Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Monday, May 08, 2006, 08:00 am
Ruling favors Apple in Beatles trademark suit
A London High Court judge has sided with Apple Computer in a lawsuit brought on by Beatles-owned record label Apple Corps, which charged that the computer company's use of its logo in conjunction with its iTunes and iPod products is in breach of a 1991 contract, reports the BBC.On Monday, Justice Edward Mann ruled that the Apple Computer used the Apple logo in association with its store, not the music, and therefore was not in breach the existing contract.
The ruling means iPods and iTunes will still be able to carry the Apple name and logo.
Apple Corps, which sought damages and an injunction baring its rival using the Apple logo in its music operations, will appeal, according to the report.
Justice Mann ruled iTunes was "a form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music.
"I conclude that the use of the apple logo ... does not suggest a relevant connection with the creative work," he wrote in his judgment.
"I think that the use of the apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves."
Apple Corps now must pay Apple Computer's legal bill, estimated at £2m. The judge reportedly refused an interim payment of £1.5m pending further hearings.
On Topic: iTunes
- Penguin agrees to $75M settlement in Apple iBooks price fixing lawsuit
- Editorial: Apple's billions are building an empire for the future
- Gameloft's Gangstar Rio, N.O.V.A. 3 go free on iOS for a limited time
- Apple releases iTunes 11.0.3 with new MiniPlayer, improved Songs View
- Google's All Access music streaming service to take on Spotify, Pandora
Previous Comments View All
I think most reasonable people make the distinction between the two companie's trademarks. In fact, as sad as it is, most younger generation may not even know what the Apple Music label is and their significance.
Talk about gaining reader interest in the article.
Quote:
Ruling favors Apple in Beatles trademark suit
Which Apple? Crap, I guess I have to read it.
"Oh noes! Judge owned an iPod, so Apple (Computer) Pwned Him! WE WANT AN APPEAL!!" 
I was expecting the opposite result too actually. So although surprised and relieved to hear it's gone the other way, I expect this will keep rumbling on until the appeal is over and done with too. Hopefully conclusively.
Quote:
Originally posted by fuyutsuki
"Oh noes! Judge owned an iPod, so Apple (Computer) Pwned Him! WE WANT AN APPEAL!!"
I was expecting the opposite result too actually. So although surprised and relieved to hear it's gone the other way, I expect this will keep rumbling on until the appeal is over and done with too. Hopefully conclusively.
"Oh noes! Judge owned an iPod, so Apple (Computer) Pwned Him! WE WANT AN APPEAL!!"
I was expecting the opposite result too actually. So although surprised and relieved to hear it's gone the other way, I expect this will keep rumbling on until the appeal is over and done with too. Hopefully conclusively.
Apple Corp can't appeal on that. They agreed to allow him to preside, even though he said he was an iPod, and iTunes user.
Almost all people, and companies, SAY they will appeal, but many don't.
They have to say that at the end of the trial to reserve the right to do so, and often need the judge to agree to it. But, they may not go forward.
Apple Corps is now worth a lot less than before the ruling was handed down - Apple Computer should offer to buy them now, and get the catalog and remove the lawsuit hassle.
BTW - what exactly does Apple Corps own? I thought that Michael Jackson owned the song library for the Beatles.
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Apple Corps is now worth a lot less than before the ruling was handed down - Apple Computer should offer to buy them now, and get the catalog and remove the lawsuit hassle.
BTW - what exactly does Apple Corps own? I thought that Michael Jackson owned the song library for the Beatles.
Apple Corps is now worth a lot less than before the ruling was handed down - Apple Computer should offer to buy them now, and get the catalog and remove the lawsuit hassle.
BTW - what exactly does Apple Corps own? I thought that Michael Jackson owned the song library for the Beatles.
I think that Sony (mostly) and Jackson, and one other company, own the written material, while Apple Corp own the performances. I think.
I never doubted that apple(computer) would win. They never really had much of a case to begin with.
Give it a rest Apple corps, and Beatles for bleep sake put your tunes on iTunes 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Apple Corps is now worth a lot less than before the ruling was handed down - Apple Computer should offer to buy them now, and get the catalog and remove the lawsuit hassle.
BTW - what exactly does Apple Corps own? I thought that Michael Jackson owned the song library for the Beatles.
Apple Corps is now worth a lot less than before the ruling was handed down - Apple Computer should offer to buy them now, and get the catalog and remove the lawsuit hassle.
BTW - what exactly does Apple Corps own? I thought that Michael Jackson owned the song library for the Beatles.
That's what I heard, so without the Beatles library, what else is there of value?
Latest Apple Headlines
-
Former Gartner analyst Michael Garternberg joins Apple marketing
~19 minutes ago -
Apple's iPad dominates online shopping traffic & revenue generation
~2 hours ago -
Penguin agrees to $75M settlement in Apple iBooks price fixing lawsuit
~4 hours ago -
Samsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for Siri
~5 hours ago -
Sony to consider spinning off its entertainment division
~5 hours ago - more...
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| Core i5 MacBook Pros w/ Retina | ||
| 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,406.48 | $292.52 |
| 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,479.99 | $519.01 |
| 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,699.99 | $799.01 |
| Core i7 MacBook Pros w/ Retina | ||
| 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,599.99 | $599.01 |
| 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,799.99 | $899.01 |
| 15" 2.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,899.99 | $299.01 |
| 15" 2.6GHz/8GB/512GB | $2,299.99 | $568.01 |
| 15" 2.7GHz/16GB/768GB | $2,699.99 | $499.01 |
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.99 | $329.99 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.99 | $429.99 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.99 | $529.99 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.99 | $459.99 | $459.99 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.99 | $559.99 | $559.99 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.99 | $659.99 | $659.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.99 | $459.99 | $459.99 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.99 | $559.99 | $559.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.99 | $659.99 | $659.99 |
This is exciting, even though ACorp say they will appeal.
I thought Apple comp would win this. I pointed out clause 4.3 myself here as well as other places. My wife, who is an attorney for CitiCorp, and who deals with these matters had also said that it seems to give Acomp the right to use their mark in this way. I have a link to the '91 contract that I put here before.
If anyone is still interested in reading it, I am posting it again. It isn't too long, and it's pretty easy to understand. It's a scan of the actual paper contract.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/a...0991tmagr.html