California judge paves way for Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps lawsuit

“A U.S. judge ruled that a trademark lawsuit brought by Apple Computer Inc. against a company owned by members of the Beatles and their families can be heard in California. District Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose last week denied a motion to dismiss filed by Apple Corps Ltd. However, the British High Court still has to rule on the request by Apple Computer, which sells iPod digital music players, to move the suit to the U.S.,” Bloomberg News reports.

“Apple Corps claims that Apple Computer’s iTunes online music shop breaches a 1991 agreement over the trademark. Under that settlement, the computer maker was allowed to use the logo for personal computers, data processing and telecommunications, while the Beatles could use it for music. In the U.S. suit, Apple Computer is asking Whyte to rule that it hasn’t violated the agreement,” Bloomberg News reports.

“Apple Corps’ ‘choice to file suit three times within California renders it immensely reasonable to now require the defendant to defend against a suit in California,’ Whyte wrote in his ruling. George Riley, an attorney representing Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Computer, declined to comment on the ruling. Robert Chapman, an attorney for Apple Corps, didn’t immediately return a call seeking comment,” Bloomberg News reports.

Full article here.


  1. I bet next to no-one could tell you which label releases the music by their favourite artist. Who buys their music just because it’s on Bertlesmann or EMI?

    People didn’t buy the Beatles’ records because they were on Apple, they bought them because they loved the music. Very few people would even associate Apple as a brand with the Beatles, never mind with music in general. Apple is a computer brand now; if John, Paul, George and Ringo had wanted to defend the trademark they should have made a bigger effort the first time around. This smacks of trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

  2. “Under that settlement, the computer maker was allowed to use the logo for personal computers, data processing and telecommunications, while the Beatles could use it for music.”

    That makes it sound like they share the same logo. They don’t. They only share the word “Apple”.

  3. when they were the Beatles, i meant.
    but for the past… hmmm… what? 25 years they haven’t done anything anybody remembers…
    oh yeah.. well since JOHN GOT SHOT..about 24 years ago..

    i’d say that’s enough reason for them to be not doin’ much in the past 25

  4. “what? 25 years they haven’t done anything anybody remembers…” – mike

    That is not true. They sued Apple many times. Oh, you mean in the music business? ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />

  5. is it me but i think this shows that the world is full of greedy people. a lawsuit over the use of a logo and the name, “apple”…grow up lingos, ur music is dead

  6. the solution

    the Beatles agree to put their entire catalog on the iTunes music store and Apple Computer would give all the profit from those songs back the Beatles (and the people who own the songs). I don’t think the Beatles are avilable anywhere online legally. This would drive sales of iPods and people to the iTunes music store. And would probably sell more Beatles records then they have in last ten years.

    The only downside is Michael Jackson would make a ton of cash.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.