DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: J&R ComputerWorld's Weekend Sale - Save on TVs, Digital Cameras, Games & Tons More
Apple Computer Wins Logo Battle Against Beatles
by , 7:30 AM EDT, May 8th, 2006
A ruling in favor of Apple Computer has been handed down in London Court over the use of the apple logo on Monday. Apple Corps, the company that manages The Beatles music and marketing, had filed a suit alleging that the Mac and iPod maker was violating an agreement that prohibited the computer maker from using the Apple logo in association with music.
At the center of the legal battle was a 1991 agreement between the two companies where Apple Computer paid Apple Corps US$26.5 million in exchange for expanded use of the apple-shaped logo. The Beatles holding company claimed that using the logo to sell music was a violation of that agreement. Apple Computer contended that it was fair use to display the logo on the iTMS.
Judge Edward Mann ruled that the logo was being used appropriately as a moniker to identify the iTunes Music Store (iTMS), and not in association with the music the store sells. According to CNET News, the Judge agreed that the logo was used on the iTMS as part of a data transmission service, which is allowed by the earlier agreement.
In his judgement, Justice Mann stated "I find no breach of the trademark agreement has been demonstrated. The action therefore fails."
In a brief statement, Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, said "We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store."
Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps, plans to appeal the ruling. According to the Wall Street Journal, he commented "We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer has broken the agreement."
Apple Computer also filed an application for an interim payment of $2.8 million from Apple Corps for legal expenses, but Justice Mann refused.
[This story has been updated with additional comments on the court ruling.]Observer Comments
Mon May 08, 2006 8:28 am Subject: The Right Decision--on both sides
The decision here was obviously correct, but in Trademark law, you defend your trademark or you lose it. Apple Corps, if it wants to defend itself against later threats to its logo and brand, had to try this case.
I'm certainly glad that Apple Computer won, but as a lifelong Beatles fan, I can certainly understand why they had to fight this battle. Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.
It's not as frivolous as it all seems.
I'm always getting confused between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to buy a Beatles album, but wind up purchasing a laptop, instead. And then there was the time that I wanted to buy some Apple software, but ended up with a White Album CD. I think that this trial was not only a travesty of justice, it was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of justice. I hope that Apple Computer wins the next round against Apple Corps, big time. I mean, I hope that Apple Corps wins against Apple Computer, big time (There! Do you see how big a problem this is? I've confused them again!).
QuoteYeah just in case the legal agreement the two companies signed that said Apple Computer could not be a record label and produce their own music wasn't clear enough? Cause I'm sure they were planning on becoming a record label and thinking Apple Corps wouldn't sue them. Right. Also they were thinking of selling software under the name Microsoft. I'm glad you like the Beatles, but Apple Corp is a bunch of asses. Are these lawsuits their only source of revenue?DocRoss wrote:
Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.
It's not as frivolous as it all seems.
Doc Ross writes:
"The decision here was obviously correct, but in Trademark law, you defend your trademark or you lose it. Apple Corps, if it wants to defend itself against later threats to its logo and brand, had to try this case."
No offense, but that is BS. First, this was not a Trademark case. In other words, Apple Corp was suing Apple over a contract dispute, not a Trademark dispute. Accordingly, the two sides were arguing over the contract, not Trademark law.
Second, you only have to sue to defend a Trademark if it is reasonable to think somebody is violating your trademark. Since there is a contract that covers this matter, no trademark dispute arises. Moreover, the contract clearly covered what Apple was doing. Also, Apple should have won on the defense that Apple Corp was aware of iTunes before its unveiling and let Apple proceed to its legal detriment (forget the name, but a valid contract efense).
Third, Apple never violated Apple Corps trademark, and should have never settled with Apple Corp in the first place. That is the part that shocks most intellicutal proerty lawyers, is that Apple COmputer settled in the first place.
Two companies engaged in two different businesses, can use the same name. Moreover, in some cases, two companies engaged in the same business can use the same name, if they operate in different locations.
Apple Computer's problem is it has always been plagued with bad lawyers. It should have took the first lawsuit to court, In its defense, it probably did not expect this perputual shakedown.
