Today's judgment in favour of Apple Computers may not be final because an appeal to the Court of Appeal or possibly the European Court of Justice may be on the cards and could reverse the decision of the High Court.
In 1968, Apple Corp was formed to publish The Beatles' music and sign other musicians. In 1980, Steve Jobs was advertising his new computer invention, the Apple. George Harrison found this advertisement in a computer magazine, and it appeared to infringe the band's trademark.
Apple Corp told Apple Computers to change its name to something else if it wished to continue producing music-making machines.
In 1991 a compromise agreement was reached where Apple Computers agreed to pay $26.5m and to stay out of the music business.
This was of course before anyone had heard of the worldwide web and download didn't exist as a word in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Fast forward to 2004.
Apple Computers needed a big idea to compete with the worldwide dominance of Bill Gate's Microsoft.
Guess what?
It tuned to music as its salvation with the launch of iTunes, which is now the dominant online music store in the world.
On one level, Apple Computer's iTunes music store appeared to severely 'test' the precise language used in the compromise agreement and arguably was in breach of the agreement, signed in October 1991.
At the High Court, Mr Justice Mann had to decide whether Apple Computers, through its iTunes download service, had crossed the permitted field of use of its trademarks in relation to musical content -- the latter being the preserve of the Beatle's Apple Corp.
In his 34-page judgment, Mr Justice Mann ruled that it had not, on the basis that iTunes was a "form of electronic shop" and not involved in creating music.
"I conclude that the use of the Apple logo is a fair and reasonable use of the mark in connection with the service, which does not go further and unfairly or unreasonably suggest an additional association with the creative works themselves," he said.
Well, if that is the case, trying telling that to the scores of musicians and bands that choose everyday to eschew record labels like that owned by the Apple Corporation to release product via the download market where the music and medium have inextricably converged.
On this basis, the inescapable conclusion is that Apple Computer is in the music business.
In seeking to make such a legal distinction, the judge risks bringing the law into disrepute.
On reading the judgment, it is clear that the judge has chosen a bizarre interpretation of the compromise agreement and certainly the judgment flies in the face of the spirit of the compromise reached with Apple Computers.
What's more worrying is the long-term damage that this judgment can have on any industry that relies on the protection of intellectual property rights, such as trademarks.
Given that Apple Corp had registered its marks some time before Steve Jobs had thought about forming a company of the same name, it's only equitable that Apple Corp's rights should be protected by the law.
Any erosion of those rights goes to the root of the value of IPR and with far reaching consequences because companies may not seek to invest in the UK if they think their rights won't be adequately protected by the courts.
Apple Corp now faces paying Apple Computers' legal bill of 拢2m, pending the outcome of its appeal to the Court of Appeal that is due to be heard later this year.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .