Apple Computer vs. Apple Corps

Dear Apple Corps:

I was a huge Sesame Street fan growing up. My parents didn't let us watch most of the junk of TV but Sesame Street was on the approved list. And so I became quite familiar with the show and and some of its memorable songs. The "pinball" song that counts from 1-12, or Ernie's "Rubber Ducky" song, or my favorite "One of these things is not like the other" which was used to teach small children how to differentiate between things that are similar but different.

Seeing as you, the executives at Apple Corps--the music publishing label responsible primarily for The Beatles music--didn't appear to have watched much Sesame Street to learn this valuable elementary skill, I felt it would be useful to help you out a bit.

Here's a list of things that have similar names but are not the same:

1) General Mills makes breakfast cereal. General Motors makes automobiles.
2) Discovery Channel is a television station. Discover Card is a credit card company.
3) Cisco makes networking switches. Sysco is a large food distributor.

See the pattern, Apple Corps? Just because two things have similar names, doesn't mean they are in competition with each other. I know your fear is that legions of confused consumers might end up wandering aimlessly around the growing number of Apple Stores looking for Beatles music but really, have a little more faith in the intelligence of your customers. After all, I don't hear stories of restaurants suddenly getting deliveries of Catalyst switches instead of potatoes, or people shopping for their Lucky Charms at their local dealership.

Instead you give us another lawsuit over the Apple brand name. This has been legally settled several times in the past with Apple Computer paying you many millions of dollars. Give it a rest. Apple Computer has single-handedly saved the music industry from obsolescence and helped it migrate to the digital future. Millions of people are buying songs from the iTunes Music Store, netting a profit for all parties involved (though the benefit to the artist is still questionable), and yet arguably the single most popular band of all time is still missing from the most popular downloadable music store. All for a stupid argument over a name?

Sesame Street taught me to understand the differences between similar things, but it also taught me that greed is bad and that underestimating people is a mistake. I would love to see the statistics on the little search box that Apple Computer includes in their iTunes program. How many people do you think are searching the ITMS every day for Beatles music to buy? I'm willing to bet it's a very large number. Every day that Beatles music isn't available for sale on the iTunes Music Store is a day that you lose. Get a clue and release your substantial and popular music library to the iTunes Music Store and stop beating that dead legal horse. Few, if any, of your customers care about the name of your record label or that it's similar to the name of a popular computer company.

View Tags

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2105800,00.html

Categories

Analysis / Opinion iTunes Apple

Dear Apple Corps:I was a huge Sesame Street fan growing up. My parents didn't let us watch most of the junk of TV but Sesame Street was on...

Add a Comment

Sign in »

67 Comments

Filter by:

Tim Chladek

Obviously you haven't read many details of the case. Apple computers has been told in the past it is fine to use the name as long as they don't do anything in the music industry. Distributing music on itunes definitely falls into this realm. Now knowing that you are completely uninformed on the case it also safe to assume that you even less informed on trademark law and why it exists: Company's don't have to be in direct competition to fall under trademark infringement. The test is whether they are close enough to confuse a consumer. If it is violates the trademark. Here is an example why: Take for example a restaurant and a grocery store. They are not affiliated but they have the same name and similar branding. It makes the consumer confused as to their affiliation and therefore jeopardizes the name of the business that owns the trademark. I think this is a pretty clear cut case and Apple computers is going to lose. Bottom line, Jobs was an idiot for using that name and logo in the first place. This is not about who is a bigger or better company, that is a stupid argument. It is about who owns the rights. If you think that a bigger company should be able to indiscriminately infringe on the rights of a smaller company simply because they are bigger i think we could all be in for a lot of trouble.

April 27 2006 at 11:58 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

D-Money

I'm rooting for Apple Computer. They made great products such as Power Mac G5 with IBM, and MacBook Pro with Intel, but the iPod this is the best one of them all! Now with Video? Man what the Apple Corps released lately not a bitch ass thing! What another Beatles Greatest Hits CD? Now they wait till Apple sell Billion Songs now they sue. I think that these dinosaurs are on prozac or zanax whatever they on. They need get off Apple's TIP. People we need to blow there mail & email address up saying that we will boycott they sorry asses if continue sueing Apple Computers. We need to send a message because that could be us owning a computer company like apple and getting sues by bubble gum fad pop group over bullshit!

April 23 2006 at 9:51 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Chris Albert

Did they teach you about thievery on Sesame Street? How many of you would want to lose your identity? Music last forever,flash drives can be hacked and thrown in the trash.

April 10 2006 at 10:38 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bobby T

i dont think its a big deal that apple comp is in the music business now. the only thing they really have is itunes. that is software for the ipod. whats the big deal?? the beatles arent getting enough money? they are set for more than life as it is. if people want to buy the beatles music they will have to resort to apple corps bc itunes doesnt allow the beatles music to be bought!

April 05 2006 at 5:51 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bobby T

April 05 2006 at 5:50 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bobby T

The Apple Corp has no business in taking Apple Computers to court. Its been years since the Beatles have recorded a new record, its not like apple computers is taking away from record sales

April 05 2006 at 5:41 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Samantha

I agree with some of the posts regarding the fact that apple corps is highly unlikely to be confused or mixed up in any way with apple computers regardless of their similiar trademarks/logos, but the fact remains that trademarks are important and are protected under the Lanhan Act for a reason. There may very well be people out there that may get confused as to which company is involved in a particular field.. especially if they are both in the music business. The main question regarding the lawsuit is the actual details of the 91 settlement, and any particular damnages that Apple Corps may taken incurred if there was a breach of contract...

April 04 2006 at 8:54 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Greg

"As for your point, I believe Apple Computers told Apple Corporation that they wouldn't get into the music business."

Since when is APPLE Computer in the Music business? I mean - ok, they are in the Music business the way Wal-Mart is in the music business. They SELL music and the ROYALTIES get paid to Apple Corps. Oh - that's bad indeed...

Someone get my 2x4 of education.

April 04 2006 at 4:09 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

necus mayne

You would think that after being sued a second time by apple corps that apple computers would have figured out the wording in their agreement to make sure they never have to deal with the issue. Now for them to encounter the same problem for a third time is their own fault and they really deserve everything they get.

April 03 2006 at 6:14 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

necus mayne

April 03 2006 at 6:10 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply