Apple & Apple Corps Settlement?

[Lanbrown]

I don't follow. "Apple" is only a generic term only when applied to fruit. Therefore, companies are free to trademark the name "Apple" if it is applied to other products/markets.

The Beatles trademarked "Apple" for use in the music industry only. Therefore, they cannot go after any other company named "Apple" unless they enter the music industry. Likewise, Apple Computers has the trademark for Apple when applied to computers.

If The Beatles tried to sell computers using their Apple music brand, and called them Apple Computers, Apple (U.S.) would be able to sue them for trademark infringement.

Then the question that begs to be answered is the 1991 settlement and why Apple couldn't ship a computer with a synthesizer? How was Apple Computer hurting Apple Corp? Also, the settlement could have stated that neither side admits any wrongdoing. Any lawyer worth a dime would demand that to be included.

 

[Mac Kiwi]

Think of McCartneys music contacts and knowledge and what that could do for Apple music,plus maybe McCartney advertizing Macs to a section of the community who use PCs and have never tried a Mac.ya it sucks Apple have to pay,but they have to pay,and it keeps coming back so its time to get it sorted.There are positives guys because no matter how much we want them to get away with it scot free,that just wont happen.

 

[iPost]

The Beatles need to get over themselves, they were a the
first mass marketed 'pop' band--they were nothing but fluff...

If John Lennon were still alive, he'd probably agree with you.

"I don't believe in Beatles..." -- "God", John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band

 

[Lanbrown]

There are treaties like WIPO that cover trademarks, and both the UK and US are party to them. This is why it was possible for both London and San Francisco to be considered as possible venues for the same suit.

Not all trademarks are international.

On just the US front, look at this:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfiel...h&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

“Word Mark GMAIL
Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Delivery and storage of messages, data and information by electronic transmission over the global computer networks and mobile phones. FIRST USE: 20040331. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20040331
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78394440
Filing Date March 31, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) CENCOURSE, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 4070 Woodridge Rd Miami FLORIDA 33133
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE”

“Word Mark GMAIL
Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: electronic mail services
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78398233
Filing Date April 7, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Owner (APPLICANT) Google Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE Building 41 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE”

 

[Lanbrown]

Think of McCartneys music contacts and knowledge and what that could do for Apple music,plus maybe McCartney advertizing Macs to a section of the community who use PCs and have never tried a Mac.ya it sucks Apple have to pay,but they have to pay,and it keeps coming back so its time to get it sorted.There are positives guys because no matter how much we want them to get away with it scot free,that just wont happen.

Contacts don't mean anything. Business is business and companies will charge the same, it doesn’t matter if a favor can be called in.

For him to advertise would mean he would want money, plain and simple. A big waste of money at that.

And get away with what scot free? So far that hasn't been defined. Apple didn't have the iTMS or the iPod when this first came up.

 

[iPost]

Then the question that begs to be answered is the 1991 settlement and why Apple couldn't ship a computer with a synthesizer? How was Apple Computer hurting Apple Corp? Also, the settlement could have stated that neither side admits any wrongdoing. Any lawyer worth a dime would demand that to be included.

The reason is that The Beatles were trying to get the courts to define the "music industry" in the broadest sense that they possibly could, and therefore get their Apple trademark applied to as much as they could. One could argue that the music industry is that where products are sold for the creation and consumption of music. (I'm just using that as an example; I don't know what they used for the exact wording). If that is the case, then a company selling a product with a music synthesizer would be competing in the "music industry," as a customer could create and consume music with it.

 

[furrina]

If Paul was on the board, Apple would continue to gain street cred, and continue to rock ;-)

um, right. The street with all the Beemers parked on it, right?

 

[Lanbrown]

The reason is that The Beatles were trying to get the courts to define the "music industry" in the broadest sense that they possibly could, and therefore get their Apple trademark applied to as much as they could. One could argue that the music industry is that where products are sold for the creation and consumption of music. (I'm just using that as an example; I don't know what they used for the exact wording). If that is the case, then a company selling a product with a music synthesizer would be competing in the "music industry," as a customer could create and consume music with it.

I was thinking something similar along the lines, but if other computers had that same ability, that would negate that argument. Obviously, the biggest factor is if Apple ever admitted any wrongdoing, and a settlement doesn't count.

 

[iPost]

I was thinking something similar along the lines, but if other computers had that same ability, that would negate that argument. Obviously, the biggest factor is if Apple ever admitted any wrongdoing, and a settlement doesn't count.

