Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1066383
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/06/2020
`
`Proceeding
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`91229891
`
`Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`JOSEPH PETERSEN
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`1080 MARSH ROAD
`MENLO PARK, CA 94025
`UNITED STATES
`Primary Email: JPetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Secondary Email(s): JGonder@kilpatricktownsend.com, Agar-
`cia@kilpatricktownsend.com, tmadmin@kilpatricktownsend.com
`650-326-2400
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's Name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Brief on Merits for Defendant
`
`Joseph Petersen
`
`JPetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com, JGonder@kilpatricktownsend.com, Agar-
`cia@kilpatricktownsend.com, tmadmin@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`/Joseph Petersen/
`
`07/06/2020
`
`2020.07.06 Applicant Apple Inc.'s Trial Brief (Public Version)_Redact
`ed_Appendices A and B_1004.pdf(3953016 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CHARLES BERTINI,
`
`Opposer,
`
`Opposition No. 91229891
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Applicant.
`
`TM: APPLE MUSIC
`(App. Ser. No. 86/659,444)
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`J. David Mayberry
`Theodore H. Davis Jr.
`Sara K. Stadler
`The Grace Building
`1114 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10036
`Telephone: (212) 775-8830
`Facsimile: (202) 585-0038
`dmayberry@kilpatricktownsend.com
`tdavis@kilpatricktownsend.com
`sstadler@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Joseph Petersen
`Jason M. Gonder
`1080 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`Telephone: (650) 614-6427
`Facsimile: (650) 644-0570
`jpetersen@kilpatricktownsend.com
`jgonder@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`William M. Bryner
`1001 W. Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
`Telephone: (336) 607-7482
`Facsimile: (336) 734-2656
`bbryner@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Attorneys for Applicant Apple Inc.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD ...................................................................................7
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED.........................................................................................................7
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................8
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Production and Distribution of Sound Recordings Featuring The
`Beatles ....................................................................................................................10
`
`U.S. Production and Distribution of Sound Recordings Featuring
`Individual Members of The Beatles and Other Famous Musical Artists...............14
`
`Opposer Mischaracterizes the Record ...................................................................15
`
`Apple and Its Long Association with Music..........................................................17
`
`Apple’s Launch of its APPLE MUSIC Service .....................................................21
`
`Opposer’s Claimed Rights in APPLE JAZZ .........................................................22
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................27
`
`A.
`
`Apple Has Absolute Priority in the APPLE Mark for Production And
`Distribution of Sound Recordings. ........................................................................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Apple Has Prior Rights in APPLE for Production and Distribution
`of Sound Recordings and Film Dating to At Least August 1968. .............28
`
`Apple is Entitled to Tack its APPLE MUSIC Mark to its APPLE
`Mark Because the Marks are Legal Equivalents........................................32
`
`Tacking is Also Appropriate Because Apple’s Offerings Under its
`APPLE MUSIC Mark are Identical or Closely Related to its
`Offerings Under the APPLE Mark, in Which it Has Absolute
`Priority. ......................................................................................................35
`
`Opposer Cannot Defeat Apple’s Absolute Priority in APPLE for
`Production and Distribution of Sound Recordings by Cherry
`Picking Services from the APPLE MUSIC Application and
`Claiming Intervening Rights for Those Services. ......................................39
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`1
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Opposer’s Claimed Apple Jazz Mark Is Primarily Merely Geographically
`Descriptive and Lacks Secondary Meaning. ..........................................................41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Opposer’s APPLE JAZZ Mark Is Primarily Geographically
`Descriptive. ................................................................................................42
`
`Opposer Has Failed to Prove His Primarily Geographically
`Descriptive APPLE JAZZ Mark Has Acquired Secondary
`Meaning. ....................................................................................................51
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................55
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`2
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Alcatraz Media, Inc. v. Watermark Cruises, 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1750 (T.T.A.B. 2013).......................... 52
`
`American Security Bank v. American Security & Trust Co., 571 F.2d 564, 197 U.S.P.Q. 65 (C.C.P.A.
`1978) .......................................................................................................................................... 33, 34
`
`Baseball Am., Inc. v. Powerplay Sports, Ltd., 71 U.S.P.Q.2d 1844 (T.T.A.B. 2004) ......................... 40
`
`Bear Partnership & Wings Res. & Dev., S.R.L. v. Bear U.S.A., Inc., No. 91119974, 2004 WL
`2901193 (T.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2004) (nonprecedential) ........................................................ 38, 39, 40
`
`Bionetics Corp. v. Litton Bionetics, Inc., 218 U.S.P.Q. 327 (T.T.A.B. 1983) ..................................... 35
`
`C.P. Interests, Inc. v. Cal. Pools, Inc., 238 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2001) .................................................. 36
