Beatles vs. Apple Computer trial scheduled for March 27, 2006

“Apple’s 10-Q filing, released earlier this week, reveals details about a number of lawsuits Apple’s legal team is currently dealing with. It also confirms the hearing date in the Apple verses Apple case,” Macworld UK reports.

“The Beatles’ record label Apple Corps is seeking to stop Apple Computer’s association with music, claiming trademark abuse. That trial is scheduled to begin in UK courts on March 27, 2006,” Macworld UK reports.

Full article with more information about current lawsuits facing Apple here.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
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


  1. The Beatles want to stop Apple Computer’s association with music? Hmmm… I saw Beyonce eating an Apple the other day, they should sue her too! What a load of crap. Is the market for elevator music fading or something? Must be.

    I always say, those who can do, those who can’t sue.

  2. Don’t they (the idiot beetles) have enough money already? Why don’t they go after VW for using their name for a car? Or should VW suite them in reverse because the car existed before the band!!!! Such greedy morons!

  3. Who honestly thinks of “Apple Corps” when they hear “The Beatles”? I sure as hell don’t. If the Beatles and their widows were smart, they would endorse Apple Computer, put the past behind them, and make a pile of cash in the process by striking an exclusive distribution deal with Apple through the iTMS for downloads.

  4. actually, the Apple and the Beatles are very synonymous.. . a LOT of people know the Apple label. However, young ones generally are ignorant of it.

    MW: do your “research”

    However, I am in agreement that the lawsuits are silly.

  5. When there’s an agreement on paper, as there was between Apple computer and Apple records, then it is only natural that there will be legal action when the agreement is breached.

    Remember that Apple records was around for a few years before Apple computer. This issue goes way back.

    Personally I think they should be able to come to an amicable arrangement. But it’s silly to be mad at the Beatles for this. I mean if you think the Beatles shouldn’t sue because they have enough money….Steve Jobs isn’t exactly a pauper.

  6. I never said I didn’t know of Apple records- I know full well who they are. I was simply saying that when someone mentions the Beatles, Apple is not what pops to mind. What pops to mind is their songs- not the damn label. Therefore I don’t agree that Apple and the Beatles are synonymous. You don’t hear “Hey, I just heard “Let it Be” from Apple Records.” Instead, you would hear “Hey, I just heard “Let it Be” by the Beatles.”

  7. actually, Michael Jackson owns the publishing rights to some of the Beatles catalog. MJ gets a royalty anytime a Beatles song is played or has the lyrics or sheet music printed, but he does not own the actual songs themselves, nor does he have any interest in Apple Corps, Ltd.

    As for the lawsuit, I wouldn’t underestimate Apple Corps. Sir Paul is very protective of the Beatles’ legacy and is also terribly well-connected. I wouldn’t want to cross him.

  8. Given that the law is subjective, I think that Apple Corps. Ltd is going to lose this battle.

    The old saying that “if you don’t use it, you lose it” applies here. What have they done lately that would compel the courts to uphold their rights to exclusively use the word “Apple” as a valuable asset of good will on their balance sheet?

    I think their website says it best: “This is a placeholder page for Apple Corps Ltd.” Not much defense do they have ….

  9. Michael Jackson bought Northern songs the Beatles’ publishing company (this gives him royalties from people do do Beatles’ covers). Apple Corp. owns the Beatles’ actual recordings.

  10. Webmaster’s Apprentice. Such a good post!!! I was just wondering if Apple had any current releases – or if they have any current bands on their roster.

    I could almost see if they were still an active record label fighting to keep their name value. But – it looks like they (Apple Corps) are more of an historical footnote – so why do they need exclusive rights to the name of a fruit?

    I think Paul smoked too much pot and has no grasp of reality left. They ARE greedy! I saw an interview with Ringo and he said from the start they wanted to be huge and make a lot of money. Also, the band members have been suing each other since the late 1960’s. Maybe they have a secret charity for lawyers?

  11. I’m a Beatles fan and a Mac lover. This lawsuit is ridiculous, like many others involving rock stars. The only one’s which aren’t are the amusing “Yea, I was high so I trashed the hotel room” type suits.

    I think Apple Corps will lose – they’ve not done much with the name since the ’60s/early ’70s. They’re out of touch with the music scene today – if they were as well known today as say EMI or Sony/Columbia, sure, they’d have a stronger case, but this is just ridiculous. Apple who? People associate them with The Beatles, not computers, and certainly not online music stores called “iTunes”. (That said, many people thought Linda Eastman was related somehow to Kodak’s Eastman… so may be people are dumb enough to associate Apple iTunes with The Beatles??)

    Besides, I think part of Apple Computer’s case is that the Beatles are restricting them in what they can/can’t do – isn’t there a law against that? And I can only imagine/trust Steve has had great lawyers pour over the contract looking for loopholes or conflicts in the agreement. They would surely have to be better than the one’s who gave away the crown jewels to Microsoft via the Windows 1.0 agreement.

    Sure, if the Beatles opened an online music store, Apple Computer would be in trouble, but I can’t see them doing it. In fact, I think I’d be shocked to see Apple Corps do anything besides milk the ’60s even more.

    Geez they musta got burned bad back then to fight this hard today.

Reader Feedback

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