Apple Corps loses to Apple Computer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4983796.stm

According to the BBC, Apple Corps has lost its lawsuit against Apple Computer. And there was much rejoicing.

[Apple Corps] claimed the US firm broke a deal aimed at ensuring there would not be two Apples in the music industry.

But Mr Justice Anthony Mann ruled that the computer company used the Apple logo in association with its store, not the music, and so was not in breach.

The ruling means iPods and iTunes will still be able to carry the Apple name and logo.
Click to expand...

and

Mr Justice Mann ruled iTunes was "a form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music
Click to expand...

NOW PUT THE BEATLES ON iTMS.
 
:lol

Awesome. I read about this in Rolling Stone (I didn't buy it ;>>) and was hoping Apple would win. I wonder how much sway they garnered because of the iTMS influence, though.
 
Beezy said:
Who the fuck is Apple Corps? Did they really expect to win?
Click to expand...

They have all the Beatles music locked in a chest somewhere. They have a giant Beowulf-style dragon sitting on top of it.

STEVE JOBS HAS SLAIN THE DRAGON.
 
Shompola said:
Didnt MJ own the beatles stuff? I take it he sold them to this Apple Corps?
Click to expand...

I think he owned a large share of the copyrighted music itself. Maybe Apple owns the right to distribute the songs?

Who the hell knows?
 
Theres now even less of a chance that the Beatles catalogue will appear on itunes now.

I think Apple corp will punish Apple for winning this court case by allowing rival companies to host the catalogue or they will set up their own online music service.
 
Apple Records was the label started by the Beatles.

MicJac owns everything that apple records had (beatle catalog at least IIRC). If not all of then most of.

This lawsuit was ridiculous. This is in no way a violation of the trademark. Something tells me Apple Corps was looking to spruce up their warchest to buy back the Beatles selection from MicJac.
 
broadwayrock said:
Theres now even less of a chance that the Beatles catalogue will appear on itunes now.

I think Apple corp will punish Apple for winning this court case by allowing rival companies to host the catalogue or they will set up their own online music service.
Click to expand...

I know that would be nice for revenge purposes, but Apple has like 80% of the market. Talking about cutting off your nose.
 
borghe said:
MicJac owns everything that apple records had (beatle catalog at least IIRC). If not all of then most of.

This lawsuit was ridiculous. This is in no way a violation of the trademark. Something tells me Apple Corps was looking to spruce up their warchest to buy back the Beatles selection from MicJac.
Click to expand...

Jackson only owns the Beatles' songbook, and not including George Harrison's and Ringo's songs and a few early Lennon/McCartney titles. He gets royalties by allowing people to do covers or using the songs (with different artists) for commercials etc.. Since he owns the songs (along with Sony and to a much lesser extent Yoko and Paul) he likely gets royalties from the sales of albums, but doesn't control the distribution or anything.

By the way I'm opening up a store that sells pop and I'm naming the store Coca Cola.
 
malek4980 said:
By the way I'm opening up a store that sells pop and I'm naming the store Coca Cola.
Click to expand...

While I understand you're trying to be tongue-in-cheek with this comment, this does illustrate a pretty major issue underlying cases like this. "Coca Cola" is a trademarked phrase that has no meaning outside the brand, therefore doing what you state above would clearly be infringing on the Coca Cola trademark. "Apple" is a generic term that has meaning outside the company name, so as long as your product doesn't directly compete with another one you're in the clear. This is why some companies actually run marketing campaigns to try and encourage people not to use their brand name as the generic name for a product (like "xerox" with photocopies and "band-aid" with adhesive bandages). If the term becomes the de facto standard terminology for all products the company loses a lot of control over the use of the term.
 
As I stated earlier, Apple Corps actually took issue with Apple Computer years and years ago, but the two reached an agreement, in which Apple Computer could continue using the name as long as they stayed out of the music industry, which at the time, they had no intention of entering. It was ok as long as it was Apple Corps with Beatles Music and Apple Computers with IIe's and Macintosh.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
As I stated earlier, Apple Corps actually took issue with Apple Computer years and years ago, but the two reached an agreement, in which Apple Computer could continue using the name as long as they stayed out of the music industry, which at the time, they had no intention of entering. It was ok as long as it was Apple Corps with Beatles Music and Apple Computers with IIe's and Macintosh.
Click to expand...

yeah, on top of what I said earlier, this case was actually a breach of contract case, not necessarily a trademark infringement case.
 
however it is still an undeniable point that there is a difference between providing music and taking part in the creation of music. I can certainly see if Apple Computers was publishing music. Then again the case would be slam dunk. But apple merely providing the download of music provided by publishers....

I really think there is some bandwagon hopping going on here.
 
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Yeah, could easily have been a case of Paul and Ringo trying to score some quick cash off of Apple.
Click to expand...

Paul's a douchebag. He wouldn't give his blessing to Weird Al to do a recorded parody of Live and Let Die. If there's one reason Paul McCartney should be murdered, raped, skinned, and defecated on (not necessarily in that order), it's for thinking he's better than Weird Al.
 
FlameOfCallandor said:
I thought weird Al didn't need permission. He only asked out of courtesy.
Click to expand...

He doesn't need permission, but he won't do a song without the artist's consent. Just like you said.
 
Nerevar said:
yeah, on top of what I said earlier, this case was actually a breach of contract case, not necessarily a trademark infringement case.
Click to expand...


It was actually both. At the root of the issue is how either party can use the trademark of the apple or the word apple. As is normally the case in such cases, the person with the more 'familiar' mark tends to win out and most people have no idea who Apple Records is. It IS possible for two companies to have the same mark in the same business for years until one decides "hey I think you're making money of my trademark". At that point, the most popular use of the mark tends to be the one that wins out in the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple is losing more than $1 billion a year on streamer Apple TV+ according to a new report
News  2
69
3K
clarky replied
  • Poll
What would today’s computers and phones be like without Apple?
2
93
4K
BlackTron replied
Recommended Smart Watches (not Apple)
5
310
N0S replied
Prime Target (Apple TV)
2
284
AJUMP23 replied
Long Way Home — Official Trailer | Apple TV+
2
308
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom