toggle

AAPL Stock: 441.35 ( 0 )

http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/04/06/beatles.case.remains.in.uk/

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 :

 Apple

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. slider

    Mac Elite

    Joined: Oct 1999

    0
    04/06, 06:50pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Addicted to MacNN

    Joined: Oct 2001

    0
    04/06, 07:11pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2000

    0
    04/06, 07:38pm | report spam | Reply |

    Beatles?

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

  1. Ganesha

    Senior User

    Joined: Jul 2002

    0
    04/06, 07:49pm | report spam | Reply |

    Solution...

    Stop selling Apple Computer's in the UK.

  1. EdipisReks

    Dedicated MacNNer

    Joined: May 2003

    0
    04/06, 08:15pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Oct 2002

    0
    04/06, 09:23pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Oct 2002

    0
    04/06, 10:54pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0
    04/06, 11:10pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Grizzled Veteran

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0
    04/06, 11:40pm | report spam | Reply |

    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

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0
    04/07, 12:12am | report spam | Reply |

    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.

Show More Comments

Login Here

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

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

MaxUpgrades MaxConnect for 2006-2008 Mac Pro

Nobody outside of Cupertino's privileged bunch knows the future of the Mac Pro line for sure. Despite Apple's reluctance to tell us wh ...

Brother HL-3170CDW LED Printer

We've mentioned before that we are far from a paperless society. For now, at least, there are tasks that require a piece of paper for ...

HTC One

It is hard to overstate just how critically important the HTC One is to the Taiwanese company’s fortunes. Despite its alarming decline ...

toggle

Most Commented

 

Popular News