`
`Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 101 U.S.P.Q.2d 1713 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
` ......................................................................................................................................................... 51
`
`Corp. Document Servs. Inc. v. I.C.E.D. Mgmt. Inc., 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1477 (T.T.A.B. 1998) ............... 29
`
`Del. & Hudson Canal Co. v. Clark, 80 U.S. 311 (1871) ..................................................................... 43
`
`DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................................... 42, 43
`
`Dyneer Corp. v. Auto. Prods. plc, 37 U.S.P.Q.2d 1251 (T.T.A.B. 1995) ............................................ 32
`
`Factory Five Racing, Inc. v. Shelby, No. 91150346, 2010 WL 4232609 (T.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2010)
`(nonprecedential) ............................................................................................................................. 54
`
`Gowanus Dredgers v. Baard, No. 11-CV-5985 PKC, 2013 WL 6667361 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2013) 52
`
`Grocery Outlet Inc. v. Albertsons, Inc., No. C 06-02173 JSW, 2008 WL 5245962 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17,
`2008) ................................................................................................................................................ 38
`
`H. Betti Indus. v. Brunswick Corp., 211 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1188 (T.T.A.B. 1981) ........................ passim
`
`Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 574 U.S. 418 (2015) ............................................................... 29, 32, 35
`
`Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 735 F.3d 1158, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1825 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................ 35
`
`Helpful Hound, L.L.C. v. New Orleans Bldg. Corp., 331 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. La. 2018).... 36, 38, 45
`
`Hess’s of Allentown, Inc. v. Nat’l Bellas Hess, Inc., 169 U.S.P.Q. 673 (T.T.A.B. 1971) ................... 33
`
`Hoover Co. v. Royal Appliance Mfg. Co., 238 F.3d 1357, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1720 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 27, 41,
`45
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Sekisui Chem. Co. Ltd. of Japan, 165 U.S.P.Q. 597 (T.T.A.B. 1970) 34
`
`In re All Island Media, Inc., No. 78591633, 2007 WL 4438608 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2007)
`(nonprecedential) ....................................................................................................................... 47, 48
`
`In re Assoc. Theatre Clubs Co., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1660 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ................................................. 49
`
`In re Bacardi & Co., 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031 (T.T.A.B. 1998) ................................................................ 47
`
`In re Bayer AG, 488 F.3d 960, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1828 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................... 43, 44
`
`In re Binion, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1531 (T.T.A.B. 2009) ............................................................................. 34
`
`In re Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 153 U.S.P.Q.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................... 54
`
`In re Cal. Pizza Kitchen Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1704 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ................................................... 49
`
`In re Chalk’s Int’l Airlines Inc., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1637 (T.T.A.B. 1991) ............................................... 49
`
`In re Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 102 U.S.P.Q.2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 43, 44
`
`In re Code Consultants Inc., 60 U.S.P.Q.2d 1699 (T.T.A.B. 2001) .................................................... 34
`
`In re Constantine, No. 77403096, 2010 WL 4036057 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2010) (nonprecedential) . 53
`
`In re Crow Marcrum, Inc., No. 76438849, 2006 WL 2263327 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2006)
`(nonprecedential) ....................................................................................................................... 53, 54
`
`In re Detroit Rivertown Brewing Co., No. 86640818, 2017 WL 3446792 (T.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2017)
`(nonprecedential) ............................................................................................................................. 54
`
`In re Dial–A–Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........ 43
`
`In re Gibson Guitar Corp., 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1948 (T.T.A.B. 2001) ...................................................... 52
`
`In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d 1017, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................ 45, 50
`
`In re Hollywood Lawyers Online, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1852 (T.T.A.B. 2014) .......................................... 49
`
`In re Interstate Folding Box Co., 167 U.S.P.Q. 241 (T.T.A.B. 1970) ................................................. 52
`
`In re Joint-Stock Co. Baik, 80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1305 (T.T.A.B. 2006) ....................................................... 44
`
`In re JT Tobacconists, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080 (T.T.A.B. 2001) .............................................................. 49
`
`In re McO Props. Inc., 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1154 (T.T.A.B. 1995) ............................................................. 44
`
`In re Nat’l Shooting Sports Found., 219 U.S.P.Q. 1018 (T.T.A.B. 1983) ..................................... 49, 50
`
`In re Opryland USA Inc., 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1409 (T.T.A.B. 1986) ........................................................... 49
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`4
`
`

