It was infringement from day one. If their legal representation didn’t tell them to try to square the name from day 1, they need new legal counsel. It’s like naming your company Microsoft and thinking that it’s ok.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Cinemas Won't Back Down in Trademark Battle with Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They opened in 2013, but in 2024 finally tried to trademark their own name? Why should Apple give them money? How about you pay for it?
Yup, the only question is why are they keeping this up? Because, now that the trademark has failed, they can flail for a bit, then go “Thanks to the evil Apple, we’ll have to change our name to PommeScreens. That’s right PommeScreens! So everywhere you currently see Apple Cinema, you’ll see PommeScreens. Did we tell you about our multiple locations across the country? Don’t you want to go to the cinema that stood up to Apple (even though we totally folded in the end)?” Just because it’s an Apple story, people will be engaging with it all over the place and they won’t have to pay much more than that for marketing of the new name.
For years to come, there will continue to be memes about it publicizing the brand. I wonder how much they’re willing to lose on this before giving up?
On the other hand, the shoe was on the other foot a while back when Apple had a similar dispute with Apple Records…right? And then later Apple entered the music business…
The hate brigade continues to ignore that the USPTO has already slapped Apple Cinemas for this, the courts are just going to go with that.
I love all the “they can’t trademark a fruit!” people. That argument is laughably weak. Yes, an Apple is a fruit, not a business, and it cannot be trademarked. Apple Inc. is a business, a very large, well-known one. Apple Inc. can protect its trademark because trademark law allows common words to be trademarked when used in a distinctive way unrelated to their ordinary meaning. Since "Apple" is used for products that are not the fruit it qualifies as a protectable trademark. Apple (the fruit) related businesses can still use “Apple” in their trade name, provided they’re not trying to appear related to Apple Inc. Other businesses using “Apple” (not fruit related) will have to be very careful to differentiate themselves from Apple Inc., which isn’t easy since they’re such a well-known brand that uses their trade name extensively (Apple Music, Apple TV, Apple Studios, Apple Watch, Apple Pay, etc.) This makes it likely that anything called “Apple [name]” that isn’t fruit related, will be easily confused as related to Apple Inc., and therefore a likely trademark violation.
IMO this theater chain will lose. Even though they were founded in 2013, they were a very small operation on the east coast that would have went unnoticed by Apple. (Though they should’ve known the risk of using “Apple”). In the last 3-5 years they expanded rapidly by buying other theaters in the rough post-COVID theater struggle. One of the most recent being in San Francisco… now on Apple’s doorstep and larger, they can’t be ignored.
IMO this theater chain will lose. Even though they were founded in 2013, they were a very small operation on the east coast that would have went unnoticed by Apple. (Though they should’ve known the risk of using “Apple”). In the last 3-5 years they expanded rapidly by buying other theaters in the rough post-COVID theater struggle. One of the most recent being in San Francisco… now on Apple’s doorstep and larger, they can’t be ignored.
To an extent that's true, but it would only get Apple Cinemas the mark in geographic areas they were previously in.
Also it doesn't appear Apple Cinemas even applied for a wordmark until Feb. 2024 and hasn't gotten it, and still hasn't applied for a TM on the logo.
These guys clearly know what they're doing if they started Apple Cinemas in 2013. You'd be a total idiot to think there wouldn't eventually be a legal conflict so I can only presume that this legal battle and the resulting publicity is exactly what they hoped would eventually happen.
I really don't care which way this goes, but I'm not giving my sympathy to anyone if they're playing stupid games.
I really don't care which way this goes, but I'm not giving my sympathy to anyone if they're playing stupid games.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would disagree with you as they’ve already rejected Apple Cinema’s trademark application.
I think this is the critical factor, since Apple has been using "Apple Cinema" in their product names since at least 1999 and I'm sure Apple has a trademark on that product name.
Thus, "Apple Cinemas" is just too close to "Apple Cinema."
That's not how it works. Unlike "Apple", "In'N'Out" is quite unique. "Apple" on the other hand is a common word. Everyone is free to trademark it in the domain where it has not beentrademarked yet. Apple does not own a trademark for word "apple" and they never will.
Are you sure Apple registered a trademark for "Apple the film exhibitor"? "iTunes" name seems a little bit off.
And not once have I ever heard and stirrings about my next rain coat.
Disney is a proper noun though whereas Apple is a generic one.
We don't expect Apple Computers is going to sue every Orchard in the country or that kids in Sunday School think Eve confusingly took a bite out of her iPhone.
In 2013 Apple TV had been on the market for six years. There is no excuse here, they will lose hard, as they should. Whenever I want to trademark a product name, my lawyers come up with all sorts of products and brands that I couldn’t even google up myself. Not foreseeing that (in 2013 one of) the biggest companies in the world will object, is just plain stupid.
Apple essentially stole the ability to use an apple as ones branding.
To repeat my comment on the earlier news, Apple started renting out movies through iTunes Store in 2008, long before Apple Cinemas was founded.
Good! I don't blame them, they have done nothing wrong and this is just extreme over reach by Apple.
Last edited:
Nope. That law is no longer. Studio's are allowed to own cinemas again.
There Are No More Laws Preventing Studios from Owning Movie Theaters. Now What?
For the last 77 years, it's been illegal for a movie studio to own a movie theater. That law is no longer on the books. The Paramount Consent Decrees were established by a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1948 called U.S. vs. Paramount Pictures preventing film studios from owning licenses...
Possibly... but Apple Cinema's was first with their name. They started in 2013 whereas Apple, inc. went into movies in 2019, six years later. Why Apple, inc. is suing now in 2025 is really stupid.
Point 2 is an incredibly weak argument! Where else do you expect cinemas to exist bar in retail parks? The exact same places where Apple stores are for the exact same reasons, where people go to shop or eat etc. Here in the UK cinemas are always near high streets or in shopping retail parks etc. they aren't stuck out in the middle of no where in case their branding annoys the local mega corporations.
Their brand name is "aPPLe Cinemas". But in their statement, they made it: "Apple Cinemas". Outside of this forum, there are a lot of people who would think the cinemas is owned by Apple Inc.
What if they named it Google Cinemas? Will that be enough of a confusion to see this was intentional.
What if they named it Google Cinemas? Will that be enough of a confusion to see this was intentional.
My little advice to "aPPLe Cinemas".
Your lawyers are interested in money for themselves. Do not consult them. They are obviously going to aim for a prolonged legal battle where they take all the money, even if you win. And what if you lose?
Out of court settlement is your best bet here.
Your lawyers are interested in money for themselves. Do not consult them. They are obviously going to aim for a prolonged legal battle where they take all the money, even if you win. And what if you lose?
Out of court settlement is your best bet here.
Last edited:
How far can this go....
I do understand these battles, but it's so petty-minded.
Waiting with antisipation until Tim Cook gets sued for false goods declaration.
I doubt he can cook very good 😂
I do understand these battles, but it's so petty-minded.
Waiting with antisipation until Tim Cook gets sued for false goods declaration.
I doubt he can cook very good 😂