On April 04, Patently Apple posted a report titled "U.S. Appeals Court blocks Apple's Trademark Application for 'Apple Music' Regarding "Live Performances." The report noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Apple's argument that it had priority over trumpeter Charlie Bertini's "Apple Jazz" trademark rights based on its ownership of an earlier trademark from the Beatles' music label Apple Corps Ltd.

A unanimous Federal Circuit ruled that Apple could not "tack" its trademark rights for live performances to the Apple Corps trademark for sound recordings, a different category of goods.

"Tacking a mark for one good or service does not grant priority for every other good or service in the trademark application." 

At the end of most of Patently Apple's trademark reports we state the following: "It should be noted that international trademark classes that Apple files their trademarks under are important as the trademark registration will only protect those classes that have been identified in their original application. In a legal battle, the classes filed for originally could make or break a legal case." In this case, it broke Apple's case.

Yesterday, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied Apple, Inc.’s June request that the court rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech company’s application to register the trademark APPLE MUSIC.

Apple had asked the court to rehear the case in order to direct the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to narrow the services listed in the trademark application so that it could proceed to registration.

In its rehearing petition, Apple asked the court to remove “arranging, organizing, conducting, and presenting concerts [and] live musical performances” from the services listed in the APPLE MUSIC trademark application in order to get around the ruling. Apple said this would allow the application to proceed, as Bertini has not established priority over the other services listed in the application. The company’s counsel claimed the appeal should be heard because it “requires an answer to a precedent-setting question of exceptional importance.” For more on this. For more on this, read the full IPWatchdog report.