Francais | English | Espanõl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between 1978 and 2006 there have been a number of legal disputes between Apple Corps (owned by The Beatles) and the computer manufacturer Apple Computer over competing trademark rights. In the latest dispute, the English High Court handed down a judgment on May 8, 2006 in favour of Apple Computer. The manager of Apple Corps has stated that the decision will be appealed.

Contents 1 History of trademark disputes 1.1 1978 - 1981 1.2 1986 - 1989 1.3 1991 1.4 2003 - 2006 2 References 3 See also

[edit] History of trademark disputes

[edit] 1978 - 1981

In 1978, Apple Corps, the Beatles-founded holding company and owner of their record label, Apple Records, filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit settled in 1981 with an undisclosed amount being paid to Apple Corps. This amount had been estimated to be $50–$200 million, but was later revealed to be $80,000.<ref>John, Paul, George, Ringo...and Steve? businessweek.com. September 30, 2004.</ref> As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed not to enter the music business.

[edit] 1986 - 1989

In 1986, Apple Computer added MIDI and audio-recording capabilities to its computers, including the advanced 5503 sound chip from famous synthesizer maker Ensoniq into the Apple IIGS line. In 1989 this led Apple Corps to sue again, claiming violation of the 1981 settlement agreement. The outcome of this litigation effectively terminated any further development of the highly profitable Apple II line, all forays by Apple Computer into the multimedia field in parallel with the Amiga at the time, and any future advanced built-in musical hardware into the Macintosh line.

[edit] 1991

In 1991, another settlement involving payment of around $26.5 million to Apple Corps was reached. This time, an Apple employee named Jim Reekes had included a sampled system sound called Chimes to the Macintosh operating system, but Apple's legal department objected citing the agreement with Apple Corps. Reekes renamed the sound to sosumi, which he asserted was Japanese and meant nothing musical, but in fact can be read phonetically as "so sue me". Outlined in the settlement was each company's respective trademark rights to the term "Apple". Apple Corps held the right to use Apple on any "creative works whose principal content is music", while Apple Computer held the right to use Apple on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content", but not on content distributed on physical media.<ref>http://news.com.com/Apple+vs.+Apple+Perfect+harmony/2100-1027_3-5378401.html news.com</ref> In other words, Apple Computer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials.

[edit] 2003 - 2006

In September 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer again, this time for breach of contract, in using the Apple logo in the creation and operation of Apple Computer's iTunes Music Store, which Apple Corps contended was a violation of the previous agreement. Some observers believed the wording of the previous settlement favoured Apple Computer in this case.<ref>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2004/tc20040930_9317_tc056.htm businessweek.com</ref> Other observers speculated that if Apple Corps was successful, Apple Computer would be forced to offer a much larger settlement, perhaps resulting in Apple Corps becoming a major shareholder in Apple Computer, or perhaps in Apple Computer splitting the iPod and related business into a separate entity.<ref>http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article11325.html LegalZoom</ref>

The trial opened on March 29, 2006 in England,<ref>Apple giants do battle in court</ref> before a single judge of the High Court, Mr Justice Mann. In opening arguments, a lawyer for Apple Corps stated that in 2003, shortly before the launch of Apple Computer's on-line music store, Apple Corps rejected a $1 million offer from Apple Computer to use the Apple name on the iTunes store.

On May 8 2006 the court ruled in favour of Apple Computer,<ref>"Breaking news: Apple Computer wins court battle with Beatles", Reuters, 8 May 2006 (link)</ref><ref>Brandle, L. "Apple Computer Triumphs In Beatles Case", Billboard, 8 May 2006 (link)</ref> with Justice Mann holding that "I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated."<ref>High Court judgment from the website of Her Majesty's Courts Service</ref><ref>Transcript of full judgment from The Times, 8 May 2006</ref>

The Judge focused on section 4.3 of that agreement:

4.3 The parties acknowledge that certain goods and services within the Apple Computer Field of Use are capable of delivering content within the Apple Corps Field of Use. In such case, even though Apple Corps shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Corps Marks on or in connection with content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) [the Apple Corps catalog and any future music], Apple Computers shall have the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with goods or services within subsection 1.2 [Apple Computer Field of Use] (such as software, hardware or broadcasting services) used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content provided it shall not use or authorize others to use the Apple Computer Marks on or in connection with physical media delivering pre-recorded content within subsection 1.3(i) or (ii) (such as a compact disc of the Rolling Stones music).

The Judge held Apple Computer's use was covered under this clause.

In response, Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps, indicated that the company did not accept the decision: "With great respect to the trial judge, we consider he has reached the wrong conclusion," and announced that it would "be filing an appeal and putting the case again to the Court of Appeal." The judgment orders Apple Corps to pay Apple Computer's legal costs at an estimated £2m, but pending the appeal the judge declined Apple Computer's request for an interim payment of £1.5m.<ref>Beatles lose Apple court battle, BBC News, 8 May 2006</ref>

Despite the decision, plans have been announced by Neil Aspinall to completely remaster and release the entire Beatles catalogue on unspecified online music services, as well as to release some previously unheard work by the band. No firm date has been set for this as yet.<ref>Beatles set to join online music revolution, Zee News, 15 April 2006</ref>

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Notable litigation of Apple Computer
• A moron in a hurry
• Confusing similarity

Apple Corps
The Beatles | Neil Aspinall | Allen Klein Apple Boutique | Disputes with Apple Computer
Apple Records (discography)
Badfinger | Black Dyke Mills Band | Delaney, Bonnie & Friends | Elastic Oz Band | Elephant's Memory | Grapefruit | George Harrison | Mary Hopkin | Hot Chocolate | John Lennon | Jackie Lomax | Paul McCartney | Modern Jazz Quartet | Yoko Ono | David Peel | Plastic Ono Band | Billy Preston | The Radha Krsna Temple | Ravi Shankar | Ronnie Spector | Ringo Starr | Sundown Playboys | John Tavener | James Taylor | Doris Troy | White Trash | Wings