The Beatles’ Apple Corps logo is now a registered trademark of Apple Inc.

“On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. would own all of the trademarks related to ‘Apple’ and would license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use,” Jack Purcher reports for PatentlyApple.

“The settlement ended the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. would continue using its name and logos on iTunes,” Purcher reports. “The settlement included terms that were confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps’ trademark rights for a total of $500 million U.S.”

Purcher reports, “On October 24, 2012 the Canadian IP Office disclosed that the famed Beatles recording label logo is now a registered trademark of Apple Inc.”

Apple Corps Ltd. logo (an Apple Inc. trademark)
Apple Corps Ltd. logo (an Apple Inc. trademark)

 

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Arline M.” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Apple Inc. files for The Beatles’ Apple Corps apple logo trademarks – March 14, 2011
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
The Beatles to share the love with Apple’s iTunes Store on Valentine’s Day? – January 16, 2007
Apple close to offering Beatles music via iTunes Store – December 05, 2006
Fortune: Apple close to landing exclusive iTunes Store deal with The Beatles – November 27, 2006
The Beatles stream ‘LOVE’ album for free online – November 17, 2006
The Beatles catalog to be available for download ‘soon’ – November 13, 2006
Apple will do ‘everything we can’ to lure The Beatles to iTunes Music Store – May 10, 2006
Apple Computer beats Beatles in trademark court battle, Beatles plan to appeal – May 08, 2006
Report: Apple vs. Apple judgement to be handed down May 8th – April 28, 2006
Apple Corps confirms plans to offer remastered Beatles songs for downloading, ‘no firm date yet’ – April 13, 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

25 Comments

  1. Obviously, $500 million figure is total tabloid nonsense. Besides sheer ridiculousness of the figure itself, the value of such magnitude would be registered in Apple’s quarter/year results with SEC.

    1. A picture made from an apple, for Pete’s sake ! (They could have taken any apple from the same orchard). What is the originality in that ?

      This particular apple, from which the picture was taken, should be preserved in a museum, for posterity.

    1. Dimwit, it’s a damned Trademark, you can’t use just any photo of a green apple, the reason it’s not too sharp is that it’s almost certainly been scanned from a printed copy, and blurred slightly to avoid moire patterns.
      But you knew that really, didn’t you…

    2. For 590 * 571 = 336890 pixels, US$500million would be 500 * 10^6 / 338890 US$/pixel or 1484 $/pixel.
      A pretty steep price to pay for each pixel 🙂

      Obviously, it is the combination of pixels that counts, the Beatles’ old logo is not just a concatenation of independent pixels, each of which obviously can’t be copyrighted.
      But given 16 intensity levels for each of 3 colors, we would need 12 bits to represent 1 pixel.
      336890 pixels then contain 12*336690=4040280 bits of information (although most typical images are just gibberish random noise). For meaningful images, compression factors of 10-100 are achievable, therefore, let’s assume the (pretty low quality) image can be compressed 30x. Then we are talking about 135kb to represent the image. or US$3700 per bit of information.
      Now, let’s smooth the image till it is barely recognizable, but still copyrightable. Maybe we will be left with 1.35kb. Then 500 million would amount to US$370,000/bit (take the 1.35kb or leave it).
      Ridiculous.

    1. Are you really that ignorant, or are you being disingenuous for comic effect and we’re missing it?
      I find it almost impossible to believe that there’s anyone in the developed world who hasn’t heard of the Beatles.

      1. Come on Rorschach, you can’t think that the Beatles have any relevance these days. They have nothing to do with AAPL or Apple products. Your comment makes me wonder who really has the attributes you seem to be questioning.

  2. Adding up the cost of every Apple-branded device I’ve ever approved the purchase of, or bought myself, over the past 30+ years, doesn’t even make a dent in that 500M price tag! But I could maybe build a house out of all those computers. An iHouse (with no Windows!)

  3. I’m thrown off by the use of the word “now” in the headline — the only recent aspect about this is that the Canadian IP office spilled the beans, and the logo has been Apple Inc’s since 2007. I thought this was common knowledge. Every Beatles CD release from 2009 and on says something like “‘Apple’ and the Apple logo issued under exclusive license to Apple Corps Ltd.”; not naming Apple Inc. as the licensor is part of the confidentiality agreement. (Previous EMI issues of Beatle recordings just said “‘Apple’ is a trademark of Apple Corps Ltd.”)

    1. A little rusty on my Canadian trademark law, but I’m pretty sure by law you can’t register a plant or fruit as a trademark.

      Apple can register their logo of course (and has), as it’s a distinctive mark. But the Apple records logo is technically unregistrable since it’s simply a generic depiction of a plant/fruit.

      Not sure why this has never come up.

  4. Some logo—a frumpy green apple that has been crudely silhouetted. Maybe Apple paid millions for this, but they must have been temporarily insane when they did it.

    1. That whole lawsuit thing was simply because Yucco Oh No! was greedy. The worst thing that happened to the Beats was when John married her and she saw dollar signs in the deal.

Leave a Reply to Steveonaire Cancel reply

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