`

`In re Packaging Specialists, Inc., 221 U.S.P.Q. 917 (T.T.A.B. 1984) ................................................ 53
`
`In re S. Park Cigar, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1507 (T.T.A.B. 2007) ................................................... 46, 48
`
`In re Shutts, 217 U.S.P.Q. 363 (T.T.A.B. 1983) .................................................................................. 49
`
`In re Southland Corp., 162 U.S.P.Q. 465 (T.T.A.B. 1969) ................................................................. 49
`
`In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................ 51, 52
`
`In re Sun Microsystems, Inc., 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1084 (T.T.A.B. 2001) ................................................... 50
`
`In re Tennis in the Round Inc., 199 U.S.P.Q. 496 (T.T.A.B. 1978) .................................................... 49
`
`In re White Jasmine LLC, No. 77115548, 2013 WL 2951788 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2013) ..................... 54
`
`Jack Wolfskin Ausrustung Fur Draussen GmbH & Co. KGAA v. New Millennium Sports, S.L.U., 797
`F.3d 1363, 116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 35, 36
`
`Jimlar Corp. v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216 (T.T.A.B. 1992) ...................... 36
`
`King Candy Co. v. Eunice King’s Kitchen, 496 F.2d 1400, 182 U.S.P.Q. 108 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........ 40
`
`Laura Scudder’s v. Pac. Gamble Robinson Co., 136 U.S.P.Q. 418 (T.T.A.B. 1962) ............. 34, 35, 36
`
`Mag Instrument, Inc. v. Brinkmann Corp., 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1701 (T.T.A.B. 2010) .............................. 53
`
`Marshak v. Treadwell, 58 F. Supp. 2d 551 (D.N.J. 1999), aff’d, 240 F.3d 184 (3rd Cir. 2001) ......... 38
`
`Presto Prods. Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods. Inc., 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1895 (T.T.A.B. 1988) ................................ 33
`
`Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats Co., 978 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1992) .................................. 35
`
`Sarco Creek Ranch v. Greeson, 36 F. Supp. 3d 726 (S.D. Tex. 2014) ................................................ 44
`
`Sendor v. Where to Dine In, LLC, No. 91195538, 2010 WL 11413794 (T.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2010)
`(nonprecedential) ............................................................................................................................. 50
`
`SurgiVision Consultants, Inc. v. SurgiVision, Inc., No. CV 10–03024 MMM (FFMx), 2011 WL
`13214280 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2011) ................................................................................................ 38
`
`Target Brands, Inc. v. Hughes, 85 U.S.P.Q.2d 1676 (T.T.A.B. 2007) ................................................ 53
`
`Towers v. Advent Software, Inc., 913 F.2d 942, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990)....................... 27
`
`United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co., 248 U.S. 90 (1918) ....................................................... 29
`
`Vacuum-Elecs. Corp. v. Elecs. Eng’g Co. of Cal., 150 U.S.P.Q. 215 (T.T.A.B. 1966) ...................... 36
`
`Zirco Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Telegraph Co., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1542 (T.T.A.B. 1991) ............................... 28
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Other Authorities
`3 J. THOMAS MCCARTHY, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION § 17:26 (5th ed.
`2020) .......................................................................................................................................... 34, 44
`
`37 C.F.R. § 2.128 (2019). ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`T.B.M.P. § 801.03 .................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`T.M.E.P. § 1209.03(d) ......................................................................................................................... 49
`
`T.M.E.P. § 1210.02(a) ......................................................................................................................... 48
`
`T.M.E.P. § 1210.02(b)(i) ..................................................................................................................... 46
`
`T.M.E.P. § 1210.02(c)(ii) ..................................................................................................................... 49
`
`T.M.E.P. § 1212.06(e)(ii) ..................................................................................................................... 52
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`

