News 

'With great respect to the trial judge, we consider he has reached the wrong conclusion,' Neil Aspinall, Apple Corps' manager, said in a statement. 'We felt that during the course of the trial we clearly demonstrated just how extensively Apple Computer had broken the agreement. We will accordingly be filing an appeal.'

Mr Justice Edward Mann had earlier presented a 111-point ruling that concluded that there was no breach of the trademark agreement had been demonstrated.

He said that any reasonable user understands the difference between a retailer - in this case Apple Computer - and a record label - Apple Corps.

'Such a user would be familiar with the notion of buying recordings of creative works from a retailer, and would be capable of not seeing any other association between retailer and the music other than that arising out of the sale itself,' he said, rejecting Apple Corps complaint that its namesake is using the apple logo for an activity prohibited by the 1991 agreement. In this case, he said, Apple Computer is not using the apple logo to brand music he said, but to brand the iTunes Music Store.

'For instance, if you buy Kodak film in Boots and it is put in a bag labelled "Boots", only a trademark lawyer might say that "Boots" is being used as a trade mark for film,' he explained. 'Mere physical proximity between sign and goods may not make the use of the sign in relation to the goods. Perception matters too.'

Justice Mann also rejected Apple Corps' claim that by selling 'exclusive' tracks through the iTMS, Apple Computer was breaching the '91 agreement by effectively acting as a record label.

'The availability of exclusive tracks is in the nature of an "in store" offer by a retailer, and does not carry the necessary association

ADVERTISEMENT

into existence,' he said. 'In relation to these tracks [Apple]Computer is still a purveyor of downloaded content, albeit exclusive for a limited time in relation to the tracks. The boxed sets are merely a way of packaging what is otherwise sold on the site. The specially recorded music comes pretty close to the line, but at the end of the day the question is not whether [Apple] Computer commissions it in any sense (it is allowed to do that) but how it is presented to the world in relation to its mark. There is a closer association with the mark "iTunes", but that does not fully carry over to the apple logo.'

Mann's decision may have been influenced by Aspinall's behaviour in court. Mann noted that the Apple Corps boss had had dealings with Apple Computer around the time of the launch of the iTMS and was given the demonstration of the store.

'He professed not to be a technical man, and professed no affinity with computers whatsoever,' the judge said. 'I think that he sought to portray himself as somewhat more naïve about and ignorant about technological issues than is really the case. I do not consider that he can have successfully carried out his job for as many years as he has held it had he been quite as distanced from these things as he sought to portray in the witness box.'

He went on to say that he accepted that Aspinall is not a technical man and has no reason to be one, but said that he thought him 'capable of a greater grasp of these things than he wished to demonstrate'. However he did not go as far as to say his evidence was anything but reliable.

'I consider that his evidence was honest and, apart from the matter I have just referred to, straightforward.'

Apple CEO Steve Jobs welcomed the ruling and.

'We are glad to put this disagreement behind us,' he said.

'We have always loved the Beatles, and hopefully we can now work together to get them on the iTunes Music Store.'

However, the chances of that look slim so long as Apple Corps goes ahead with its appeal. Keith Badman, an author of several books about the band, said that they will not back down.

'We've lost John and George, and this is their music, their legacy, their heritage,' he said. 'They just want to make sure they're protected.'