I had read about this in the paper last week and thought it was interesting. I know we are ready to tackle trademark issues in class this week. Although this contraversy took place in England, I still find it interesting in comparing how an American court might look at this issue.

In 1991, Apple and Apple Records (Beatle’s record company) entered into an agreement that Apple could use their logo for the computer business and Apple Records could use their logo in the music industry. This seemed to work out fine until Itunes was born and Apple Records thought that Apple was turning itself into a mini record company. In the initial decision, the court ruled on the side of Apple saying digital media was different than physical media and could not be liable.

Of course, Apple records appealed. Apparently, before reaching the appeals court, on February 5th, they settled and now Apple owns all trademarks and would license some of them back to Apple Recording.

It’s interesting that this became such a big issue in Great Britain. I really do not think it would be over here. I would venture that both Apple for a music company and a computer company would be arbitrary or fanciful and would obtain high trademark protection.

However, when a court looks at trademark infringement, they consider whether there is a high liklihood of confusion. Several factors are considered. However, based on my gut reaction, I really dont see how a record label and a computer company who offers music from different record labels for digital download would be confusing to the average consumer.

For more info, you can look at this article about some of the specifics.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070205/apple_beatles.html

Kelley Waterfall