Ruling favors Apple in Beatles trademark suit

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
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.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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
  • Reply 2 of 28
    technotechno Posts: 737member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 28
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    fuyutsukifuyutsuki Posts: 293member
    "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.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.




    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.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 28
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    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.




    I think that Sony (mostly) and Jackson, and one other company, own the written material, while Apple Corp own the performances. I think.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    I never doubted that apple(computer) would win. They never really had much of a case to begin with.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Give it a rest Apple corps, and Beatles for bleep sake put your tunes on iTunes
  • Reply 10 of 28
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    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.




    That's what I heard, so without the Beatles library, what else is there of value?
  • Reply 11 of 28
    Michael Jackson owns the song lyrics, Apple Corps owns the actual music.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    I would hope the appeal is aimed at replacing/rewording the argreement that sparked this whole fuss. The wording clearly allows Apple to sell music through electronic means, but it needs to be more specific so that Corps and Computer know exactly where the line is drawn. (For example, indie artists who sell their music directly through iTunes without an intervening publisher/distributor.)
  • Reply 13 of 28
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    ha, stupid apple corp.





    i guess we'll never see beatles music on itunes huh.







    that is one big downfall to itunes, they are missing some really great acts.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Everybody follow the bouncing ball: "Yoko was a hag who thought she was a singer, but she knew it wouldn't last. Yoko filed a suit in the United Kingdom, acting like a total ass. Get back. Get back. Get back to where you once belonged."
  • Reply 15 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Elixir

    i guess we'll never see beatles music on itunes huh. that is one big downfall to itunes, they are missing some really great acts.



    Apparently, they plan to release the Beatles back catalog on iTunes. They'll probably want to negotiate the price with Apple. <sarcasm>After all, $9.99 is hardly sufficient for an album that is not only a piece of music, it's a piece of art, nay, history!



    Also, iTunes has a problem now? Last time I checked they had Ashley Simpson and Britney Spears. We can't expect them to pick up every obscure little artist thrown at them in the feedback box. As far as I can tell, these 'Beatles' people were pretty much a one-hit wonder way back when. I think one of them may have married Linda McCartney, but that's about as famous as they get.</sarcasm>



    ---



    Edit: sarcasm tag now enclses all sarcasm as pointed out by MacCrazy. Comment now in line with W3C Aug '99 Sarcasm Markup Language 1.0 (SGML based, not XML based) spec. I'm thinking of making it XSML as SML is now deprecated.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    I'm more impressed by the name: Mr Justice Mann! Awesome



  • Reply 17 of 28
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jdbartlett

    Apparently, they plan to release the Beatles back catalog on iTunes. They'll probably want to negotiate the price with Apple. <sarcasm>After all, $9.99 is hardly sufficient for an album that is not only a piece of music, it's a piece of art, nay, history!</sarcasm>



    Also, iTunes has a problem now? Last time I checked they had Ashley Simpson and Britney Spears. We can't expect them to pick up every obscure little artist thrown at them in the feedback box. As far as I can tell, these 'Beatles' people were pretty much a one-hit wonder way back when. I think one of them may have married Linda McCartney, but that's about as famous as they get.




    I think your sarcasm marks might be around the wrong section! Although if Apple do add The Beatles catalogue they will have 3 million songs on iTunes - The Beatles seemed to write thousands.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    jimzipjimzip Posts: 446member
    Judge Justice Mann..

    Now that's a Hollywood screen name if ever I've heard one.



    Anyway, if the Beatles wrote thousands of songs, let's hope Apple (computer) doesn't do a U2 and include them all.. I don't want every search I make to come up with obscure Beatles tracks..

    But good on the judge for having the sensibility to crack down on these greedy fools.



    Jimzip
  • Reply 19 of 28
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    I'm more impressed by the name: Mr Justice Mann! Awesome



    Justice is not his first name. It's his title.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    jimzipjimzip Posts: 446member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kolchak

    Justice is not his first name. It's his title.



    Oh.

    Well it still sounded cool. (Wow. Shows how much I know about the legal system huh..)



    Jimzip
Sign In or Register to comment.