`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE RECORD
`
`Pursuant to Rule 2.128(b) of the Trademark Rules of Practice and T.B.M.P. § 801.03,
`
`Applicant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) provides the following description of the record:
`
`1.
`
`Stipulation regarding the authenticity of certain documents and the admissibility
`
`of certain discovery depositions, filed by the Parties on May 29, 2019, as 53 TTABVUE;
`
`2.
`
`Trial Declaration of Charles Bertini (“Bertini Decl.”) and Exhibits, filed by Op-
`
`poser Charles Bertini (“Opposer”) on December 20, 2019, as 59 through 61 TTABVUE; and
`
`Opposer’s Notices of Reliance (“N.R.”), filed by Opposer on December 20 and 21, 2019, as 62
`
`through 66 TTABVUE;
`
`3.
`
`Declaration of Jeffrey Vaughan Jones (“Jones Decl.”), Exhibits, and Confidential
`
`Exhibits, filed by Apple on February 20, 2020, as 71 and 72 TTABVUE; Declaration of Thomas
`
`R. La Perle, Esq. (“La Perle Decl.”), Exhibits, and Confidential Exhibits, filed by Apple on Feb-
`
`ruary 21, 2020, as 83 through 85 TTABVUE; and Apple’s Notices of Reliance and Confidential
`
`Supporting Evidence, filed by Apple on February 20 and 21, 2020, as 67 through 70 TTABVUE
`
`and 73 through 82 TTABVUE;
`
`4.
`
`Rebuttal Trial Declaration of Charles Bertini (“Bertini Rebuttal Decl.”) and Ex-
`
`hibits, filed by Opposer on April 5, 2020, as 86 TTABVUE; and Opposer’s Rebuttal Notices of
`
`Reliance, filed by Opposer on April 6, 2020, as 87 TTABVUE and 88 TTABVUE.
`
`Apple has filed its Statement of Evidentiary Objections as an Appendix to this document.
`
`II.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`1.
`
`Whether Apple has absolute priority in its APPLE MUSIC mark over Opposer’s
`
`unregistered use of his claimed APPLE JAZZ mark, which commenced no earlier than June 5,
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`7
`
`

`

`1985, given Apple’s and its predecessor’s use of APPLE in connection with the production and
`
`distribution of sound recordings by The Beatles and many others as early as August 1968.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Opposer’s claimed mark is protectable in the first instance in light of its
`
`primarily geographically descriptive nature and Opposer’s failure to prove secondary meaning.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple and its predecessor Apple Corps Limited (“Apple Corps”) have used the APPLE
`
`word mark in connection with the production and distribution of sound recordings and films for
`
`over 50 years. Apple’s longstanding rights in connection with these services are rooted in rights
`
`Apple acquired from Apple Corps, the record label formed in 1968 by The Beatles, arguably the
`
`most famous and influential musical group of all time. Accordingly, in adopting and seeking to
`
`register the mark at issue here, APPLE MUSIC, in connection with the production and distribu-
`
`tion of sound recordings and television programs (among other music-related services), Apple is
`
`drawing upon substantial goodwill developed over more than 50 years of commercial activity.
`
`Opposer disputes Apple’s priority, claiming to be the prior user by virtue of allegedly us-
`
`ing the mark APPLE JAZZ in connection with a once-a-year jazz music festival in upstate New
`
`York’s “apple country.”1 The festival first took place about 17 years after Apple Corps first be-
`
`gan distributing sound recordings and films in the United States under the APPLE word mark,
`
`and it last took place in 2014.2 Opposer, a self-described “Beatles fan,” applied to register the
`
`APPLE JAZZ mark in June 2016.3 He did so despite—and with full knowledge of—Apple’s
`
`longstanding conflicting rights in the APPLE trademark for a broad array of music and enter-
`
`1 59 TTABVUE 2-3 (Bertini Decl. ¶¶ 3-6).
`2 73 TTABVUE 12 (Apple’s Fifth N.R., Bertini Dep. Tr. 31:19-32:5).
`3 66 TTABVUE Ex. 132 (Opposer’s N.R. on Official Records).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`8
`
`

