Closing arguments have ended in the latest round of the trademark battle between digital music giant Apple and Apple Corps, The Beatles' record company.

Now all eyes and ears are on Edward Mann, the presiding judge in the case in London's High Court.

Mann said this week that he will issue his judgment this month but not likely before the Easter break.

As previously reported, the two companies are squabbling over Apple's use of the apple logo in conjunction with its iTunes Music Store. Apple Corps uses a shiny green apple as its logo, while Apple uses an animated apple with a bite out of it.

Apple Corps is seeking damages and wants Apple to stop using its apple logo on its iTunes Music Store and in advertising for the site.

The trademark battle dates back to 1980, when George Harrison spotted an ad for Apple Computer in a magazine and was concerned that fans would think the then-fledgling Apple Computer was connected to the Beatles and the Apple Corps record company the Fab Four created in 1968.

Apple Corps, which is owned by Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono and the estate of George Harrison, holds the rights to all pre-1968 Beatles' recordings, and has rejected all attempts to license the Beatles' catalog to any digital download service.

The companies have reached two separate settlement agreements over the years, the last coming in 1991, with Apple paying Apple Corps a reported $26.5 million payment and agreeing to stay out of the music business.

Apple Corps sued Apple this time over the use of the apple logo in relation to iTunes and Apple's digital music juggernaut.

The case appears to hinge on the question of whether the 1991 settlement agreement allowed for Apple to sell digital music over the Internet, a concept that hadn't yet been invented 15 years ago.

In his closing argument this week, Apple attorney Anthony Grabiner said music fans are smart enough to tell the difference between the use of the apple logos, according to a report from IDG News Service.

Grabiner also said that the 1991 agreement and subsequent payment provided Apple with "a considerably expanded field of use." Apple argued that the agreement allows it to use the logo because it does not own the rights to the music, but simply the digital technology to distribute it.

Grabiner said Apple Corps execs had a chance to reject the use of the logos during a prelaunch demonstration of iTunes in 2001.

But Apple Corps lawyer Geoffrey Vos said Apple is a "Johnny-Come-Lately" that is attempting to steal the British company's trademark and has consistently encroached on its territory.

"Apple Computer has been trying to take more and more away from us," Vos said.

Apple Corps chief Neil Aspinall said last week that he rejected Apple honcho Steve Jobs' offer of $1 million in March 2003 for rights to the logo within iTunes.

This week in the UK, rumors have swirled that, if true, would obliterate Apple's claim about only transmitting digital data and not owning the rights to music. A report in The Independent said that major label EMI, long rumored to be merging with Warner Music Group, was being eyed by Apple as a takeover target.