To take another example, if there were a company called Apple Televisions, and Apple added a TV tuner to its computers, it would most likely get sued by Apple Televisions, even though there are other computers with TV tuners.

 

[jwhitnah]

Bad, very bad

I'm not sure where I stand on all of this, but it would be nice to get a roadblock out of Apple's way, and let them get some good news, good buzz, and keep making great products.

If Paul was on the board, Apple would continue to gain street cred, and continue to rock ;-)

You really think that? If Al Gore can't raise Apple's marketshare, neither can Paul. I wonder if the Paul of 35 years ago would have approved of his future fat greedy a**? In this world, it is right if you can do it. Mite makes right.

 

[slughead]

There is a possibility that Apple Corps may become a large shareholder in Apple Computer, a result which might bring former Beatle Paul McCartney to the Apple board of directors.

Well there's the grand king champion of bad ideas.

Paul McCartney couldn't direct his butt into a pair of pants without help.

I guess this is what Apple Computer gets for messin' 'round.

 

[Rower_CPU]

Enough of the off-topic stuff, folks. We've got a whole forum for discussing music and musicians and this ain't it.

Keep your discussion on the lawsuit or your posts will be deleted. Thanks

 

[iPost]

Well there's the grand king champion of bad ideas.

Paul McCartney couldn't direct his butt into a pair of pants without help.

I guess this is what Apple Computer gets for messin' 'round.

Apple should place Pete Best on its board of directors. That might prevent Paul from wanting to join ;-)

P.S. I also heard Denny Lane is available.

 

[nagromme]

To take another example, if there were a company called Apple Televisions, and Apple added a TV tuner to its computers, it would most likely get sued by Apple Televisions, even though there are other computers with TV tuners.

A good analogy. But to make it more realistic:

What if there were a company called The Fetals that made well-known and classic TV SHOWS, and was known as The Fetals in everyone's mind... but also used the name Apple Television. And then Apple Computer started making Mac TV tuners and broadcasting TV but NOT making their own shows. And nobody on the planet actually thought The Fetals made Macs or made all those other non-Fetals shows being broadcast. And the Fetals lost nothing from the fact that Apple Computers went into an obvious new area of computing, without bothering to change their brand name.

There's an evern better analogy

 

[melgross]

actual wording

As none of us seem to have the original contract from '91 in hand, we can't say what the agreement was actually about. We think that we know, in general, but that's it.

If the courts thought that Apple was in violation of a trademark, or copyright, then they must have been.

If, by having the iTunes music site, and perhaps the iPod as well, Apple Corp. believes that Apple Computer is in violation of the '91 agreement, they have the right to sue. Maybe not an ethical, or moral decision in the sense that they won't be confused with each other, as they might have been back in '91, and surely they know it.

But an agreement is an agreement. Rights have to be enforced, even if it seems absurd at the time.

The real problem here is that Apple Computer really has no choice about going into the "music business" because every other computer company will be. Even if Apple wasn't such a success.

As others have said, Apple must have calculated the possible costs of doing so.

The costs could be high though. It could cost not only all of the profits from the embargoed business, but up to triple damages. At times it could also cost ALL of the sales as well. But that is very rare. If some agreement isn't made they could also be forced out of the "music business" as well, by being prevented from being involved, in any way, with the prohibited businesses.

Unless, as someone suggested, they buy part, or all of Apple Corp. as part of the settlement.

I'm not sure if Apple Computer would want to own an actual music company. Remember, it was rumored that Apple might want to bid for the music company that Sony eventually bought (I forget the name). What a law suit THAT would have made!

 

[Porchland]

This has been pending for sometime now and if it deals with the iTMS, that was only available in the US in the beginning. So, that would means that Apple Corp would have to file the trademark dispute in the US, no? How can you sue someone for something that is not available, in this case, Britain?

It's not a trademark dispute. It's an action for breach of contract. Apple Records is suing Apple Computers for breach of contract of an agreement between the companies that set their respective boundaries for use of "Apple." Apple Computers breached it big time by using the Apple mark to brand iTunes/iTMS/iPod.

The issue is damages, and you'd have to see the agreement to have any idea what could be contemplated as damages for the breach.

 

[Porchland]

I'm not sure if Apple Computer would want to own an actual music company. Remember, it was rumored that Apple might want to bid for the music company that Sony eventually bought (I forget the name).

BMG. Home of Dave Matthews Band.

Now its SonyBMG.

 

[Lanbrown]

As none of us seem to have the original contract from '91 in hand, we can't say what the agreement was actually about. We think that we know, in general, but that's it.