`

`tainment services.4 Predictably, the Examining Attorney refused registration to Opposer’s
`
`APPLE JAZZ mark because of Apple’s prior rights in the APPLE mark.5 Opposer then retaliated
`
`by: (i) commencing this opposition against Apple’s application to register the APPLE MUSIC
`
`mark; and (ii) filing Cancellation No. 92068213 against Apple’s Registration No. 4,088,195 of
`
`the APPLE mark, which is one of three of Apple’s registrations cited by the Examining Attorney
`
`in refusing registration of Opposer’s APPLE JAZZ mark.6
`
`As explained in more detail below, the Board should dismiss this opposition because
`
`Opposer has failed to prove his priority of rights for two independent reasons. First, the record
`
`evidence and testimony demonstrate that Apple has prior rights dating back to Apple Corps’
`
`August 1968 adoption and use of the APPLE mark in commerce. Especially because of the
`
`generic (and disclaimed) nature of “MUSIC,” the APPLE mark and the APPLE MUSIC mark
`
`create the same commercial impression. Likewise, Apple and Apple Corps have produced and
`
`distributed sound recordings and films under the APPLE mark since long prior to Opposer’s June
`
`5, 1985, claimed date of first use. Because Apple is entitled to tack its rights to those of Apple
`
`Corps, Apple enjoys absolute priority of rights as between the parties under such authority as H.
`
`Betti Indus. v. Brunswick Corp., 211 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1188 (T.T.A.B. 1981), including with
`
`respect to services recited in the Application that are closely related to the production and
`
`distribution of sound recordings.
`
`Second, Opposer’s claimed unregistered APPLE JAZZ mark lacks the distinctiveness
`
`necessary to qualify as protectable in the first instance. The record and Opposer’s trial brief alike
`
`are replete with admissions against interest that Opposer’s claimed mark would be understood in
`
`4 73 TTABVUE 7, 8, 21-22, 32 (Apple’s Fifth N.R., Bertini Dep. Tr. 12:20-21, 16:21-24, 68:24-69:3,
`109:3-16).
`5 66 TTABVUE Ex. 130 (Opposer’s N.R. on Official Records).
`6 78 TTABVUE Exs. B, C, D.
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`9
`
`

`

`the region where the mark is used to refer to “the jazz genre of music” and “the apple producing
`
`region of Central New York and in Cortland, New York, home of the Cortland apple.”7 That
`
`claimed mark therefore is primarily geographically descriptive and unprotectable unless Opposer
`
`can prove by a preponderance of the evidence and testimony that the term has achieved
`
`secondary meaning. Opposer’s sporadic use and de minimis promotion of his claimed mark prior
`
`to the filing date of Apple’s application prevents him from making such a showing. The Board
`
`therefore need not address Opposer’s allegations of likely confusion between the parties’ marks.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Production and Distribution of Sound Recordings Featuring The Beatles
`
`The British musical group The Beatles is one of the most celebrated and successful bands
`
`of all time.8 Shortly after The Beatles was formed, its members—John Lennon, George Harrison,
`
`Paul McCartney, and Ringo Starr—jointly formed The Beatles Limited, which changed its name
`
`to Apple Corp Limited on February 9, 1968.9 Apple Corps functioned as The Beatles’ record la-
`
`bel, producing and distributing some of the most famous sound recordings ever made.10 Apple
`
`Corps adopted the APPLE word mark and the visual equivalents shown below (collectively, the
`
`“APPLE Mark”) as service marks:11
`
`7 See, e.g., 89 TTABVUE 10 (Opposer’s Trial Brief (“Opp. Br.”)).
`8 71 TTABVUE 3 (Jones Decl. ¶ 2).
`9 71 TTABVUE 3 (Jones Decl. ¶ 3).
`10 71 TTABVUE 3-4 (Jones Decl. ¶ 4).
`11 71 TTABVUE 5-6 (Jones Decl. ¶ 12).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Under the APPLE Mark, Apple Corps (and its affiliates and licensees) produced and dis-
`
`tributed sound recordings for The Beatles and such other famous recording artists as James Tay-
`
`lor, Badfinger, and Billy Preston.12 Owing to The Beatles’ enduring popularity and influence,
`
`Apple Corps continues to engage in these same activities today under license from Apple, its
`
`successor in interest and the owner of the APPLE Mark.13
`
`As Apple Corps’ Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Vaughan Jones, testified, “[s]ince
`
`1968, Apple Corps has continuously used the APPLE word mark in connection with the produc-
`
`tion and/or distribution of sound recordings and film in the United States.”14 As summarized in
`
`Mr. Jones’s declaration, the following landmark Beatles singles and albums were distributed in
`
`the U.S. under the APPLE mark: Hey Jude, Revolution, Get Back, Don’t Let Me Down, Come
`
`Together, Abbey Road, and Let It Be.15 Examples of such branding include the following iconic
`
`album artwork:
`
`Apple Corps’ activities also extended to the production and distribution of films. Specifi-
`
`12 71 TTABVUE 3-4 (Jones Decl. ¶¶ 4-5).
`13 71 TTABVUE 4, 7 (Jones Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 15).
`14 71 TTABVUE 8 (Jones Decl. ¶ 18).
`15 71 TTABVUE 11 (Jones Decl. ¶ 23).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`11
`
`