Mon May 08, 2006 11:05 am Subject:
QuoteDocRoss wrote:
I'm certainly glad that Apple Computer won, but as a lifelong Beatles fan, I can certainly understand why they had to fight this battle. Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.
It's not as frivolous as it all seems.
DocRoss, Plainly ridiculous.
I love the Beatles and am only 33. They broke up 3 years before I was born (I include this only for insight to my perspective).
Seriously, how did Apple Corp think they could win this? Who in their right mind associates Apple with the Beatles outside of Rock Historians and aging memory addled hippies? Ask any kid 25 or younger and if they have heard of the Beatles they probably couldn’t name the members of the band. Some might, but that would be a small percentage I’m willing to bet.
Now we are going to see the endless wrangling over appeals because I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple Corp expected to win this, now they are responsible for Apple’s legal bills. Which will be in the millions by the time it is done and over.
Maybe Apple should just buy Apple Corp and their holding company and be done with it. They got more than enough money to do it and would end the issues over the trademark once and for all. I would guess the only thing stopping them is the fact that Steve Jobs loves the Beatles…
While I do not fault your love of the Beatles, I do find at issue the fact that Apple Computers is on notice. Apple Computers should have never agreed to the 1991 settlement in the first place. As it was the Beatles thought they made out like bandits in 91, I'm guessing they are not laughing now... In fact the legal bill is 3 million British Pounds right now and will only get larger the more this drags on.
Mon May 08, 2006 11:57 am Subject: Re: The Right Decision--on both sides
QuoteDocRoss wrote:
The decision here was obviously correct, but in Trademark law, you defend your trademark or you lose it. Apple Corps, if it wants to defend itself against later threats to its logo and brand, had to try this case.
I'm certainly glad that Apple Computer won, but as a lifelong Beatles fan, I can certainly understand why they had to fight this battle. Apple Computer is now on notice that they will have another fight ahead if they try to become a record label and produce their own music.
It's not as frivolous as it all seems.
I doubt seriously Apple Computer would start an "Apple" record label. Further, there's little to no financial return to Apple shareholders from the company investing in music publishing catalogs or buying recorded masters. It's a fool's game.
The past 10 years have realized the significant loss of fortunes to individuals involved in music ownership as the value of their catalogs have diminshed to a fraction of their previous value. Shareholders of major record labels have lost tens of billions of dollars becuase the industry has refused to adress economic reality.
Apple Corps was and is a dormant label in maintenance mode. Apple Corps would have a very difficult time, should Apple Computer even consider entering the music business beyond distribution, proving any kind of damages.
Apple Computer will not enter the music ownership business and Apple Corps has few options to generate more revenue for its owners than to settle the suit with Apple Computer and make available whatever music and masters it still owns available via of iTMS.
This suit was a roll of the dice for Apple Corps. The label lost.
Mon May 08, 2006 3:12 pm Subject: The iTunes Label
Mon May 08, 2006 11:15 pm Subject: Re: vanax
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
Yes MarkSten, good point, as the despute is not over the music business per se but over the use of the Apple logo in the music business, at least as far as Corp. is concerned. Therefore, Apple could spin off -- as someone already has stated -- iTunes under a different, non-Apple logo and Apple Corp. would not have a valid reason to litigate at Apple. And if Apple loses on appeal, it could do the same and be no worse for wear. After all, iTunes is a brand in itself and needs no Apple logo to maintain momentum and identity.
But since I am far away from the lawerly profession, maybe someone in the field can find flaw in my observation.
Apple would not spin off the iPod division. It's critical to the Mac's success. Most likely the two companies will reach an out of court settlement and the Apple Corps catalog will be added to iTunes. Apple Corps, under British law, is required to pay Apple Computer's legal fees. Practically speaking, pushing the case much further does not have economic justification.
Both companies were seeking the court's guidance in this dispute. This case is not a big matter and the publicity has more to do with the people invloved than with the legal merits of the dispute.
