Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!psuvax1!vu-vlsi!swatsun!garth
From: garth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Garth Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: The Beatles sue Apple
Keywords: lawyers
Message-ID: <2502@masada.cs.swarthmore.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 89 21:44:12 GMT
References: <1250@husc6.harvard.edu> <20765@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1046@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> <15565@oberon.USC.EDU>
Reply-To: bpa!swatsun!garth (Garth Snyder)
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac
Distribution: usa
Organization: SUN Lab, Swarthmore College, PA
Lines: 25

[ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. ]

    In article <1046@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> (M. A. Pasek) writes:
    
    > Does it seem like the only people to receive any benefit from all
    > of this is the lawyers, judges, court clerks, etc. ??  I certainly
    > can tell the difference between a Beatles record and a Macintosh!!
    
    In article <15565@oberon.USC.EDU> (Stephen Kurtzman) writes:
    
    > Doesn't matter what you can tell. If Steve Jobs had been enamored
    > of another fruit there would be no lawsuit. The fact is that the
    > Beatles owned the word "Apple" as a trademark.
    
Yes it does.  Trademarks can only be registered for a specific
industry.  This is a natural consequence of the fact that trademarks
must be "commonly recognized" to be valid.  Since Apple Computer was
not previously involved in the music business, it would not
necessarily have lost a court battle with Apple records.

--------------------
Garth Snyder                 UUCP: {bpa,liberty}!swatsun!garth
Swarthmore College     ARPA/CSNET: garth@cs.swarthmore.edu
Swarthmore, PA 19081         ALSO: garth@boulder.colorado.edu
--------------------