snubbr.com

GoDaddy customer reviews : Great idea to go GoDaddy?? Apple suing Apple...good TM example

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan...h_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?..

Comments (28)

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?..

Comment #1

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

Comment #2

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

Comment #3

Http://news.com.com/Mac+maker+mounts...l?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!..

Comment #4

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...

Comment #5

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...

Comment #6

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..

Comment #7

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

Comment #8

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

Comment #9

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...

Comment #10

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

Comment #11

I think Apple Corp should win. We cant let these big companies like Apple computers get too comfortable...

Comment #12

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...

Comment #13

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...

Comment #14

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...

Comment #15

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...

Comment #16

So....

Would this be a case of comparing Apples to Apples??.

Come on, someone had to say it.....

Comment #17

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......

Comment #18

Http://english.ohmynews.com/articlev...90697&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...

Comment #19

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...

Comment #20

It is a data transmission service.

The data they are transmitting is music though..

Comment #21

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

Comment #22

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...

Comment #23

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

Comment #24

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

Comment #25

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...

Comment #26

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

Comment #27

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?..

Comment #28


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.