`

`cally, during the 1960s and into the 1970s, Apple Corps, its affiliates and licensees, and The
`
`Beatles were involved in the production and distribution of several films featuring music by The
`
`Beatles, including (a) three “action films,” A Hard Day’s Night, Help!, and Magical Mystery
`
`Tour; (b) Let It Be, a documentary film about The Beatles; and (c) the animated film Yellow
`
`Submarine.16 Films featuring The Beatles have been continuously shown in theaters and on tele-
`
`vision in the United States since the 1960s.17 Additionally, several of those films were released
`
`on VHS when the format became available.18 For example, in 1981, the Academy Award- and
`
`Grammy Award-winning film, Let It Be, was released in the United States on VHS, Betamax,
`
`and VideoDisc, and it bore the APPLE word mark:19
`
`As summarized in Mr. Jones’s testimony, Apple Corps’ use of the APPLE mark in the
`
`U.S. continued during the CD and DVD eras:
`
`
`
`In 1993, CD versions of The Beatles 1962-1966 and The Beatles 1967-1970, known as
`
`16 71 TTABVUE 4 (Jones Decl. ¶ 5).
`17 71 TTABVUE 4, 29 (Jones Decl. ¶¶ 5, 41). In fact, at least one publication documents the television
`broadcast in the United States of the Magical Mystery Tour film on December 6, 1985. 69 TTABVUE 23
`(Apple’s Third N.R. at APPLE002877).
`18 71 TTABVUE 4 (Jones Decl. ¶ 5).
`19 71 TTABVUE 30-31, 250-56 (Jones Decl. ¶ 42 & Ex. 12). Copies of the Let It Be film featuring the
`APPLE word mark on the cover continued to be sold in the United States throughout the 1980s, as
`demonstrated by the confidential royalty reports for the periods ending June 30, 1984 and September 30,
`1984, attached as Exhibit 13 to Mr. Jones’s declaration. 72 TTABVUE 5-6 (Jones Decl. Confidential Ex.
`13).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`12
`
`

