The Long & Winding Road

At 11:45 -0700 on 8/5/06, Marilyn Matty wrote:

>Apple/iTunes just won the first round of its battle of the bands vs.
>The Beatles:

Hardly the *first* round!

--
Alec McKenzie
alecmckenzie.me.uk

This must be a FAQ: "Apple Corps" has got to rank among the invisible "brands" of the world. Does anyone care what else they publish, apart from the Beatles? Why are they fighting so hard for a brand that has no value apart from the real brand "The Beatles"?

>This must be a FAQ: "Apple Corps" has got to rank among the invisible
>"brands" of the world. Does anyone care what else they publish,
>apart from the Beatles? Why are they fighting so hard for a brand
>that has no value apart from the real brand "The Beatles"?


...and Badfinger, of course. ;)


--

_________________________________________
chuck goolsbee - fully RFC 1925 compliant

Bob Peterson wrote:
> This must be a FAQ: "Apple Corps" has got to rank among the invisible
> "brands" of the world. Does anyone care what else they publish,
> apart from the Beatles? Why are they fighting so hard for a brand
> that has no value apart from the real brand "The Beatles"?

None of the above matters in trademark law.

And you might be showing your age. Apple is a well known brand to those
of us of a certain age. :)

On May 9, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Bob Peterson wrote:

> This must be a FAQ: "Apple Corps" has got to rank among the invisible
> "brands" of the world. Does anyone care what else they publish,
> apart from the Beatles? Why are they fighting so hard for a brand
> that has no value apart from the real brand "The Beatles"?

In general, people love the Beatles (esp. me) and love their songs,
and this extends beyond the not as demographically desirable baby
boomers and gen-xers to harder to influence younger age brackets.
People have a relationship to the "Beatles" moniker that establishes
an immediate and unique emotional bond that can have a very lucrative
rub off effect on other products. Apple Corps and their logo are
solidly associated with The Beatles, The White Album, Abby Road,
Yellow Submarine, etc. They did market, distribute and probably still
own the rights to other artists, like Mary Hopkins' "Those Were The
Days."

"The Beatles" is probably one of the most respected, revered and
trusted brands there are. Their music catalog alone is worth
gazillions of dollars and helps fund Michael Jackson's lifestyle.
Consumer & licensed music for movies, commercials, sampling, etc. is
a critical part of this equation. I forgot how much Nike paid to use
"Revolution" and "Instant Kharma" in their commercials for a while -
it was in the millions for each, though the "commercialization" of
his songs might have made John Lennon turn over in his grave. (Yoko
Ono did allow Lennon's image to appear in Apple's "Think Different
campaign, though Apple made a charitable donation in his name in lieu
of payment). Apple Corps controls just about anything to do with The
Beatles that hasn't been previously signed away.

I recently saw an episode of "Antiques Roadshow" in which someone
brought in a pristine set of Beatles dolls in their original boxes,
produced circa 1965 or so, which were valued at quite a pretty penny
(an aside - my sister and I both had sets of Beatles dolls way back
when, which were trashed my mother, who also threw away my hand me
down copy of The First Superman Annual, a solid mahogany antique
writing desk, and handmade Turkish rugs that came over on the boat to
America with my grandmother, among other things). Although The
Beatles have not licensed their name to products for decades, it
would be an INCREDIBLY lucrative franchise if and when they do.

Look at how valuable a franchise "Elvis" is, and consider how
Graceland was recently sold for gazillions so the new owners can
develop a super theme park there. While the surviving Beatles and
their immediate families might not want to cash in on this at the
moment, who is to say they, or their heirs, might not decide to do
otherwise in the future?

Though I might be happy that that Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer
decision turned out the way it did, and would rather than Apple Corps
had "let it be," I can understand why Apple Corps would zealously try
to guard their uniquely valuable franchise.

Marilyn

> Though I might be happy that that Apple Corps vs. Apple Computer
> decision turned out the way it did, and would rather than Apple Corps
> had "let it be," I can understand why Apple Corps would zealously try
> to guard their uniquely valuable franchise.
>
One of the issues with trademark law is you have to actively defend the
"mark" or you can loose it. Thus big organizations with valuable marks
tend to defend them at the boundaries to make sure they don't loose them
in the center by having the boundaries set by others or open to
interpretation.

At 12:13 PM -0700 5/10/06, Marilyn Matty wrote:
>Look at how valuable a franchise "Elvis" is, and consider how
>Graceland was recently sold for gazillions so the new owners can
>develop a super theme park there.

As an aside, Lisa Marie Presley recently discussed this transaction
on a local radio interview. It was widely supported that she sold
much of the Graceland grounds to the management company. No one
noticed, however, that she in turn used the funds buy a substantial
stake in the management company.

--
Andrew Laurence
atlaurenuci.edu