Apple vs. Apple trial begins | iLounge News


Apple vs. Apple trial begins


The Beatles’ Apple Corps and Apple Computer faced off in court on Wednesday in the first day of their trademark battle over the Apple logo and the iTunes Music Store. “Apple Computer can go into the recorded music business in any way they want. What they cannot do is use Apple (trade)marks to do it,” Apple Corps counsel Geoffrey Vos said in his opening presentation. Vos said the use of the Apple logo on the iTunes Music Store is a violation of a previous agreement.

In a courtroom with computers and at least one iPod, Vos demonstrated the iTunes Music Store experience by downloading a song and playing it for Justice Edward Mann. Vos said Apple’s logo is “intimately associated with the process” of buying a song. The Apple Corps lawyer also played a TV ad with Coldplay that featured the logo.

Vos said that Apple Computer’s argument that it uses the logo only in connection with a delivery system was “plainly wrong.” “What Apple Computers are not doing (when) using the Apple mark is selling software, delivery systems, or anything of the like. They are selling music,

Related Stories



Someone needs to tell Apple Corps that no one knows who they are and could really care less about them. It’s hard to mistake Apples logo for theirs when you don’t know who they are.

I’m a huge music fan and I know Apple Corps but people like my father, who grew up with the beatles and was huge fan don’t know Apple Corps. Teens certainly don’t

Posted by nosedive51 on March 29, 2006 at 1:33 PM (CST)


Apple Computers know they are in the wrong here - why else would they offered $1 million to Apple Corps for the rights to use the name and logo on the iTunes Music Store?
An agreement is an agreement folks! It doesn’t matter if nosedive51’s father or any teen doesn’t know about Apple Corps - that doesn’t change copyright laws; logo laws or any settlements made in the past.
I guess as long as it’s not your company name or likeness or logo thats being used you can - as you say - really care less.

Posted by otisbarr1 on March 29, 2006 at 1:58 PM (CST)


This from the same company that is bullying people to not use the ‘-pod’ suffix.  A taste of their own medicine is not a bad thing, I think.

I agree with otisbarr1, and the Golden Rule :-).

Posted by kokketiel on March 29, 2006 at 2:13 PM (CST)


otis, This trial will undoubtedly cost Apple Comp. much more than $1M in legal fees to try, whether they win or lose. To me, that is a pretty low, though not necessarily unreasonable offer.

Posted by ninophile on March 29, 2006 at 2:13 PM (CST)


I wouldn’t be so quick to just say Apple is in the wrong and they know it. Just because the counsel for Apple Corps says that Apple offered to pay $1 million for such and such reason doesn’t mean Apple will agree with that statement. Apple could very well have their own side of the story when it comes to the $1 million offer as soon as they give their opening presentation. One must listen to both sides of the story before making a fair judgement. It’s funny listening to different media outlets covering the story in different ways. Some news outlets say stuff like Apple agreed to never sell records or CD’s. In that sense, Apple is not physically selling records or CD’s. I guess thats why they are in court. To find out all of the facts. One sides opening statements to do not qualify as all of the facts.

Posted by tobiwan on March 29, 2006 at 2:16 PM (CST)


ninophile, I think you have your facts confused.  Jobs originally offered Apple Corps $1M for the rights to use the Apple name and Apple Corps refused.  My guess is that the whole reason for this trial is that Apple Corps wants way more money than Apple Comp is willing to pay, like $100M or so.  At that level, both Apple Corps and Apple Comp would be willing to take their chances at trial.

Either that or Apple Corps really wants the injunction and won’t settle for anything less.

