“Apple Inc. on Friday filed to get the trademark[s] for The Beatles’ well-known Apple Corps label,” iPodNN reports.
“While it already won basic rights through a 2007 settlement, the European Trademarks Office filing would get 14 international trademarks for computers and phones as well as clothes, games, social networks and other elements that Apple often uses,” iPodNN reports.
iPodNN reports, “The rights would cover both the famous green apple logo as well as the cut-in-half apple that was often used on the second side of an LP. Many of the earliest Apple Records albums used the logos, including The Beatles’ own Abbey Road.”
Read more in the full article here.
Much more also at Patently Apple here.
Related articles:
The Beatles now available on Apple’s iTunes Store – November 16, 2010
Neil Aspinall, The Beatles original road manager, former Apple Corps chief, dies at 66 – March 24, 2008
Apple Inc. and The Beatles’ Apple Corps Ltd. enter into new agreement – February 5, 2007
Oh, _now_ it makes sense why getting the Beatles’ catalog in iTunes was such a big deal. There was such a trademark dispute over the name “Apple” for so many years, and now by getting the Beatles in iTunes, Steve Jobs has won.
Ummm, yeah. Apple, inc. prolly paid them a billion dollars too.
Win win?
I think you can back it in on a huge sum of money being paid. In David Pogue’s Mac Secrets 5th Edition page 221 he says : “Early in Apple’s career as a computer-making superstar … The Beatles’ lawyers claimed that Apple, in making a computer with sound capabilities, was trying to get into the recording industry. … So, Apple sighed and promised Apple Records, in writing, that it would never get into the recording industry. Apple Records backed off and Macintosh went forth into the world.”
And, why does Apple Inc. want those logos?
…further litigation.
To end litigation.
What’s the fuss about then? Is Apple venturing into the wholefoods business selling green apples?
Once again, might is right.
OK, I’ll admit that I’m most likely older than the typical MDN reader. Now, will someone tell me: do most people use prolly as shorthand, or do they really not know the word probably?
I’m beginning to wonder just what age “the typical MDN reader” is…
I know Zune Tang is prolly… probably around 8.
I wouldn’t knock Elvis or The Beatles. But Bon Jovi is a one trick pony- and a jerk. Let ‘im have it!
I hate the use of “prolly” too…it drives me batty! I do think some people actually think they are spelling it correct. SAD SACK!
Prolly…
It’s an oft-used colloquialism for probably.
It’s probably a pre-emptive move to prevent someone else getting them. Or, it’s the final part of a deal that Apple settled with Apple Corps.
Something tells me Apple is getting interested in the recording industry, and wants a piece of the pie (and no, I won’t say Apple pie, it’s too easy). Buy out Apple Corps, make everything shiny and new, and ressurrect the label.
Yep, cut out the useless (record companies) middleman.
It’d be better off that way. More and more artists are recognizing that most labels are more trouble than they’re worth, and so they’re going to simply go out on their own instead of dealing with record execs. If Apple the computer company buys out Apple the record label, and with it, the apparatus to help more musicians, that would make it that much easier to do so. Apple helps promote artists that use Macs, sell on iTunes, etc., win-win for both Apple and the artist.
ownership of the logos is just to make the legal point that Apple can’t be sued again by McCartney and company. I doubt that they’ll ever use these logos in that format. They could redesign their logo to stylize the green Apple. That would be interesting. By the way, why did podnn get the credit here? They themselves gives patentlyapple credit. Kind of a backwards move.
Could this mean that Apple will be buying well known music collections; to offer exclusive music (or more reasonably priced or better profit margin music on iTunes?
Because Steve Jobs told the truth about where he got the Apple name idea, the Apple Corps owners have been able to grasp huge payments from Apple Inc. Far more than they ever made selling music.
I never understood the whole “Apple Corp. vs Apple Inc.” legal battle…2 logos are TOTALLY different (One a PHOTO of a real green apple & one of a graphic stylized rainbow logo apple with a bite taken out of it) + “apple” is a generic term. I get the “computer Macintosh was becoming able to record & play digital music” but they were NOT a studio. Musical artists have been using Macs in recording studios for DECADES. Part of Apple, Inc. “payout” should have included OWNING Abbey Road Studio.
Owning the actual Beatle’s Apple was probably on Steve’s “Bucket List.”
The Beatles should have a logo with a beetle in it.