Copyright- The Da Vinci Code 2006.

The recent high court case involving the alleged 'stealing' of the ideas that formed the basis of the best selling book 'The Da Vinci Code' has brought a sigh of relief from authors and publishers worldwide.  Traditionally, the UK law of copyright has not extended to the protection of ideas but only their manifestation in writing of other material forms.  The Court was being asked to extend the boundaries of copyright to encompass loose ideas and theories.

In our opinion the case was ill-conceived on many grounds notleast of which is public-policy. Had the Court found in favour of the Claimant it is likely that the High Court would have been inundated with Claims form aggreived applicants who had felt that rightly or wrongly their ideas had been misappropiated. The innovative world of science, film , music and other sectors proprietory about their ideas an eureka moments.

Trademarks-Apple Corps & Apple 2006

Apple Corps is the record company connected with the Beatles and owns substantial recording rights of the Beatles.  Apple Computer is a computer and software developer responsible for the Apple Mac and the ipod.  The trade marks of the respective companies have coexisted since the 90's under a trademark coexistance agreement.

Apple Corps took issue with the use of the Apple computer trademark, not on the ipod device, but in relation to use with the I Tunes Music Store(ITMS).  Apple corps argued that its agreement allowed it to use its mark on physical media for music transmission such as  CD's and it would be nonsense if this right were not extended to digital forms.  Apple computer countered that Corps' rights of use were limited to consent and origin of the rights only.

Mr. Justice Mann held that the agreement related to trademarks and that the basic function of a trademark was a badge of origin.  Therefore only if Apple Computer were using its mark to indicate that the musical content oringinated from its company, would it be liable.  Mr. Justice Mann alikened Apple computers use of its mark as that of a retailer selling musical content.  A consumer would rarely believe that HMV held the recording rights in the music that it sold and no right thinking consumer would assume that Apple Computer held the music rights in the ITMS content.  Therefore Apple Computers was not in breach of the coexistence agreement.

We belive that the court made the correct desicion by refusing to broaden the interpretation of the coexistence agreement to fit new media that was not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of execution.  Apple Corp's right to brand CD's did not automatically extend to digital formats.

We expect Apple Corps to appeal the decision and ITMS will continue to sell all music except Beatles recordings.