By Priscilla Gan

On the day former Apple CEO Steve Jobs died, I found myself staring at the New York Times website headline, wondering if it was some takeover by news parody website The Onion. Now I’m no Apple fan but one must admit the blow Jobs’ death dealt the world with. Be it in the form of brickbats or bouquets, Jobs’ death has been eliciting sharp responses from the media and refreshing conversations by the water cooler. Most of us would have heard by now that Jobs was hardly the nicest of persons – the widely hailed genius tortured employees over minute product details, denied he had fathered an illegitimate daughter for years, and the list goes on. On further perusal, Apple’s legal trademark history seems to take on as singular a character as Jobs, its founder. Besides, its ongoing clash with Samsung that is already familiar to millions, its relatively lesser known tussles with the Beatles’ Apple Corps and numerous attempts at clamping down on external usage of its product names are just some of the disputes representing the aberrant ways of Apple.

The long and winding road: Apple vs The Beatles

Ever wondered what all the fuss was about when people used to lament that Apple’s iTunes Music Store was sorely lacking of the Fab Four’s repertoire? (Incidentally, Jobs’ soon to be published biography has revealed that the Beatles were his second most listened to artist after Bob Dylan on his iPod.) That problem was resolved only just last year, with The Beatles’ songs joining Apple’s expanding stable of converts like the previous naysayer Led Zeppelin. The Beatles’ previous absence can be attributed to Apple’s longstanding disputes with The Beatles’ Apple Corps over the years. Though record company EMI technically owns all of the band’s songs, Apple Corps can assert control over particular rights in these recordings.

As you might have already guessed, the spark that started the fire in the two Apples’ legal battles had something to do with their similar names. Back in 1978 when the current Apple Inc. was still called Apple Computer, Apple Computer was sued for trademark infringement of Apple Corps’ name and logo. (In fact, it has been rumoured that the late George Harrison was the one who saw the potential in a trademark lawsuit when he saw Apple Computer’s advertisement in a magazine.) From this emerged a settlement and agreement that the former would not enter the music industry while the latter would stay out of the computer one.

This however did not last and the two Apples were to see each other in court again in 1989 when Apple Computer developed Musical Digital Interface (Midi) and other music functions in its equipment. The pair battered out a settlement again in 1991 – one that required Apple Computer to fork out about US$29 million for Apple Corps. Apple Corps was entitled to sue Apple Computer if it used its name to sell ‘creative works’ that substantially involved music while Apple Computer could use its name in “goods or services…used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver such content”. It was also during this period of time that Apple Computer included in one of its operating systems a sound called ‘sosumi’, allegedly as a tongue-in-cheek response (‘so sue me’) to the myriad legal constraints from Apple Corps.

All these may seem just like a storm in a teacup when compared to the real bomb – the launching of Apple Computer’s now widely used iTunes Music Store in 2003. For this, Apple Computer was sued for breaching its 1991 agreement with Apple Corps. Things took a turn in Apple Computer’s fortune this time though. In 2006, Apple Computer triumphed over Apple Corps in the English High Court, with the judge holding that Apple Computer’s logo was not related to the music being sold but was just iTunes’ icon. A 2007 settlement further established that Apple Inc. would have ownership of related Apple trademarks, with some of them licensed to Apple Corps.  From then, various negotiations would pave the way for the Beatles’ entry into iTunes’ Music Store in 2010. The two firms had, for the lack of a better phrase, come together.

Turning tables: the neurotic Apple

Having come from such a tumultuous legal past, one might have expected the current Apple to be more cautious in its own lawsuits. However, it still remains to be seen whether such circumspect judgment is exercised. With Apple’s newly found top market status in recent years, it has been pulling out all the stops with even the most trifling trademark issues. From tabloid tales to academic articles, there is nothing that has not been written about this company’s neuroticism. Take this for example: ‘Last month, Apple’s legal team went after anyone using the word “pod” in their name’ (Chris Sclimenti, Podwars: Too big of a bite or free-riders’ red herring?), Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues). Apparently, no stone is left unturned. Earlier this year, Microsoft and Apple were in a legal dispute over the right to use the words ‘app store’. Microsoft’s argument was that those words were already of ‘generic expression’. While it is understandable that one of the largest technology firms in the world would want to protect itself from unknowing association with other brands as well as preserve its iconic brand name, it does seem to be bordering on the extreme end when one sees news of Apple suing small unknown businesses over names that merely use the word ‘apple’.

For better or worse, Apple’s legal issues with trademarks reflect an idiosyncratic nature that may just be synonymous with its founder, Jobs, and its products as well. Being this way may perhaps however not be a bad thing in the long run, if one looks at how things turned out for both Jobs and Apple’s products in the end.