Posted by wowoah on March 29, 2006 at 2:18 PM (CST)


Is it just me or is this as stupid as it seems? I would venture to guess that there are quite a few Beatles fans that have no idea what Apple Corps is. Fans or not, there are not many people in the west who aren’t familiar with Apple Computers. This is as it should be if you consider that Apple Comp. is truely in its prime. Apple Corp. on the other hand, exists for the sole purpose of collecting the profits of a once great bands tallent, which many would argue is long gone.(Yes, the Beatles music is still great but I don’t see them releasing much more in the way of new music) Apple Computer’s logo is not easily mistaken for Apple Corps so it sounds to me like Apple Corps. might not be making as much money as it once did and could be looking to bennefit from Apple Comp. recent success. The Beatles were easily one of the most important bands in the history of pop music but this shouldn’t mean that no one, in music, should ever be able to profit from the name Apple. After all, what if Gwenith Paltrow’s daughter ended up being the next Meriah Cary? I can see it now, “The Emancipation of Apple” hummm….. sounds like trouble.

Posted by T.S. on March 29, 2006 at 2:20 PM (CST)


Apple Computer should offer to pay Apple Corps. $0.01 USD for every purchased download.  Steve Jobs stole their name and violated their contract to never get in the music business.  This is like when Jobs stole all the ideas for the 1st Mac from XEROX PARC which he freely admits.

Posted by Tchocky on March 29, 2006 at 2:26 PM (CST)


Maybe Apple Computer and Apple Corps. could come to some type of agreement here. Have iTunes have Beatles songs on it exclusively (no other music store) and have Apple Corps. get a share of the music store’s revenue.

Loss of money for Apple, but they gain the Beatles.

Posted by Bryan on March 29, 2006 at 2:28 PM (CST)



Posted by Werewolf on March 29, 2006 at 2:31 PM (CST)


Apple bought the shelved idea from Xerox, moron.

Posted by sshafer on March 29, 2006 at 2:54 PM (CST)


It always amazes me with cases like this how many armchair lawyers we have coming out of the woodwork. “Apple is at fault and they know it!”, “Jobs violated the contract even though I’ve personally never read it!”

Come on, folks. Back off and let the people who actually were involved in this do their thing. They probably know a lot more about the gritty details of this agreement than you do. Furthermore, the judge is the final say in this case, not the general public. Perhaps Apple Computer is at fault, perhaps they’re not. Leave this case to the professionals.

Posted by Moe on March 29, 2006 at 2:58 PM (CST)


I have never heard of them! Apple rocks and should always! apples are apples!

Posted by LawnBoy on March 29, 2006 at 3:02 PM (CST)


I agree with this argument: Apple records is a record label, Apple’s foray into music is a content delivery system and a music player, which are in different markets and therefore apple computers aren’t trying to muscle in on apple records market.

Posted by Ethan on March 29, 2006 at 4:08 PM (CST)


Why doesn’t they bother suing the other record labels that have the word Apple in their name.

Posted by petervcook on March 29, 2006 at 4:14 PM (CST)


Apple Corps owns the trademark that they registered in 1968. They continue to use it for sound recordings, films, etc.

Apple Computer has twice lost in court and has paid damages for using the Apple name for their products.

Regardless of what products are put out by Apple Corps and how recognizable their trademark is, it’s still THEIR trademark.

Posted by gojohnnygo on March 29, 2006 at 4:36 PM (CST)


Imagine how much *more* money Apple Corps could have by now if they would just shut up and sell Beatles tunes on iTunes…  I mean, honestly, what are they trying to gain here?

Posted by m.sherman on March 29, 2006 at 4:50 PM (CST)


I think I want to go out and trademark a banana.  I didn’t know you could trademark fruit.  Who would have ever thought that you could trademark fruit and then sue someone because it shows up some where.

Posted by ydkjman on March 29, 2006 at 5:20 PM (CST)


(Someone needs to tell Apple Corps that no one knows who they are and could really care less about them,Teens certainly don’t)

Well if most of today’s teens got a better musical education they might actually care, and just because you don’t know who or what something is does’nt negate it’s validity.

Posted by STEVEN BATES on March 29, 2006 at 5:23 PM (CST)


Why doesn’t Apple computer just buy Apple Corps and be done with it.  How much could it cost?  It cold easily be done with a stock swap.  Then they can offer the whole Beatles catalog plus make money on physical album sales and put our fav logo on the CDs. ;)

Posted by Jim on March 29, 2006 at 5:24 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy