“Apple Computer Inc. will return to London’s High Court today to contest the latest lawsuit brought by a company owned by the Beatles over the personal-computer maker’s use of the Apple trademark,” Bloomberg reports.
“Apple Corps Ltd., owned by the four Beatles or their families, says the Californian company’s iTunes online music store breaches a 1991 agreement forbidding the computer maker from using the trademark for any works ‘whose principal content is music and, or performances.’ Apple Computer would retain the logo for its ‘core business,’ court documents said,” Bloomberg reports.
“‘Providing both businesses stay within their particular areas, then trademark law allows them to coexist,” said John Linneker, a partner in intellectual property at London law firm Taylor Wessing. ‘It’s when computers meet the music industry that the trademark conflict blows up,’ Bloomberg reports. “The iTunes product allows people to download songs from the Web for 99 cents each and transfer them to Apple Computer’s iPod music players. Chief Executive Steve Jobs is betting on digital music devices to help drive sales as the company’s share of the computer market wanes.”
Bloomberg reports., “The Beatles’ lawyers will argue in a two to three day hearing that the case should be heard in London. The computer maker’s lawyers contest this and have asked a Californian judge for the case to proceed in San Jose.”
“The two companies’ original agreement on the Apple trademark, signed in 1981, allowed the Californian company to use the name only for the sale of computers. Apple Computer later used the logo for computers to edit and record music, prompting the Beatles’ company to file a lawsuit in 1989. The companies settled their dispute in 1991 and signed a new agreement after a trial lasting more than 100 days at the High Court,” Bloomberg reports. “That contract stipulated Apple Computer could use the logo for computers, data processing and telecommunications, while the Beatles could retain it for music, according to documents filed by the pop group’s lawyers at the High Court.”
Full article here.
Where on the iTunes Music Store is the Apple logo used to sell music? Apple doesn’t produce any music that I know of. I think the Beatles need to chill out and offer their music catalog on the iTMS and maybe they’de get more money, without Lawyers fees! It would make sense, wouldn’t it?
~Dak
I can say with hesitation that I am a “Beatle-maniac” but this is nothing more than a money grab from Ringo, Paul and the widows. If they were really worried about the Apple Records label being misused then Paul should never have sold the entire Beatles catalog to anyone, and specifically not Michael Jackson.
I don’t even associate Apple Corps with the Beatles. The Beatles are just…. The Beatles. I know they probably are due something since they seemed to have semi-won the previous suit but I wish they would just chill out too.
if a London court rules against Apple, will it make launching iTunes for Europe even harder than it already is?
if a London court rules against Apple, will it make launching iTunes for Europe even harder than it already is?
The iTunes Music Store was originally called The Apple Music Store. There was even a URL for it. After the lawsuit was filed it was changed to iTMS. This has to do with the use of the Apple logo in regards to music. I don’t believe it will have any effect on iTMS. It could be that Apple would need to remove any visual use of an apple… or perhaps they’d would have to “spin off” the business under another name. In any event this will be a long drawn- out process and the court will probably ask the parties to settle.
bob670, just for the record, Paul did not sellthe catalog to Michael. Michael snaked it from Paul in a bidding war. Paul mentioned to Michael he was going to buy the catalog and Michael outbid him for it. This was during the Thriller time period. Michael and Paul WERE friends til that point.
i thought the beatles were dead?!?!?!?! either way they should be. they sucked big monkey balls anyway. apple has never used the logo to sell music or really to sel anything. they have always relied on quality products and great performance to sell their products.
“That contract stipulated Apple Computer could use the logo for computers, data processing and telecommunications, while the Beatles could retain it for music, according to documents filed by the pop group’s lawyers at the High Court.”
To reproduce music in a digital device (CD player, iPod, Mac, PC) you NEED a data processing mechanism. Apple Computer is allowed to process digital data, so… paradox.
Beatle Fan turnung into an Elvis Fan… Moo
“Send Lawyers, Guns and Money-
The sh*t has hit the fan”
Warren Zevon
as heard on the iTunes Music Store
Michael won’t have that catalog for long. He needs to sell it to pay off a $70 million loan from Citibank that he was delinquent in paying last week.
I don’t get this.
Does anyone seriously conflict or confuse these two organizations?
You mean I can’t expect Yoko to introduce the G5 PowerBook?
i thought the beatles were dead?!?!?!?!
2 more Beatles left until their reunion.
<groan>
does anyone know whether Apple Records produces music anymore? I mean, besides managing the current Beatles catalog (and a couple of bands they signed back in the 70’s)–has there been any NEW material coming out of Apple Records in VERY long time? To my knowledge, they’ve been pretty stagnant in that regard..
they sucked big monkey balls anyway. apple has never used the logo to sell music or really to sel anything. they have always relied on quality products and great performance to sell their products
Get a clue Ockalla. If you seriously think having the Apple logo on their products and ads doesn’t sell the product, you are seriously mistaken. A trademark is your key identifier for your company and your product. If you saw the BMW logo, you’d know it was from BMW, same as VW, NY Yankees, Microsoft, Linux penguin, Pepsi’s blue and red yin yang, need I say more? If my eye catches an Apple logo, I double-take to see what Apple product it is. Simple advertising exploiting the visually oriented species.
