British judge wants Apple trademark row heard in London

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wdlove, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #1
    *A British High Court judge ruled yesterday that a trademark battle between Steve Jobs's Apple Computer Inc. and The Beatles record company Apple Corps Ltd. should be heard in the United Kingdom.

    It was a victory for Apple Corps, which is owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the estates of deceased Beatles John Lennon and George Harrison. But a federal judge in California has also agreed to hear the case, holding that American law should apply. So the two companies will have to square off in court twice, with the possibility of different verdicts in each trial.

    It's the latest in two decades of legal skirmishes of Apple vs. Apple. Five years after Jobs and partner Steve Wozniak launched the computer company in 1976, Apple Corps sued, claiming that Apple Computer's name and logo violate the record company's trademark. Settlements in 1991 and 1998 seemed to resolve the matter.

    But the Beatles' record company now says that Apple Computer's popular iTunes Internet music retail business has gone too far. Apple Corps insists that the 1991 settlement included a pledge by Apple Computer to use the logo only for computer products and not for products related to music. Indeed, in 1998, Apple Computer, based in Cupertino, Calif., paid an out-of-court settlement to Apple Corps after the record company complained about an Apple music synthesizer product.

    Still, Apple Corps says Apple Computer didn't learn its lesson. The recording company says that placing the Apple logo on the iTunes Music Store, an Internet-based music retailer, is another violation of the 1991 agreement.

    http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2004/04/08/its_gonna_take_a_resolution/
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #2
    Apple vs. Apple

    You get the feeling this is not going away in our lifetime? I can see the headlines now "the Estate of Paul, John, Ringo, and George is sueing the estate of Steve" over the........
    I think it would be cool if the 2 sat down and worked out a merger, think of the possibilities. Apple corp using Apple equipment in their studios, and Apple having license access to Apple music. It's a match made in the orchard.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #3
    I think its time for a name change.

    TCCFKAA... The Computer Company Formerly Known As Apple

    :D

    Lets see...

    TCCFKAA iTunes Music Store
    TCCFKAA iPod
    TCCFKAA PowerMac
    TCCFKAA PowerBook
    TCCFKAA iMac
    TCCFKAA iBook
    TCCFKAA iLife/iPhoto/iDVD/iChat
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #4
    This was posted in the current events forum by Wdlove

    It says in the second paragraph the case will be heard on both continents by 2 different Judges and will probably have 2 different outcomes.

    My suggestion was, why don't the 2 just merge and get on with making money :D
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #5
    I think that I can speak for Apple and el Stevo... we would not want to have Yucky Oh-No hawking Macs. The only reason she was in the Think Different posters is because she sewed John Lennon's and her clothes together. I don't think you want to see her naked. There are already enough insane people in the world, no need to make more. :eek:
     
  6. thread starter macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #6
    In the Boston Globe Business section, IMHO I don't think that the 2 logo's look anything alike. Apple Corps is a pale green with a stem out the top, they have a lot of printing in side and of of the apple. The only real similarity is the word "Apple." I think that this is just another case of greed. They should just concentrate on making music. Apple doesn't create any music, just computers and software. They should try to work together on the ITMS in Europe.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Sabbath

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    London
    #7
    I guess if Apple (computer :rolleyes:) do lose this case by the time it reaches a verdict apple will already have such a presence in peoples minds, to simply drop any use of apple and call it iTunes, iTunes music store and iPod. People will just automatically link these as Apple, without the use of the word.
     
  8. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    So when I go to the produce dept. who should I send my money too, Steve or Ringo, afterall the fruit came before both companys. So I say the family of the first seed of apple trees should sue both companys for improper use of a food product.:rolleyes: On a related topic, my kitchen window is now property of Bill Gates :rolleyes:
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Location:
    Versailles, KY (and that's pronounced Vurr-sales)
    #9
    That's what I'm thinking! But, this seems more relevant than the earlier lawsuits over naming a computer company after a fruit. Now, it is a music-related company using the name Apple, when someone has already done that. Maybe they should drop Apple from the name of the music store and give applemusic.com, which currently redirects you to apple.com/itunes, to Apple Corps Ltd. Of course, they'll have to fight and say they won't budge, and then they can eventually settle for that to make Apple Corps feel like they won!
     
  10. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #10
    Did the former Beatles really surprised that a computer company called Apple would use an apple in its logo? How can Apple Computers really make an apple look different if they want to use a simplistic, proper apple logo?

    Does Apple Corp even produce music anymore?
     
  11. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    How many other companies have an Apple in their name and could they sell music if they wanted too or is this just a witch hunt against Apple Computer.
     
  12. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #12
    No Apple Corp is a dead company.

    site 1
    and the dead apache site I just hacked


    The ''Corporation'' I say that in quotes because it self-manages itself, is dead.

    All they do it recycle 'found' beatles music.

    A new song here, and unreleased track there.


    Why was 'The Beatles #1' Album put out? It sold a bull-load of copys... but why I have every song on that album... :confused:



    Apple Corp LTD. is basically a lawsuit machine
    a threatened lawsuit here...

    Other stuff there...


    Apple Corp. Now feeds off "new" albums and "lost and forgotten" tracks.

    I love the beatles and hate this "corporation".
     
  13. thread starter macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #13

    Attached Files:

  14. macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
    #14
    this is really retarded, i didnt even know about apple corp till this i wonder how many ppl know of them compared to the ppl who know about apple computer
     
  15. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #15
    I thought Michael Jackson owned all of the Beatles recordings so shouldn't this really be Michael Jackson suing or are they separate entities.
     

Share This Page