As in the lawsuit that was settled with Apple Corps (the Beatles music label) versus Apple Computer (now Inc) where it was ruled that Apple was not directly involved in the music business i.e. iTunes and now they would be!
There was an agreement years ago with Apple records that Apple could use the name as long as they stayed out of the music business. Here it's all spelled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
As in the lawsuit that was settled with Apple Corps (the Beatles music label) versus Apple Computer (now Inc) where it was ruled that Apple was not directly involved in the music business i.e. iTunes and now they would be!
There was an agreement years ago with Apple records that Apple could use the name as long as they stayed out of the music business. Here it's all spelled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
I assume, If Apple creates a subsidiary company using a different name they would avoid the the confusion described in the lawsuit.
I assume, If Apple creates a subsidiary company using a different name they would avoid the the confusion described in the lawsuit.
There is no confusion now.
By the terms of the new agreements, APPLE (our Apple) owns these trademarks, and actually licenses them out to Apple Corps (their Apple) on a need to need basis. Apple (ours) is now allowed to go into the music business if they want to.
Comments
(and to spell it out to avoid confusion)
Oh wait, you are? I've never seen a movie that sold some scenes separately, in order to generate publicity and sales. I must say you confuse me Jay-Z.
Because...
(Help me out Teck, that one went over my head.
As in the lawsuit that was settled with Apple Corps (the Beatles music label) versus Apple Computer (now Inc) where it was ruled that Apple was not directly involved in the music business i.e. iTunes and now they would be!
There was an agreement years ago with Apple records that Apple could use the name as long as they stayed out of the music business. Here it's all spelled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
As in the lawsuit that was settled with Apple Corps (the Beatles music label) versus Apple Computer (now Inc) where it was ruled that Apple was not directly involved in the music business i.e. iTunes and now they would be!
There was an agreement years ago with Apple records that Apple could use the name as long as they stayed out of the music business. Here it's all spelled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer
I assume, If Apple creates a subsidiary company using a different name they would avoid the the confusion described in the lawsuit.
I assume, If Apple creates a subsidiary company using a different name they would avoid the the confusion described in the lawsuit.
There is no confusion now.
By the terms of the new agreements, APPLE (our Apple) owns these trademarks, and actually licenses them out to Apple Corps (their Apple) on a need to need basis. Apple (ours) is now allowed to go into the music business if they want to.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...bel_logos.html