The Logic Off Topic list

Someone else wrote:
>> Audio/MIDI have been successful on the Mac IN SPITE of Apple
>> not *previously* caring about it (well, there was a legal reason
>> for this:  Apple Records forced Apple Computers to not develop
>> anything for the audio world for something like 10 years, and
>> now this has been lifted as of recently).

On Sunday, October 20, 2002, at 12:00  AM, Michael Gerdau wrote:
> Just for the record:
> before Apple Records could force Apple Computers to the above 
> restriction
> there had been Apple Computers trying to take away the Apple trademark
> from Apple Records (which at least the older among us know have been
> there much longer).
>
> The above mentioned restriction was part of Apple Records winning in
> court against the (IMO outright) claim from Apple Computers.
>
> I'm happy to discuss this further but since it's obviously OT I ask
> to either do it in private or on the OT list.

Important thing to note here...Trademark laws have also changed since 
the days of lore.  So have copyright laws.

A Logo can be used, if the Logo is changed 20% or more percent, 
visually.  Yet more importantly can be proven visually that it is 
distinguishably different.  Then and only then can it be used.  Almost 
like copyright laws for music.  Now, most don't care to do 
this...but...if presented with new trademark laws. It can be legal in 
certain ways.

Now, a word like Apple is not distinctly different than any other 
usages of the word Apple.  It really means Apple.  A word like 
coca-cola or pepsi is distinctly different and suggest deeper meaning 
to their branding.  It is perceptively unique to one company, and one 
company only.  Based on instincts alone, the the word coca-cola 
immediately attract the individual to one concept...Coca Cola, the 
drink.  So therefore, having a company like Coca-Cola publishing or 
Coca-cola records is not permitted under trademark laws.  So Coca Cola 
can change their visual appearance as much as they want and chase any 
avenue they want...They will always be coca cola.  The branding is 
unique and distinguishably different.

However, the word Apple, in an individuals mind suggest a product that 
one gets in a grocery store, by the Trademark laws it is considered 
vague entry.  It is as common as Oranges.  One has to add to the word 
to distinguish one Apple from the other.  So, the trademark laws permit 
the usage of Apple, if Apple is not used in the same usage areas.  So 
if one has Apple Records, I cannot go out and open Apple Publishing.  
Yes, the names are slightly different, but the act of services fall 
under the same category of services.  Also, I cannot use a term like 
Apple Services either, why...cause it vague, what service does one 
provide and for whom.  But if it was not taken, I could use Apple Toys, 
so long as I manufactured and/or distributed toys only.  Hence, means I 
cannot release Kids Music CD.  Yes, Logo would have to change, 20% or 
more.  But it is legal and permissible now.

Is the Apple computer logo 20% different than the Apple Record logo.  
By todays standards.  Yes it is.  If one looks at Apple Records Logo, 
it is distinctly different than Apple Computers Logo.  In an 
individuals mind, are they able to tell the difference.  Yes.  Whether 
the consumer is dumb enough to believe that Apple Computers distributes 
records or vise versa, is no longer the strongest issue.

One is an actual image of an Apple, the other is graphic of an Apple.  
One has a Leaf at the top, the other does not.  One is Green, the other 
was multi colored or uni colored and appears graphically.  Yet now, by 
trademark associations, they are both different.  Despite the branding. 
  One is a company that provides computers, the other publishes 
recordings.  That being considered different.  The whole thing about 
being able to publish music from a Apple Computer, would probably be 
considered to a certain extent.  But, if an artist produced material on 
a Apple Computer, then Apple Records distributed the material...Then 
effectively, Apple Computers is not distributing music, the artist is.  
Kind of puts a case like this, these days, not able fly to high in the 
court system.

Peace,
Alexis