If the courts thought that Apple was in violation of a trademark, or copyright, then they must have been.

What courts? From what I understand, the 1991 agreement is not public knowledge, which most court cases are. So that would mean the settlement was out of court and one could pay to settle the lawsuit without acknowledging any wrongdoing. This would also prohibit Apple Corp from bringing it up, as Apple Computer didn't admit any wrongdoing.

 

[Lanbrown]

It's not a trademark dispute. It's an action for breach of contract. Apple Records is suing Apple Computers for breach of contract of an agreement between the companies that set their respective boundaries for use of "Apple." Apple Computers breached it big time by using the Apple mark to brand iTunes/iTMS/iPod.

The issue is damages, and you'd have to see the agreement to have any idea what could be contemplated as damages for the breach.

It's also based upon the ORIGINAL dispute, which was the use of the name Apple. Since other companies have the name Apple, one could argue that Apple Corp has not defended their trademark.

 

[Porchland]

The plot thickens: Apple Expo London

Apple.com now has a block on the news page promoting Apple Expo London, coming up November 18-20.

That same week in 2003, Apple refreshed the PowerMac G5, following iBook and iMac updates in October. I don't so much expect that sort of an announcement, but late November would be a great time to announce a new product in the $200-$500 range like a new 60GB iPod that does something the HP iPod doesn't do. iPod was a big deal at Apple Expo London 2003.

If there's an announcement of a deal with Apple Records, this would be the obvious place to do it. A Beatles-on-iTMS announcement wouldn't suck, but I understand that involves issues beyond Apple vs. Apple. (Michael Jackson apparently owns most of the Beatles catalog.)

No announcement yet of an Apple-employed keynote speaker, but the map does show a huge reserved area in the center of the exhibit floor.

Maybe we'll get a major application release/refresh from Apple or one of the major vendors. I keep expecting Keynote 2.0, so maybe here.

 

[JGowan]

I don't follow. "Apple" is only a generic term only when applied to fruit. Therefore, companies are free to trademark the name "Apple" if it is applied to other products/markets.

The Beatles trademarked "Apple" for use in the music industry only. Therefore, they cannot go after any other company named "Apple" unless they enter the music industry. Likewise, Apple Computers has the trademark for Apple when applied to computers.

If The Beatles tried to sell computers using their Apple music brand, and called them Apple Computers, Apple (U.S.) would be able to sue them for trademark infringement.

By that logic, I could start up the Coca-Cola Baseball Bat Company.

 

[Porchland]

What courts? From what I understand, the 1991 agreement is not public knowledge, which most court cases are. So that would mean the settlement was out of court and one could pay to settle the lawsuit without acknowledging any wrongdoing. This would also prohibit Apple Corp from bringing it up, as Apple Computer didn't admit any wrongdoing.

Parts of that SORT of made sense, but not really.

1. Agreements don't have to be public to be enforceable through the courts. Otherwise, no one would make agreements without making them public.

2. Settlement out of court is an option whether or not the agreement is public.

3. I didn't even get the syntax of the last sentence. Maybe you could clarify.

 

[iPost]

There are more articles at:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/08/its_gonna_take_a_resolution/

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html


According to the Boston Globe, there are two court cases: one in the UK and one in the US, which could result in two different outcomes!

 

[jeffy.dee-lux]

Amazing how they influenced Bach, Mozart, Beethoven through some kind of time travel.

Sorry for leaving it up to you to figure out what i meant by "music we hear nowadays". Thanks for your sarcasm.

Anyways, it is neat to hear some of Bach's influence on the Beatles. I even went to a concert once, a baroque ensemble playing an all-Beatles show. The music lended itself very well to that type of instrumentation, of course they had tons of harpsichord and strings in their own recordings anyways.

You even hear one of Bach's two part inventions played on trumpets in the background of "All you need is love", but most people would probably only recognize that tune from cell phone rings, along with a couple other Bach pieces.

As far as a merger making no sense because the two Apple companies do two completely different things...
Mitsubishi makes vcrs and eclipses. Daewoo makes microwaves and Nubiras. I have a shimano fishing reel and a shimano crankset on my bike.
I think Apple, which builds computers that can make music, little hand held things that can play music, and which runs the most successful online music store has something to do with the music industry.

 

[iMeowbot]

Not all trademarks are international.

Well obviously not, one was to, among other things, apply to WIPO for such status.

On just the US front, look at this:

(snip two registrations of the same name for two separate uses, neither of which has any relevance to their possible WIPO trademark status).