The Beatles have lost their bitter court battle with computer giant Apple over the firm's use of the famous apple logo. Mr. Justice Edward Mann ruled yesterday in London's High Court that the company had not breached trademark agreements because the image was used in association with its store, rather than music operations. Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the families of John Lennon and George Harrison waged war on the company for allegedly going back on a promise not to enter the music industry. But Apple's iTunes download service, launched in 2003, and iPod music player two years earlier pitted the computer company against the Fab Four's own Apple Corps record label, with both boasting an apple logo. The Beatles were seeking substantial damages and a court order preventing Apple Computer from using the image in music projects. They will appeal the decision, while Apple Computer has been awarded court costs.

View: Original Article
News source: IMDb

Hasn't this judge seen a Bealtes Apple record or CD? The Apple store run by the Beatles closed down over 35 years ago. There are millions of Apple records and CD but this judge is saying that they're not about music! Hopefully the Beatles can get a judge who knows something about music next time.

...It's a sad, sad world where you can't even use something as simple as an Apple for your logo anymore...

It's sad that the richest artists make a fuzz about a damn name and logo. I'm glad Apple Computer won.

this was a stupid case. who thinks that people buy music base on a lable. The beatles didnt sell a billion records because of the apple lable , they sold that much because their music was good. i would even bet that the average person(or even most) have no clue what artist has what record lable. esp. in this age of downloading no one even sees a lable.




The judge stated that apple computers is not about music making just music distribution whereas apple records was about music making.. The judge made this call because apple computer doesnt create music and it was the grounds they won with quicktime when apple record sued over that. i say won loosely because this is the lawsuit that apple computers pay royalities to apple records for the name.

So that means you could start your own online music business (say, an online recording studio that allowed people to construct and distribute their own music - something not competing with iTunes, but having to do with music on the internet) and call it "Apple Music Maker" or somesuch, and Apple wouldn't sue YOU because of this precedent? Not likely. This was a bad ruling and will most likely be overturned.

No.

The terms of the deal were explicitly for sale of physical media and them becoming a record company. As Apple (computer) requires independent artists go through another company (CDBaby) they aren't breaking the record deal agreement. As for the physical media, well, digital files don't constitute this, obviously.

This was a money grabbing attempt by Apply Records.

How exactly do digital files not count as physical media? If I buy a song from iTunes, how does that NOT impact the sales of that same song on CD? Apple is playing games with the law rather than following it.

Is any of Apple Records music on iTunes? I know the Beatles aren't, which I'm sure is the biggest name of that label. So there is no sale loss on iTunes because YOU CAN'T BUY THE MUSIC THERE.