toggle

AAPL Stock: 109.41 ( + 2.67 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.com

Apple loses bid to move Beatles case to US

updated 06:25 pm EDT, Tue April 6, 2004

Beatles case remains in UK

Apple on Tuesday brought by the Beatles' management company moved from Britain to the United States according Reuters: "The California computer maker has been embroiled in a trademark dispute since September with the similarly named London-based Apple Corps., the company formed in 1968 to manage the band's business interests and act as its music label. Apple Corps. took the computer maker to court, accusing Apple Computer of violating a 1991 agreement specifying that it could use the Apple trademark for computer products only. The Beatles management said Apple Computer broke the agreement when it used the logo and trademark to promote its iTunes online music store"




by MacNN Staff

POST TOOLS:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. slider

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Apple should have

    With Apple knowing that it was going to release an Apple iTunes Music Store, they really should have resolved this with Apple Corp. beforehand. Of course the little known Apple Corp. are really being a bit unreasonable, I mean, I never even heard of Apple Corp. until this first surfaced when the iPod first came out. I know that this is the thrid time this has come up. It seems to me that Apple corps. wants to cash in on the success of Apple's iTunes. Does anybody know anyone who thinks that the Beattles lent their name to Apple Computer or to iTMS? Is there really any confusion? I don't think so, money grubbers. However, Apple is in violation of the 1991 agreement, but the question is how much is it going to cost.

  1. Eriamjh

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Music = Apple Corp

    The whole deal is about Apple Computer not doing music. Dell can do music. Gateway can do music. But Apple music came first, Apple Computer second.

    Jobs should have fixed this before the iPod came out. Idiot.

  1. cebritt

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Beatles?

    Wasn't that Paul McCarty's band before Wings? ;^)

  1. Ganesha

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Solution...

    Stop selling Apple Computer's in the UK.

  1. EdipisReks

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    apple corps has no case

    the original agreement stated that Apple computer couldn't use the Apple name for selling music or related products. they very carefully branded their music store as the "itunes music store", not the apple music store. regardless, Apple computer should just buyout Apple corp, if possible.

  1. JNI

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    AppleMusic vs Apple Music

    the original agreement stated that Apple computer couldn't use the Apple name for selling music or related products. they very carefully branded their music store as the "itunes music store", not the apple music store. regardless, Apple computer should just buyout Apple corp, if possible.

  1. JNI

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Apple Music

    the original agreement stated that Apple computer couldn't use the Apple name for selling music or related products. they very carefully branded their music store as the "itunes music store", not the apple music store. regardless, Apple computer should just buyout Apple corp, if possible.

    Actually, when iTMS first came out it was touted as AppleMusic, and the Apple name and logo was all over it. The TV adds all ended in just the tag AppleMusic.com In fact, you can still go to www.applemusic.com and it redirects to the iTMS site. The site and the ads are all now pretty much clear of any references to Apple, other than the contact info at the bottom of the site page.

    Apple Corps owns the name Apple Music Publishing, as well as Apple Electronics and a bunch of others Apple x** names. The whole point of Apple Corps was to create business entities owned by The Boys to produce and market Beatles products, like music, books, films, posters, etc. that was separate from the distribution rights of the earlier records mostly controlled by Parlophone and Capitol (now owned by EMI) which are just record companies. Apple Corps produced the White album and most of the others following it. They are the ones that currently market the Beatles Anthology DVDs and such, and it is a very financially successful company even today.

    Apple Computer just made a mistake. They knew from the beginning when they incorporated that there was an issue with Apple Corps. Back in the '70s when Apple Computers incorporated, Apple Corps was a very well known entity, and no doubt the potential conflict had come up in legal discussions. Jobs et. al. must just have never envisioned the day that music and computers would become so connected. Maybe it was in the minds of the Apple Corps people at that time.

    Some historical accounts even suggest that Jobs named the company Apple because of his fondness for the Beatles. Other statements say otherwise, but that could just be revisionist history in an attempt to legally distance them from that connection.

  1. Kesey

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Making Music

    Stop using Apple computers to make music you sh!tty Beatles! Nobody is confusing Apple Computer and iTunes with the Apple Records of the Beatles. I'm sick of these rich people who just don't know where to throw their money next. Go away! The Beatles are over, face it.

  1. Hal Itosis

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    So what?

    So what happens if Jobs & Co. don't show up in court?
    Do the 'Bobbies' fly to Cupertino and arrest everyone?

  1. beeble

    Joined: Dec 1969

    0

    Could this be a case of

    Board on the run?

    I think this is a close call. Apple Comp. could win and Apple Corps could win. At this stage there isn't a clear line because Apple aren't producing music, they are retailing.

    I do agree however that it would be better for the Beatles to join forces with Apple. They could use the fact that the names are similar to their marketing advantage.

    I am puzzled however at how the courts in the UK have any jurisdiction over a case involving a US company and an agreement made in the US about an operation that is only in the US. Apple hasn't violated the agreement in the UK. They don't retail music or anything like it there. The iPod is a computer that plays music and is clearly allowed under the agreement based on a prior case where the beatles tried to stop the mac from playing music.

    If anything, the fact that the beatles can't show that Apple has violated any agreement within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the case will see Apple win.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

VisionTek 128GB USB Pocket SSD

USB flash drives dealt the death blow to both the floppy and Zip drives. While still faster than either of the old removable media, sp ...

Kodak PixPro SL10 Smart Lens Camera

Smartphone imagery still widely varies. Large Megapixel counts don't make for a good image, and the optics in some devices are lackin ...

Epson WorkForce DS-40 scanner

In this day and age, there's a significant amount of pressure to go paperless, and downsize the amount of things that one collects ov ...

toggle

Most Commented