On 16/9/03 3:41 am, "iMac List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:04:49 -0700 > Subject: Re: Beatles lawsuit vs Apple? > From: Lucifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > There's no problem using the same name as an existing company as long > as your new company is in a different industry. McDonald's > Restaurants, to my knowledge, has never tried to sue McDonald-Douglas, > as the latter company manufactures aircrafts, and it's highly unlikely > consumers would be confused. Naming a restaurant McSushi, as > referenced in another post, does seem an obvious attempt to associate > the restaurant with McDonald's in consumers' minds, possibly even to > fool consumers into thinking McDonald's has opened a chain of sushi > places. > > The issue here is that Apple Computer makes agreements with Apple > Records, then blatantly breaks the agreements a few years down the line: > > * The initial settlement allowed Apple Computer to use the name as long > as they didn't manufacture computers with sound. A couple years later, > Apple manufactured computers with sound, and went so far as to name a > system sound "sosumi." > > * That case was settled, with the new provision that Apple Computer > never get into the business of selling or marketing music. A few years > later, Apple began selling and marketing music. > > It's pretty obvious Apple was aware they were breaking the first > agreement, as they basically baited Apple Records with the "so sue me" > thing. They must have been well aware this suit was coming, too. It > doesn't help that Jobs, a huge fan of the Beatles, has admitted he > named his computer company after their record label. > > And yeah, a company can weaken its case if it doesn't speak up when its > mark is being clearly infringed. If Apple Records didn't sue now, they > may not be able to prevent someone in the future from establishing, > say, a radio station called "WAPL-FM: Apple Radio 105.7!" The radio > station could argue that Apple Records didn't seem to mind when Apple > Computer distributed music using the Apple name, so they shouldn't be > concerned that someone else is also doing so. > > Rev
Out of all the comments on the Apple vs Apple this is the only one that echo's my thoughts. Additionally it doesn't make any difference what one thinks of the right or wrongs associated with Apples involvement in music, legal agreements have to be kept. If you don't negotiate around them then be prepared to accept the consequences. Apple Inc has itself taken legal action against other companies using variations of its name. Here in the UK they forced under the threat of legal action a Mac friendly ISP to change its name to MacUnlimited. The proposed action by Apple Corps should come as no surprise, Apple Inc could have only been wondering when. Steve Bell -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