`

`the “Red” and “Blue” albums, respectively, were released for the first time in the United
`
`States, with both releases featuring the APPLE word mark.20
`
`In 1995 and 1996, the Apple Corps label released new compilation albums entitled The
`
`Beatles Anthology Parts I, II, and III, which were distributed under the APPLE word
`
`mark in large quantities in the United States and worldwide.21
`
`In November 2000, the Apple Corps label released in the United States another new The
`
`Beatles compilation album under the APPLE word mark. The album, entitled 1, featured
`
`The Beatles songs that had reached number 1 on the U.K. or U.S. music charts upon their
`
`initial releases between 1963 and 1970.22
`
`In the mid-1990s, Apple Corps released The Beatles Anthology as an eight-cassette VHS
`
`box set, and in April 2003, Apple Corps released it as a five-disc DVD set.23
`
`In February 2004, Apple Corps released under the APPLE mark a DVD entitled The First
`
`U.S. Visit in connection with The Beatles’ first American tour.24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Acting through its licensees, Apple Corps launched its The Beatles Store U.S. ecom-
`
`merce website in or about 2006, which thereafter offered for sale various goods bearing
`
`the APPLE word mark, including CDs containing sound recordings.25
`
`
`
`In September 2009, Apple Corps released in the United States under the APPLE mark the
`
`video game The Beatles: Rock Band, which features 45 The Beatles songs to which play-
`
`ers can sing and play along.26
`
`20 71 TTABVUE 14-16 (Jones Decl. ¶ 25).
`21 71 TTABVUE 20-21, 75-89 (Jones Decl. ¶ 28 & Ex. 6).
`22 71 TTABVUE 21, 90-94 (Jones Decl. ¶ 29 & Ex. 7).
`23 71 TTABVUE 31, 258-66 (Jones Decl. ¶ 44 & Ex. 14).
`24 71 TTABVUE 32, 267-70 (Jones Decl. ¶ 45 & Ex. 15).
`25 71 TTABVUE 21-22, 97-129 (Jones Decl. ¶ 32 & Ex. 9).
`26 71 TTABVUE 21, 95-96 (Jones Decl. ¶ 31 & Ex. 8).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Apple Corps’ distribution of The Beatles-related sound and video recordings released un-
`
`der the Apple Corps label and the APPLE word mark continues to this day.27 Most recently, Ap-
`
`ple Corps announced a collaboration with Academy Award-winning director, Sir Peter Jackson,
`
`to produce a new documentary film about the making of The Beatles’ final album, Let It Be.28
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Production and Distribution of Sound Recordings Featuring Individual
`Members of The Beatles and Other Famous Musical Artists
`
`Numerous other acclaimed musicians had their sound recordings released under the Ap-
`
`ple Corps label, including James Taylor, Mary Hopkin, Badfinger, Billy Preston, and Doris
`
`Troy.29 Additionally, the individual members of The Beatles released solo recordings and collab-
`
`orations under the Apple Corps label.30 That list of recordings includes such seminal sound re-
`
`cordings as Carolina in My Mind by James Taylor, All Things Must Pass by George Harrison,
`
`McCartney by Paul McCartney, John Lennon & Plastic Ono Band by John Lennon/Plastic Ono
`
`Band, Ram by Paul and Linda McCartney, Imagine by the John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, Mind
`
`Games by John Lennon, Ringo by Ringo Starr, Band on the Run by Paul McCartney and Wings,
`
`Walls and Bridges by John Lennon, and Shaved Fish by John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band.31
`
`While these recordings were initially released between 1969 and 1975, substantial quanti-
`
`ties of sound recordings issued under the Apple Corps label and bearing the APPLE word mark
`
`continued to be sold around the world (including in the United States) throughout the entire dec-
`
`ades of the 1970s and 1980s.32 Examples of the APPLE word mark branding used on such re-
`
`cordings distributed in the United States in the time period immediately preceding Opposer’s al-
`
`27 71 TTABVUE 4 (Jones Decl. ¶ 6).
`28 71 TTABVUE 4 (Jones Decl. ¶ 6).
`29 71 TTABVUE 22 (Jones Decl. ¶ 33).
`30 71 TTABVUE 22-25 (Jones Decl. ¶ 34).
`31 71 TTABVUE 22-25 (Jones Decl. ¶ 34).
`32 71 TTABVUE 26 (Jones Decl. ¶ 35).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`14
`
`

`

`leged adoption of his APPLE JAZZ mark, namely the period January 1, 1983 through December
`
`31, 1985, are set forth in Mr. Jones’s unrebutted trial testimony. Those examples include George
`
`Harrison, All Things Must Pass (below left) and John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, Shaved Fish
`
`(below right).33
`
`C.
`
`Opposer Mischaracterizes the Record
`
`Opposer cannot and, in fact, does not challenge Apple Corps’ production and distribution
`
`of sound recordings in the U.S. in connection with the APPLE Mark in the 1960s and 1970s. In-
`
`stead, and improperly relying on Wikipedia,34 Opposer contends that after The Beatles’ record-
`
`ing contract ended in 1976, the Apple label was “wound up” and there were no releases between
`
`December 8, 1975, and December 1, 1994.35
`
`Of course, there were no new sound recordings by The Beatles after they disbanded, but
`
`as detailed in Mr. Jones’s testimony, previously recorded The Beatles albums almost certainly
`
`33 71 TTABVUE 26 (Jones Decl. ¶ 37).
`34 Opposer’s repeated reliance on Wikipedia in connection with his core arguments on priority is the sub-
`ject of an objection detailed below. See Appendix.
`35 89 TTABVUE 21 (Opp. Br. at 20).
`
`APPLICANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`Charles Bertini v. Apple Inc.
`
`15
`
`

`

`were continuously distributed in the United States bearing the APPLE word mark during the ear-
`
`ly 1980s, including such blockbuster Beatles albums as Let It Be, 1962-1966, 1967-1970, Hey
`
`Jude, The Beatles Collection, and Yellow Submarine.36 Indeed, as explained in Mr. Jones’s trial
`
`testimony, release