Quoteweatherc wrote:
I'm always getting confused between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to buy a Beatles album, but wind up purchasing a laptop, instead. And then there was the time that I wanted to buy some Apple software, but ended up with a White Album CD. I think that this trial was not only a travesty of justice, it was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of justice. I hope that Apple Computer wins the next round against Apple Corps, big time. I mean, I hope that Apple Corps wins against Apple Computer, big time (There! Do you see how big a problem this is? I've confused them again!).
This is the best post I read in a long time LMAOROTF!
Wed May 10, 2006 2:13 pm Subject:
QuoteWillmark wrote:Quoteweatherc wrote:
I'm always getting confused between Apple Computer and Apple Corps. I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to buy a Beatles album, but wind up purchasing a laptop, instead. And then there was the time that I wanted to buy some Apple software, but ended up with a White Album CD. I think that this trial was not only a travesty of justice, it was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of justice. I hope that Apple Computer wins the next round against Apple Corps, big time. I mean, I hope that Apple Corps wins against Apple Computer, big time (There! Do you see how big a problem this is? I've confused them again!).
This is the best post I read in a long time LMAOROTF!
Agreed!
Recent Headlines - Updated Friday, August 29th, 2008
- Fri., 7:05 PM
- Podcast - Mac Geek Gab #166: Dot-Underscore Files, Cool Stuff Found, Kernel_task, and Listener Tips!
- 5:45 PM
- iPO Free on iTunes - Dinos, U.S. Music, Sci & Tech TV, Rock N Roll TV and More
- 5:25 PM
- Macworld Expo Hotel Deal - Use TMO's Discount at The Hotel Milano
- 4:45 PM
- iPodObserver - Rumor: China Mobile May Subsidize iPhone 3G
- 4:30 PM
- User Friendly Blog by Ted Landau - My iPhone Goes on Vacation
- 4:25 PM
- ChangeWave: Apple Leads Competition in Consumer Buying Plans
- 3:05 PM
- Solver is Back for MS Excel 2008
- 2:25 PM
- CW: SSDs in Laptops Won't Make Real Sense until 2010
- 2:10 PM
- TinyBooks 6 Improves Custom Invoices, Tax Support
- 1:00 PM
- TMO Reports - Psystar's Official Response: Apple Abusing Copyright, Tying OS X to Hardware
- 11:05 AM
- iPodObserver - Rumor: Official iPhone Tethering in the Works
- 10:15 AM
- Hot Forum Topic - Reader Reactions: Bloomberg's Accidental Steve Jobs Obituary
- 9:45 AM
- iPodObserver - iPhone Hack: Changing the Camera Focus
- 9:15 AM
- Comcast to Cap Broadband Use Starting in October
- 8:25 AM
- Final Cut Express 4.0.1 Improves AVCHD Support
- 8:05 AM
- Apple Intros ProRes QuickTime Decoder
- 7:30 AM
- iPO Quick Tip - iTunes: More Info About What's on Your iPod
The Mac Observer Reader Specials
- Download Typestyler, still the Ultimate Styling Tool for Internet, Print and Video Graphics. Works great in Classic with a Native OS X Version on the way. Free Tryout: www.typestyler.com
- Other World Computing has the Upgrades, Enhancements, and Accessories for getting the most from your Mac. Quality Products, Competitive Prices, Expert Support Staff - www.macsales.com
MacBook/MacBook Pro / MacMini / iMac Intel Core2 DUO DDR2 667Mhz 4GB Kit $84, 3GB Kit $60, 2GB Kit $40 1GB $20. Click to Maximize your Macs...
Mac observers can now play Party Poker for Mac as well as Mac casino games by going to MacPokerOnline.com.
RamJet Memory: Mac Pro FB-DIMMs: 2Gig kit $115, 4Gig kit $179, 8Gig kit for $355! 500G Seagate Hard Drive $129! Click hereFor the latest Apple products use Ciao a comparison website to find laptops like MacBook Air. Then find the best prices on MP3 players and use our comparison tool to evaluate cell phones.
Laptop Hardware Provided by TechRestore - Overnight Mac & iPod Repairs.

