Suit wants computer maker to drop logo from iTunes store
LONDON, England (AP) -- A lawyer for Apple Computer Inc. on Thursday dismissed as ridiculous a long-running trademark infringement claim by The Beatles' Apple Corps record label that has landed the two cultural icons in Britain's High Court.
Attorney Anthony Grabiner said "even a moron in a hurry" could distinguish between the computer company's iTunes online music business and a record company like Apple Corps.
At the core of the Apple vs. Apple dispute are conflicting interpretations of a 1991 agreement that ended more than a decade of legal wrangling between the two companies.
Grabiner rejected Apple Corps Ltd.'s claim that the tech company's iTunes Music Store violated the trademark agreement, in which the two companies promised not to tread on the other's sphere of business.
He said the computer company had paid the Fab Four's firm U.S. $26.5 million as part of the 1991 out-of-court settlement, and in return had received "a considerably expanded field of use." The terms of the deal were kept confidential at the time.
Grabiner said the "distribution of digital entertainment content" was permitted at Apple Computer under the agreement.
"Data transmission is within our field of use. That's what (the agreement) says and it is inescapable," he said.
Apple Corps' lawyer Geoffrey Vos had argued that Apple Computer's music distribution business "was flatly contradictory to the provisions of the agreement."
Apple Corps was started by The Beatles in 1968 and is still owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, the widow of John Lennon and the estate of George Harrison.
It is suing Apple Computer to force them to drop their apple logo from the iTunes Music Store and is also asking for damages, though a monetary figure has not been named.
Vos argued Wednesday that that while Apple Computer is perfectly entitled to produce programs like iTunes, it should stay out of the music business if it uses the logo, a cartoon apple with a neat bite out of its side.
Apple Corps' logo is a green Granny Smith apple.
Vos said the 1991 agreement set out the areas each company could operate in using their respective apple trademarks, and that by selling music under the apple mark, the computer company was overstepping its boundaries.
Grabiner said the fact that Apple Computer distributed music didn't make it a record label, and so did not violate the agreement -- which set Apple Corps' domain as music content and Computer's as hardware, software and the digital distribution of data.
He said no "reasonable person" would assume that Apple Computer created or owned the 3.5 million songs on its hugely successful iTunes music store.
"It's obvious that the content comes from a wide variety of content providers," he said. "It's obvious that Apple Computer is not the source or origin of the content."
Citing an oft-repeated legal argument, Grabiner said that "even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about that."
Most record companies have welcomed iTunes, because -- unlike pirate music sites -- it protects their copyright and collects a fee. But the Apple vs. Apple dispute means that no Beatles music is available on iTunes.
"We haven't unfortunately been able to persuade Apple Corps in relation to their Beatles catalogue," said Grabiner. "But we have persuaded everybody else."
The case is being heard by Edward Mann, a computer-literate judge who has acknowledged owning an iPod music player.
At one point Thursday he stopped Grabiner during the lawyer's explanation of Apple Computer's iLife software suite.
"ILife is not a complete novelty to me. I've got it and I use it," the judge said.
Grabiner apologized for explaining the obvious, but said that should the case go to a higher court, an older judge might not be so savvy.
"The higher up one goes, the less likely it is that anyone will know what we're talking about," he said.
The trial, which began Wednesday, is expected to last at least five days.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Lawyer: Apple trademark claim silly
Edit
Reply
Quote
