Apple Cinemas Won't Back Down in Trademark Battle with Apple

[BigBlur]

Guys, it was never about the logo. If you had read the complaint linked in the articles, you'll see that the logo is talked about towards the end (page 38 of 44). I think even Apple knows they don't look similar and doesn't have much merit, but still wanted to include it.

Sure, the logo gives it away, but what if you had heard or read "Apple Cinemas" somewhere without any visual cues...would you still know for sure it isn't Apple? Some of their buildings do not have the logo either.

Some of the main complaints are:

1. They're deliberately riding on the success of the Apple brand. Why did they pick the name "Apple Cinemas"? Do they have a story behind it? Jobs picked "Apple" because he wanted it to appear before "Atari" in the phone book.
2. They are building/expanding near Apple retail stores. I suppose this could just be a coincidence.
3. There has been confusion on social media (they show examples). Apple is in the TV/movie business and also has a production company, which adds to the confusion.
4. Apple has had products named "Apple Cinema Display" and "Apple Cinema Tools".

 

[NoCleverSNForMe]

Nobody would look at that logo and think it’s the iPhone company. Also, AFAIK movie studios aren’t allowed to own movie theaters so not sure that argument would work for Apple.

Not true. Sony Pictures owns Alamo Drafthouse. The law that prohibited studios from owning theatres was overturned in 2021 under the Biden Administration.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Apple Cinemas, founded in 2013, has 14 venues and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Co-Founders are Jegan Gomangalam and Uday Kotta. In 2024, Sand Media Corp Inc applied to register "Apple Cinemas" and "ACX — Apple Cinematic Experience" as trademarks, but the applications were rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office due to potential confusion with Apple Inc.'s existing trademarks. Apple subsequently sent a cease and desist letter to Sand Media, which was reportedly ignored. Apple has since filed a lawsuit against Apple Cinemas, alleging trademark infringement and brand dilution.

Apple will win.

 

[NoCleverSNForMe]

And Apple Cinemas should have foreseen this how when they created the company a while back?

Yep. If I start an ice cream store called In'N'Out Ice Cream...right now, I may not have a trademark infringement, but down the road, the In'N'Out burger chain may start selling ice cream which creates this grey area and confusion. The In'N'Out burger chain is a much more recognizable brand, and while they aren't selling ice cream right now, it's adjacent enough for it to be a potential landmine in the future for your company.

To answer your question - YES, they should have foreseen this. Apple is one of the biggest brands IN THE WORLD. Just because Nike isn't a theatre company doesn't mean it's cool for me to start Nike Cinemas. It's a really dumb decision.

 

[Black_Mage]

Good thing MacRumors isn’t called AppleRumors.

What about Apple Insider? https://appleinsider.com/

 

[miamialley]

If they have evidence of people thinking it’s Apple owned, then that helps the case that’s for sure.

 

[ikramerica]

Right. Because when people see Apple, their first thought is geography!!!

If they cared about their roots, they would be called Apple Valley Cinemas. AV Cinemas would be a good name as well. Even better…

 

[MallardDuck]

They already lost when they tried to file? Boy, they might as well just toss their money into a BBQ instead of burning it all on lawyers.

 

[scrapesleon]

apple grasping at straws here because they never ventured into the tv business till 2023 so they should take a hike

 

[Sami13496]

Soon, Apple will sue apples (the fruit) because someone might confuse a real apple with Apple’s products, causing confusion. Apple will demand that apples be renamed to something else. It will lead to Apple losing its identity, because they will realize they are no longer an apple (the fruit). They will also have to change their logo, which depicts a former apple, something completely different from what Apple then is. Because at that point, they will no longer be an apple (the fruit).

 

[ikramerica]

And Apple Cinemas should have foreseen this how when they created the company a while back?

Apple was a film exhibitor via iTunes (rental and purchase) before Apple Cinemas existed.

 

[adib]

When will the battle with Apple Washington commence?

 

[etichi]

Another d1ck move apple

 

[cannono]

Yes this will absolutely cause confusion, particularly with Apple's recent push into movies (which is what I imagine prompted this suit). It's the same name and both use an apple logo. Trademark law doesn't care what nerds like us think, it cares what the average consumer thinks. And it's readily apparent that the average consumer would look at the Apple Cinemas logo and think it's associated with Apple (Inc.).

This is a dumb position for them to take and they're absolutely going to lose.

Trademark heavily favors the company that operated in the industry using the name first. Apple Inc jumping into original media 6 years ago does not help them against a movie theater chain that began years prior.

 

[CasinoOwl]

A lot of people don't understand how trademarks work. Every giant company protects its brand. It doesn't matter if it's exact. Any company that calls themselves Apple at this point is begging for a lawsuit. I suppose some would say Google Cinemas, Microsoft Cinemas, and Facebook Cinemas should be allowed.

 

[alchemistmuffin]

Apple Cinemas tried and failed to trademark both the Apple Cinemas name and the "Apple Cinemas Experience," with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denying the marks in 2024 because of potential confusion with Apple's prior trademark rights.

Apple is seeking monetary damages and an injunction to stop Apple Cinemas from using the name.

Yeah there is no way Apple Cinemas will win this case. This is blatant trademark infringement.

I would settle and in fact, let Apple buy the company. Otherwise they won’t have enough cash to fight this, and Apple knows this.

 

[BGPL]

Apple is such a playground bully. They think they own every name that has apple in it, and every company with that name that uses a picture of the fruit. What other image are they going to use? An orange? It's ludicrous and I hope a judge slams the door in Apple's face and makes Apple pay for all court fees.

 

[BGPL]

A lot of people don't understand how trademarks work. Every giant company protects its brand. It doesn't matter if it's exact. Any company that calls themselves Apple at this point is begging for a lawsuit. I suppose some would say Google Cinemas, Microsoft Cinemas, and Facebook Cinemas should be allowed.

Using the name of a fruit is a hell of a lot different than using Google, Microsoft and Facebook in your name. One is a noun, and a very common noun, and the rest are company names. You're comparing Apples and watermelons.

 

[Westside guy]

Apple has its own film studios, and it’s a film producer nowadays, has it not?

But did either exist in 2013, when Apple Cinemas launched?

 

[Naraxus]

Apple is such a playground bully. They think they own every name that has apple in it, and every company with that name that uses a picture of the fruit. What other image are they going to use? An orange? It's ludicrous and I hope a judge slams the door in Apple's face and makes Apple pay for all court fees.

It's standard procedure for ANY business to protect the brand.

 

[TheColtr]

this is because Apple is doing movie stuff now. It’s no coincidence this happened right after F1, Apple’s first box office hit.

 

[Gengar]

You know what? I went to the one in Rhode Island a few weeks ago to see Superman and it was such a nice theater.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Good. It’s a movie theater, Tim. No one is confused here.

“with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denying the marks in 2024 because of potential confusion with Apple's prior trademark rights.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the marks because of potential confusion. Before Apple got involved. Their professional opinion is that there would be potential confusion.

 

[Macbookey]

Tim innovating on the revenue stream.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple wanted the name/IP. They probably tried to buy them out for the name but this company said no. Now Apple is trying to get it for free.

They don’t have to buy them out for the name because they can’t even trademark the name, nothing to buy out. More than likely, just wanted them to update their trademark to not include “electronics stores” and it would have been over. For some reason, they want to maintain a trademark of “Apple” for “electronic stores” and that is NEVER going to happen!