Go Apple - you can win it...

I mean - go go go Apple Music...

Dude, dont you get it, we are they. We are the aliens. They are us. Its really that simple.

Bottom line: sit back and enjoy the ride. Life is what YOU make of it. If you believe in h***, you will be in h***. Good thoughts breed good things. All the prophets confirm this.

I like this time of experimentation, of starts and stops, of ephiphany. I believe it to be the golden age.

he he

:-P

Of course you can trademark a simple word - this is what the dispute between the two Apples is about. For instance there is a mobile phone company in Europe called Orange, they own the trademark. If someone else set up a mobile phone business named similarly they would have a case for taking the latter to court.

You could even take this further, if the brand was especially well known, Orange could probably stop other companies using that name to sell computers, or other electronics. Though they probably couldn't stop a supermarket using that name.

The underlying problem for Apple Computer is that they already accepted Apple Corps claim, in previous contracts and settlements. Apple Computer agreed to have no music business ties at all - so as to preserve Apple Corps own branding in that area. Only a fool is really going to suggest that Apple isn't selling music.

I'll give you an example of how this works: Virgin. We all implicitly tie Virgin's retail record sales outlets to Virgin the record company. Now while these two started off with the same owner - that's no longer the case. But licencing agreements are in place to allow each to use that name. Likewise HMV records and HMV records shops are implicitly tied together.

It's clear enough that if we are talking about computers, when we say "Apple" we mean Apple Computer, if we're talking about the Beatles, we mean Apple Corps. But if we're talking about music in general there's a problem - that's why we're having to write "Apple Computer/Apple Corps" in this thread.

That's essentially why this law suit exists.

Apple Corp is barely known to anyone but Beatles fans. In fact I don't see any infringment, the only one I'd see is if Apple computers started it's own "Appl" branded label.

Even then all they have to do is create a new DBA for that.

One more thing, EVERY record company today owes Apple computers a little something for putting a little life back in their sales and livelihood.

god I hope SJ and Apple beat them.

As for legally protecting a common word...

Does anybody remember the Lindows case? This is where Microsoft took Lindows to court for having a Windows compatible Linux.

Microsoft came to the realization that "Windows is a common term that anybody can use". It's a little different due to the fact that "a window" is a computer term that was around before Windows was, but it was also a direct product for product comparison. When they knew they were going to lose, they paid off the other company with so much dough, they happily changed their name and it never came out that MS lost.

In this case we have a common word that has nothing to do with music or computers. I don't see how Apple Corp is going to win this one. Apple does not create, record music. They are not in direct competition. It also states that the clause they agreed to prevents them from selling music on media.

Other than when Apple sold iPods pre-loaded with music (in which case they are at fault for that small portion of sales), they only manufacture for sale electronic devices and software, and resell digital music.

Apple Computer should have fought this tooth and nail before and I think they will this time. With their own past agreements hurting them now, they really aught to re-litigate all of it.

Apple will win this, but by their own past settlement they may have to pay some cash because they did deliver some music on physical media.

...for Apple to just buy Apple Corps out.

"Here's US$1. Hand over your 'corporation'."

Does anybody remember the Lindows case? This is where Microsoft took Lindows to court for having a Windows compatible Linux.

Microsoft came to the realization that "Windows is a common term that anybody can use".

MS never came to this realization. The courts did. MS still believes they have a windows trademark (and, hey, they do!). However, they were fighting "Lindows", not "Linux Windows". You're talking two different names, with one sounding like the other. This does not relate to "apple vs. apple".

In this case we have a common word that has nothing to do with music or computers. I don't see how Apple Corp is going to win this one. Apple does not create, record music. They are not in direct competition. It also states that the clause they agreed to prevents them from selling music on media.

With all that semantic and word parsing you're doing, you don't think there's any case for confusion or trademark infringement? If not, you're nuts. ("Oh, they can't sell music on media. Well, then, case dismissed!")

Oh, and you all are forgetting that they just don't distribute music, they also create products to produce music.

But, anyway. Based on these theories, I should be able to start a company called "iTunes Music and Video store". In it I sell CDs and DVDs (on disc, not digitally). I should be fine, right? I mean, I'm not doing anything Apple is doing, so there should be no confusion. Or, I could start a record label called iTunes, where I produce albums from all sorts of musical groups with insect-like names. Should be fine. Or maybe I'll start Apple Computer Consulting, where I'll help people buy computers that's right for them. As long as I don't make them or sell them, again, no conflict.

(and greedy) can these people get.

Apple Computer could have bought Apple Corps several time over, for the money Apple Computer has paid and probably will end up paying over the years. Well, I hope not... Having never been a big Beatles fan, I will avoid buying their music even more.

Personally, I'm rooting for Apple.

...is the Borg. They are here. Don't believe me? Go to Whois and check out who owns b.org...it says "Reserved".

... but I need a new Beemer....

The controversy between Apple Computer and Apple Corps centers on the trademark name "Apple". United States Patent and Trademark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/ states the the following for the definition of a trademark:

"A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms “trademark” and “mark” are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks."

"Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the USPTO. The registration procedure for trademarks and general information concerning trademarks is described on a separate page entitled “Basic Facts about Trademarks” (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/)."

Note the wording on trademark rights, especially "confusingly similar mark". Even though both companies share the same name "Apple", the names "Apple Computer" is certainly distinctive from "Apple Corps".

It is a mistake to trademark a fruit. What about other companies or websites having the word "Apple" in their names? Apple Corps might as well sue all the apple producers on this planet! If a company wishes to trademark a fruit, another name needs to be added for distinction. Then we wouldn't have these silly lawsuits after all.