“Apple Computer won its courtroom battle against the Beatles on Monday when a judge ruled the company’s iTunes Music Store did not infringe on the trademark of Apple Corps, which represents the band’s interests,” Reuters reports. “Apple Corps — owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison — has fought several courtroom battles with Apple Computer over their competing fruit-shaped logos. A 1991 out-of-court settlement, which included a $26 million payment by Apple Computer, set out areas in which each party would have exclusive use of their respective logos.
“‘I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated,’ Mr Justice Mann said in his judgment on Monday. ‘The action therefore fails. I think the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service,’ Mann said, referring to a central argument of Apple Corps over the use of the Apple Computer logo within the iTunes Music Store,” Reuters reports. “Apple Corps said it would appeal the decision. Apple Computer was awarded court costs.”
“The Beatles are high-profile holdouts from Internet music services like iTunes, but it emerged during the trial that Apple Corps is preparing the band’s catalog to be sold online for the first time, according to a submission by Neil Aspinall, managing director of Apple Corps and a former Beatles road manager. ‘We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,’ Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs said. ‘We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.’ A spokeswoman for Apple Corps said that no decision had been made on when the Beatles’ songs would be available to purchase online.”
Full article here.
“Apple Corps must pay its rival’s legal bill, estimated at £2m, but the judge refused an interim payment of £1.5m pending further hearings,” The Beeb reports. “Apple Corps manager Neil Aspinall said: “With great respect to the trial judge, we consider he has reached the wrong conclusion. ‘We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer had broken the agreement. We will accordingly be filing an appeal and putting the case again to the Court of Appeal.'”
Full article here.
“With appeals of this kind generally unsuccessful, however, Apple Corps likely need even more than a little help from its friends if it wants to win next time around,” Parmy Olson writes for Forbes today.
The Times Online has the Apple Corps v Apple Computer judgement in full here.
MacDailyNews Take: Monday morning turning back… Pick up the bags and get in the limousine… Step on the gas and wipe that tear away, one sweet dream came true today.* Can’t wait for the appeal, although you’d think that by now, The Beatles would be smarter to just Let it Be.
[*Can anyone name The Beatles song from whence the quoted lyrics sprang?]
Advertisements:
• Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
• Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
• Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
• Apple’s brand new iPod Hi-Fi speaker system. Home stereo. Reinvented. Available now for $349 with free shipping.
• 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.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
Related articles:
Report: Apple vs. Apple judgement to be handed down May 8th – April 28, 2006
Beatles’ Apple vs. Jobs’ Apple closing arguments; judge’s ruling due toward end of April – April 05, 2006
Apple vs. Apple likely be in judge’s hands by Wednesday – April 03, 2006
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
It’s called the iPod & iTunes. The only thing constant is constant change.. The cabal of lawyers a.k.a. Apple Corps has finally gotten their comeuppance. I’m sure the plaintiffs are familiar with karma. It can be a bitch. Ask Michel Dell.
I don’t agree with the loser pays the other’s legal bills. If a big company does you wrong and spends a good deal of money protecting itself, and then wins, it has little to lose.
Now what if you’re the little guy? Care to pay for Marlboro’s legal bill?
That’s one way to discourage legitmate cases. Now if the judge found the case frivolous, then I would agree.
All you posters making puns out of Beatles song titles in this thread realize you’re going to sued for infringement, right?
“Say you don’t need no diamond ring and I’ll be satisfied
Tell me that you want the kind of thing that money just can’t buy
I don’t care too much for money, money can’t buy me love”
by Lennon & McCartney
zupchuck, I agree with you. I think “loser pays” system would be good to import into the U.S., but not in the case where a corporation is suing an individual or an individual is suing a corporation. It should only apply to person vs. person and corporation vs. corporation. I also think that the person being sued should never be responsible for the legal fees of the person who filed the lawsuit, no matter who wins. But if you sue somebody and you lose, you should have to pay their legal fees. It would make people less likely to file frivolous lawsuits, and it would keep legal fees from ruining people’s lives when they win.
You don’t know the history of trademark infringement.
I do.
“See the people standing there who disagree and never win
And wonder why they don’t get in my door.
I’m painting my room in the colourful way
And when my mind is wandering
There I will go.
And it really doesn’t matter if
I’m wrong I’m right
Where I belong I’m right”
Lennon & McCartney
“Try to see it my way,
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.
While you see it your way
There’s a chance that we may fall apart before too long.
We can work it out,
We can work it out. “
Lennon & McCartney
All you need is love…
Hurrah for Apple!! (Apple computer, that is.)
http://getkickedoffaplanewearingthis.blogspot.com/
zupchuck & Jooop:
We have a very complex legal aid system here in the UK, to prevent the little guy having to pay up to a large corporation.
