments).
“Purchasing EMI Group for $3 billion or thereabouts would – as I have said on numerous occasions – control of a massive catalogue of artists and licensed repertoire, including EMI, Virgin, Parlophone, Capitol Records, Charisma, Chrysalis and others. Artists would include Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Pet Shop Boys, Peter Gabriel, Genesis, selected works by King Crimson, Janet Jackson, and many others.”
And don’t forget The Tubes (post 1981) were part of Capitol.
Funky Dunky, for your own sake, I hope you’re not older than 16.
“…The “Beatles” were never as “revolutionary” or “inventive” as is always claimed…”
Well, I take it you’re a former Hindemith student, right? I mean, I have yet to meet a classical/pro musician who doesn’t name Beatles among their “most respected” composers. I say “respected” since some just don’t like their music – but nevertheless gets the magic skills behind the 4 and maybe most important, the genius of George Martin.
“…As a matter of fact, compared to much of the classical and jazz libraries, the Beatles’ “music” is trite and pedantic…”
As a matter of fact, huh? And what is your source? Did you call Mr. Hanoncourt or what? Oh wait, he admires the Beatles as well.
I’m not going to kick you for your taste – but please don’t act like some dusty old expert when it comes to “inventive” music. I mean, even tho my housegods are Bach and Strawinskij – I still love Prince, Richard James, Claus Ogerman, Weather Report, Gil evans, Elliot Goldenthal etc. – and I don’t get mad because some counterpoint isn’t “clean”. And just for the record – I recently turned 27…so I’m not that dusty old fart meself.
“Nobody under the age of 45 or so has a clue who they are and could care less…” Yeah. There’s some real fact-based opinion.
It is the people under the age of 30 who keep the entire Beatles music catalog in print.
I have an 8-year-old nephew who is a bigger Beatles fan than I ever was.
“Anyone who’s a trained musician with a background in music history and/or music theory can tell you ….” You are ignorantly putting words in MY mouth, and I couldn’t disagree more.
Gimmie a break, poser. If you were really who you pretend to be (rather than a moron in a hurry), you’d know better.
@Informed – Well said. The Beatles bashers don’t have a clue as to what they are saying. I’m well under 45. What is on the radio and popular on iTunes now will long be forgotten while the Beatles will STILL be selling albums.
Beatles Record Sales
Now, that being said. I think the remaining Beatles and Yuko Oh-No have enough money and should just work out some sort of deal. I mean the Beatles aren’t really identified by Apple Corps. The Beatles are a brand unto themselves.
….Weather Report…
Jaco Pastorius – GENIUS!
Very Sick from those “Beatle” financiel representatives to go to court for the use of a fruit name ! There are stll two ex Beatles a life and i thought they were more in Steve Jobs way of thinking than those redmont style guys… The Rich want to become richer without working !