Apple suing Apple...good TM example

[labrocca]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8GL8MS00.htm?campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc

This is something that might teach a few noobs about TM law. Too often we hear "generic" terms can't be TM'ed which of course if false. So now here we have 2 companies with the term TM'ed for Apple and with Apple computer stepping on Apple Corp (music label) turf. In 1991 they made an agreement which Apple Corp now contends that Itunes service violates that agreement.

Any opinions?

 

[robertjr]

I would think that if the agreements "field of use" covers all music related areas, Apple Corps Ltd will have a great chance. But, I doubt it did so I think Apple Computer Inc will prevail. I do not see a "delivery system" being the same as the product itself.

What's your take Jesse?

 

[labrocca]

I would love to see their "field of use" agreement. I have a feeling in the end this will settle.

 

[greggish]

I think the two parties will come to a new settlement $agreement$.

 

[greggish]

Anthony Grabiner, lead counsel for the Mac maker, argued that the market-leading iTunes Music Store is primarily a data transmission service.

"Data transmission is within our field of use," Grabiner said of the agreement with Apple Corps, a United Kingdom-based company representing the legal interests of The Beatles.

http://news.com.com/Mac+maker+mount...lawsuit/2100-1030_3-6055805.html?tag=nefd.top

If that is really the crux of Apple's whole legal argument over why they are not in violation of the 91 agreement which reiterated that Apple can't use the Apple trademark for music related services and products, then Apple is going to lose. It's laughable to say that iTunes is a "data" transmission service. It's a "music" transmission service!

 

[B33R]

I don't see how Apple (Corps) can lose. Big Apple are definitely in the wrong on this one.

Although I am left wondering why it took them so long to act on it..... looks like they were waiting for Big Apple to grow iTunes before they pursued it.

 

[greggish]

I don't see how Apple (Corps) can lose. Big Apple are definitely in the wrong on this one.

Although I am left wondering why it took them so long to act on it..... looks like they were waiting for Big Apple to grow iTunes before they pursued it.

We don't know how long Apple and Apple Corps may have been in talks about this working on a possible settlement even before the legal process began a while ago. This now is just the tail end of it all.

 

[DNQuest.com]

If I recall correctly, Apple Corps did approach Apple Computer a long while ago and I think there may have been talks between the 2 before Apple Corps.

I think there will be $ettlement here and I believe Apple Corps would win in a battle...

You Pay me yeah, yeah ,yeah
All you need is Cash
Rollover Computer

lol

 

[greggish]

Well, in 1991 Apple had to pay them $26 Mil. It's going to be a hell of lot more than that this time.

 

[tm]

I would think that if the agreements "field of use" covers all music related areas, Apple Corps Ltd will have a great chance. But, I doubt it did so I think Apple Computer Inc will prevail. I do not see a "delivery system" being the same as the product itself.

It seems that the "field of use" on Apple Computer's side is electronic devices. iTunes is not exactly a electronic device - its more of a music store; which is why the other Apple are angry.

 

[RS]

This could get interesting. :p

 

[edwinfelix]

Generic terms can be TM'ed as a name, but if you have a generic domain, it's hard for the TM owner(s) to WIPO you.

 

[ApocComputing]

i hope apple computer wins, i dont like the beatles...

 

[createmx]

I think Apple Corp should win. We can’t let these big companies like Apple computers get too comfortable.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Generic terms can be TM'ed as a name, but if you have a generic domain, it's hard for the TM owner(s) to WIPO you.

This is a completely wrong statement, please do a search on "TM" and "trademarks" and spend several days reading.

Just read this post AND the link... Apple is generic, but not in TM law. Apple IS NOT generic in the field of technology and music.

 

[Dave_Z]

Kinda reminds me of what happened to wwf.com.

 

[primacomputer]

Unless anyone has seen the agreement previous reached between the two companies it's hard to know what it says. Regardless things have changed so much since then that it may simply not even cover what it going on today. At that end of the day it will likely come down to the fact that Apple Corps was using this trademark long before Apple Computer. That the market has changed and music and computers are now closely related is irrelevant to the fact that as a result of following this market trend Apple has altered the scope of their use of the mark.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Kinda reminds me of what happened to wwf.com.

I always thought that decision was kind of kooky to begin with. WWE just doesn't have the same ring to the name. But they did have an agreement many years ago which a judge deemed the WWF(E) violated the terms.

 

[jberryhill]

Unless anyone has seen the agreement previous reached between the two companies it's hard to know what it says.

Correct, and as suggested by Labrocca also, what matters here is interpretation of the agreement, and not any general principle of trademark law. This is a contract case, and it would have made a lot more sense for Apple Computer to have dealt with this issue by renegotiating the contract or clearing their music business plans with the record company PRIOR to becoming a big juicy financial target.

 

[DNQuest.com]

So....

Would this be a case of comparing Apples to Apples?? :lol:



come on, someone had to say it...