It's one thing when your choice of a company name is under fire by a pack of litigious ex-Beatles, but it's apparently a whole different kettle of fish when the shoe's on the other foot. While you're unmixing that metaphor, take a gander at this recent article in The Australian, which describes Apple's successful attempt to get Apple Communications to change its name. Not only did Apple (our Apple) get Apple (that other Apple) to rechristen itself as Green Communications, but it also managed to collect $100,000 AUS in damages in the process. That's not a bad haul, just for having named itself first.

Now, we're well aware that the expected knee-jerk response from anybody in the Mac community should be something about how Apple's legal team is out of control and now they're even trying to prevent anyone else from using the word "apple" unless they pay to license it first, but we have to say, we're siding squarely with Apple on this one. Australian IT facetiously suggests that Apple's lawyers may next target the Apple International Motor Inn or the Apple Carpet Cleaning Co., but the simple fact of the matter is, Apple needs to protect its trademark within its sphere of business. Appl-- er, Green Communications bigwig Daniel Cheng says, "I sell digital communications and they sell computer hardware. Where's the connection?"

Well, Daniel, the connection is that telecom and computers probably aren't very far apart in the mind of the Average Bruce. Plus, Apple Computer doesn't just sell computers; it's been peddling various obliquely telecomesque services on and off like .Mac and eWorld since... well, probably AppleLink back in the '80s. So while it's not terribly likely that anyone would reasonably assume that Apple had branched out into the lucrative fields of motor lodging and rug shampooing, there was a definite risk that consumers would have thought that the erstwhile Apple Communications was in fact a division of Apple Computer. Indeed, an Australian Slashdot reader confirms that he has "often seen people casually confusing the huge computer company and the micro-Telco." Another reader confirms this, and posits that Apple (again, our Apple) may well have been incurring expenses caused by Apple Communications customers calling Apple Computer's help line; we figure that's where the damages come in.

So, in short, we really don't see this as a case of Apple Legal throwing its weight around simply for the fun of torturing a much smaller company. This was a valid complaint on Apple's part, and the name change was a reasonable demand to make of Apple Communications; in this case, the fun of torturing a much smaller company was purely a bonus.

Meanwhile, we figure that Apple Computer, Inc,'s next target should be this "Apple Computers" mentioned twice in the article; we've never seen such a clear-cut case of trademark infringement. Sic 'em, fellas!