And for the Beatles sucking monkey balls… you’re entitled to your opinion, unfortunately for you, we all know now that you have no musical affluence whatsoever, and that you are ignorant. Even those who don’t like the Beatles would probably agree that they don’t suck monkey balls. I know, these days with musical geniuses such as Britney, Justin, Outkast, P. Diddy, J. Lo, that sucking monkey balls is the depth of musical influence, but none of these genuises were influenced by the mop tops, and thats a fact. Go listen to your Eminem now, and marvel about the pure, non-monkeyball-sucking talent that guy has. Truly inspirational.
Suck ’em dry, Apple. Make this the most expensive, annoying lawsuit the Beatles have ever had to deal with. Deny them the quick cash grab they so obviously want and got in the past.
I have the entire Beatles CD box set on my iPod. I’m a huge Beatle nut. I still say screw ’em.
Actually, I doubt many people would even recognize the Apple Corps Ltd. logo if they saw it. However, many people will recognize the Apple Computer Inc. logo. (I believe the Apple Computer brand is considered one of the top 10 best recognized in the world. Where does Apple Corps stand in that ranking? My guess it does not rank in the top 1,000 recognizable brands in the world.)
I don’t see how the Apple Corps Ltd. lawyers can argue trademark infringement with a huge disparity like that. Thus this comes down to a contractual issue. Apple Computer signed a contract with Apple Corps to do and not do certain things. Apple Computer and Apple Corps need to renegotiate that contract.
It should be simple, but egos are involved so it won’t be.
In addition to a few comments above, Apple wants to exploit the huge success iTMS is having on the Windows side to sell more macs. I’m sure there are people out there using iTMS who aren’t making this connection to Apple and the mac.
Ask anyone on the street what they associate Apple with. I bet that their reply will be :
1. a fruit
2. a pie
3. a computer
…
100. a record company
in that order. How can Apple Record claims that Apple Computer tries to leech off AR popularity when AC is actually more popular? This is about money… pretty sad, isn’t it, what The Beatles legacy has become.
THIS WAS POSTED BY bob670:
“I can say with hesitation that I am a “Beatle-maniac” but this is nothing more than a money grab from Ringo, Paul and the widows. If they were really worried about the Apple Records label being misused then Paul should never have sold the entire Beatles catalog to anyone, and specifically not Michael Jackson.”
THE FOLLOWING IS MY RESPONSE TO THAT AND OTHER’S COMMENTS:
This is entirely untrue. The Beatles lost the rights to their own music when it went up for auction in the early 80’s. Paul actually tried his best to buy the music back but at the time Michael Jackson was number one on the music charts with things like Thriller and literally had an unlimited amount of money to throw around compared to Paul. Thus making it impossible for Paul to out bid him. This actually broke a good friendship that Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson had at the time, and I guess they haven’t spoke since [which I would say is more of a loss for Michael Jackson].
Another thing. To anyone that believes this is all about money must be a tool-belt. Why do you make legal settlements and agreements when you don’t care if someone breaks them? You wouldn’t. Apple computers agreed on a set of business rules they had to follow over a decade ago in a court battle, which was not over money in any way. Now that they broke their agreement that they certainly were aware of they need to pay the penalty, losing the rights to their music division of iTunes, etc. Beatles are something that is definitely fading like all other legendary classic rock and music of the time that broke the boundaries for the music of today [which I definitely can’t say as much for]. Things like what Apple computers is trying to pull needs to be stopped so they don’t over-shadow history with such stupid merchandising BS like iTunes. GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.
How credible is Apple Corps?
Even when McCartney wrote songs outside the Beatles (wings, solo), he dealt with other recording companies (EMI was one of them)and not with his own company, Apple.
Apple Corps exist for ego and money. It was never a real recording company.
it’s funny… i’m like a lot of you guys.. HUGE BEATLES FAN.. but i want them to lose badly in this court case..
why?
Apple corps is a joke.. it’s basically a legal entity that accumulates the revenue from old old beatles songs (not sure about the michael jackson stuff..definitely heard about it though)…soooo yoko can get some and.. uh.. george harrison’s wifey can get some.. and the other two beatles..
hmmm ringo needs some, and paul deserves like 95% of it.. but hey… he’s made millions in the past few years touring old beatles songs.. (Paul.. shut up.. no one came to hear your Wings stuff and you damn well know it..)
I think lennon would have gotten along with jobs.. stubborn idealists..
Billllllllllyyyyyyyyyyy Sheeeeeearrsssssss
What would you do?
Off topic, but I think this is interesting:
“Roxio gains on MSFT report”
A quote from the article:
Roxio shares gained as much as 12 percent Wednesday after a story in the New York Post’s online edition said Microsoft has been “quietly shifting some of its marketing muscle” to Roxio’s Napster digital music service.
Microsoft is playing hardball again. I guess when one’s digital format is a crap, it’s time to leverage one’s monopolistic power.