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?

 

[007]

If you ask me, Apple Corp has much more important and basic things to attend to right now... the first being dealing with the fact that they don't even own http://applecorp.com/, but a fan site of some sort does....

 

[labrocca]

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=329494&no=290697&rel_no=1

very interesting outcome...good victory for Apple...and it goes to show that 2 companies can do business under different categories yet the same name.

In a trial settled today, May 8 2006, Apple Computer argued that their online services was merely data transfer, and thereby permitted by the 1991 agreement. Judge Edward Mann agreed, and ruled that the logo of Apple Computer has only been used to brand the iTunes Music Store, not the music sold there.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Actually, I believe the outcome was based on the previous 1992 agreement more than TM law. Apple corp paid for expanded usage of the TM to Apple Records. It was an intereresting case... expect an appeal.

 

[Reppy]

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!

It is a data transmission service.

The data they are transmitting is music though :D

 

[greggish]

Boy was I wrong. From the limited amount I know about the case I have to conclude that the Judge is an idiot.

 

[B33R]

I really wanted Apple Corp to win. The other Apple need bringing down a peg or two.

lol @ "the judge is an idiot" -- aren't all judges? Politicians too.
All totally clueless when it comes to technology after about 1980 and completely out of touch with modern life.

 

[greggish]

http://techdirt.com/articles/20060508/1015255.shtml

A 1991 agreement between the two companies specifically allowed for data transmission and the judge deserves credit for understanding what iTunes truly is. Hopefully more people will recognize that laws regulating specific kinds of media are outmoded in an era when it can all be broken down into indistinguishable streams of data.

Yup, the judge really understood the true essence of what iTunes really is, not a music distribution service, but rather, a "data transmission" service. I wish every person sued by the RIAA can have their case decided by this judge. Afterall, they weren't downloading copyrighted songs, they were just receiving a stream of data, and of course that has nothing to do with music...

 

[007]

I agree with this decision. Thanks for the link greggish. Good read.

 

[labrocca]

Data delivery even if it's music isn't what the Apple music company is about. I do hand it to the judge for distinguishing the difference.

 

[primacomputer]

Actually, I believe the outcome was based on the previous 1992 agreement more than TM law.

Exactly. This is about interpretation of a contract that happens to involve a trademark.

 

[jerometan]

The link does not seem to be working?

I got a Technical Assistance / File Not Found error.

Perhaps the article has been deleted?

Anyone can post a fresh link?