Apple misplaced a bid to register a part of a federal trademark for “Apple Music” on Tuesday after a US appeals court docket dominated for a jazz musician who challenged the tech big’s utility.
The US Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Apple’s argument that it had precedence over trumpeter Charlie Bertini’s “Apple Jazz” trademark rights based mostly on its possession of an earlier trademark from the Beatles’ music label Apple.
The court docket allowed Bertini to dam Apple’s bid for a federal Apple Music trademark protecting reside performances, one in all a number of trademark makes use of Apple sought to safe.
Bertini’s legal professional, his brother James Bertini, stated they have been happy with the choice after a “lengthy and tough wrestle.”
“Maybe this resolution will even assist different small firms to guard their trademark rights,” the legal professional stated.
Representatives for Apple didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark.
Apple launched its streaming service in 2015 and utilized the identical 12 months for a federal “Apple Music” trademark protecting a number of classes of music and leisure companies. Bertini opposed the applying, arguing the identify would trigger confusion with the “Apple Jazz” branding he had used since 1985 to promote live shows.
Each side agreed that Apple’s mark would doubtless confuse customers. However a US Trademark Workplace tribunal dominated for Apple in 2021, discovering it had earlier rights to the identify based mostly on a 1968 “Apple” trademark for sound recordings it bought from Apple in 2007.
A unanimous Federal Circuit panel reversed the choice to dismiss Bertini’s opposition Tuesday. It stated Apple couldn’t “tack” its trademark rights for reside performances to the Apple Corps trademark for sound recordings, a special class of products.
“Tacking a mark for one good or service doesn’t grant precedence for each different good or service within the trademark utility,” the court docket stated.
The case is Bertini v. Apple, US Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 21-2301.
© Thomson Reuters 2023