I, myself, have never understood the so-called infringement in the first place.
Apple (at the time) had a rainbow colored whole apple with a bite out of it.
Beatles had a Granny Smith (Golden Delicious?) apple cut in half, seeds and all.
Where’s the beef?
always liked the doors better.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Hey, you greedy, crooked Beatles assholes, take it up the ass!
I’m so confused! Do the Beatles make the iMac? Does Apple Computer own the rights to Hey Jude?
I’m not going to buy Yoko’s new CD because of this.
Hey Tom Cruise… eeerrrrrr… Professor Bunson Mellonhead: Still at it I see. Why don’t you try some new… eeerrrrr… original content, loser?
As it is, Apple Corp – which, as the loser, must pay the winner’s costs – will be left with a multi-million pound legal bill.
The court was told yesterday that Computer had racked up legal expenses of £1.8m by January, when Corps’ own costs were around £1m. Since then, the trial costs themselves will have added substantially to both bills.
It never ceases to amaze me – the sheer ignorance of this younger generation…such as:
Billy Bob
gow
MacMind
Buster
JEG
You Say You Wat A Revolution…
imagine
Do you folks have any idea how profoundly idiotic your comments are? I am sure you haven’t the slightest clue. Then again, you probably think Fallout Boy and Hawthorne Heights is actually “music”
You ignorant twits make the case for exactly WHY Apple Computers was sued. Seeing as how Apple Corps TRADEMARKED the name “Apple” first, Apple Corps – regardless if they are currently producing music or not – has the right to use that name and to PROTECT THEIR RIGHT to use that name exclusively. Apple Computers are lucky that Apple Corps allowed them to continue to even use “Apple” after their first lawsuit. They could have shut Apple down but instead ALLOWED them to operate using that name with one caveat – don’t get into the music business. Apple’s foray into the music business with iTunes was ambiguous enough that it DID merit a re-examination of trademark infringment.
The very fact that you dipsh*ts listed above generally remark – “When people hear the name Apple they think of the iPod and iTunes” – well, that is the exact reason to sue Apple Computer! But i have a feeling you folks are too stupid to EVER grasp that concept.
Please – if you guys really are the future of the world, do mankind a favor now and just shoot yourselves. You are embarassments to the human race.
Chris:
“They could have shut Apple down but instead ALLOWED them to operate using that name with one caveat – don’t get into the music business. Apple’s foray into the music business with iTunes was ambiguous enough that it DID merit a re-examination of trademark infringment.”
Quoting http://www.Thinksecret.com (a real Mac news and rumors page), regarding the judge in the case:
“He explained that Apple Computer “does not have the right” to use its logo to refer to its online music content as a trade connection with the company, but that as long as “the mark is used in a reasonable and fair way on or in connection with the service,” then the line has not been crossed and Apple has not breached its contract with Apple Corps.”
So the caveat was not as sweeping as “don’t get into the music business” may sound; it was in effect more like “don’t become a record label and compete with us at our own business”.
Ironically, Apple’s iTunes only serves to increase profits for Apple Corps, not compete with them. Maybe they’ll need that extra profit – now that they started this foolish court battle that they can’t win.
Ask 100,000 people in the 18-35 age group (the iTunes primary market) and ask them what they think of when I say Apple. I’ll bet you less than 2% say The Beatles. I’ll bet you more than 2/3rds say either Macintosh Computers or iPod. Trademark my a*s. How many decades since a new release was issued under the Apple label? Most of the folks posting probably were not even born. Give me a break. It’s nothing more than trolling for money.
“Ask 100,000 people in the 18-35 age group (the iTunes primary market) and ask them what they think of when I say Apple. I’ll bet you less than 2% say The Beatles.”
Thanks for proving my point once again.
I could not care less how relevant the Apple label is – the fact reamins that Apple Corps trademarked the name first.
Chris…
Volkswagen have a car called Polo. The name is also used by a mint and pre-dates the car. I don’t recall VW being taken to court.
Trademarking the name Apple has limits. Adam got there first..
I believe that one of the arguments made by Apple Corps was that they also wanted to get into the world wide digital music distribution business like Yahoo, Google, Sony, Weedshare, Napster, Emusic and all the other mega big time top contenders to iTunes.
Nick:
Thanks for the link. Interesting points presented. If this is the legal logic Apple Corps wishes to challenge, they have apprently lost before the ink had dried on the submission to appeal.
Chris:
I heard that Paul McCartney is suing Granny Smith.
Chris:
No wait, Granny Smith is suing Paul McCartney and Apple Corps. Sorry, my mistake, it’s getting difficult to tell which apple is suing another apple without a decent program.