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

[Jumpthesnark]

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.

So we need to wait for Apple Cinemas to start making "original media" before Apple can go after them?

Because Apple Cinemas doesn't create movies. They are a way to watch movies. You know, the way you can watch movies with the Apple TV+ streaming service (2019), the Apple TV app (2016), the Apple TV device (2007), on the Apple Cinema Display (1999), the Macintosh TV (1993), the Apple Interactive TV Box ('90s) or the Pippin (1996). Or basically any Apple device since Quicktime came out.

Apple has been involved in the creation of movies relatively recently, since 2019. But they have been creating ways to watch movies - what you do at a theater - for more than 30 years.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

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.

Go tell it to Google's parent company... Alphabet. Sounds like a very common noun to me.

 

[t0rqx]

Whats next? Walmart being sent stop and seize letters to sell Apples?

 

[bcollett]

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-cinemas-wont-back-down-in-trademark-battle-with-apple.2463211/post-34056644

I feel like I’m talking to walls. People! Common words can be trademarked when used for something other than their common meaning!

 

[skippermonkey]

Imagine my surprise, when I went to put on my Apple Watch the other morning, only to find it was an entire cinema! Fortunately we both saw the funny side.

 

[thiscatisfat]

How full of yourself do you have to be to go after some small chain of cinemas that has existed for years, and you having a similiar name makes you think you’re entitled to make them change their name. That’s so unhinged. As if Apple didn’t have other things to worry about now 😄 Does Apple want to enter cinema business? Do they want to use “Apple Cinema” as their trademark for something in the future?

 

[hagar]

This is ridiculous. Why did they choose this name in 2013?

When Apple was already one of the biggest players in multimedia (including selling and renting movies with the iTunes Store!)

They brought this on themselves.

 

[The_Auryn]

Seems heavy-handed. Does anyone really think this "Apple Cinemas" will create brand confusion? Seems like it could have been settled. Give them some money to rebrand

The sad thing is, given copyright law, if Apple doesn't sue them, then any company in the future who try to impede on Apple's copyright can claim: they didn't sue Apple Cinema, so they gave up the right to sue us. It's an archaic law, but I was taught about it once in school and it makes sense. Apple doesn't have a choice. They have to sue everyone who infringes on their brand. It's nothing personal against Apple Cinemas and it's not heavy-handed. It's just business. If Apple doesn't sue, they give up a lot of future rights down the road.

There's a similar concept in real estate. If you own a piece of property and your neighbor is using part of your driveway as an easement and you DON'T complain/file a suit about it without a certain amount of time, the judicial system will automatically grant the easement because you never complained about it.

 

[dguisinger]

I mean... this is coming from the company who tried to buy the iPhone trademark from Cisco, a company that had a physical product called iPhone (can't remember if it was under the Linksys brand), and when they said no, Apple released it anyways.

 

[bice]

Just like that pesky Apple records that infringed on Apple trademark and only got off the hook by promising never to venture into the music business, only to turn around on that deal before the ink had dried and relase the tune SoSuMi and later knowingly and intentionally pursued a worldwide expansion in music industry producing both hardware and selling music online.

Oh, wait, was it the other way around?!

 

[StoneJack]

Apple cinemas lost it already. Move on

 

[bcollett]

I mean... this is coming from the company who tried to buy the iPhone trademark from Cisco, a company that had a physical product called iPhone (can't remember if it was under the Linksys brand), and when they said no, Apple released it anyways.

It wasn’t quite that simple. It was the name of a product that Infogear made before they were acquired by Cisco. It was discontinued though in favor of the Linksys branding; essentially abandoning it for 6 years. Then when Apple started inquiring about purchasing the name and public rumor was they intended to call it iPhone, Cisco quickly re-released an existing product using the iPhone name to strengthen their standing. Their claim to the name as an established product/brand wasn’t strong, so a settlement was the clear choice for both.

 

[simon the diver]

You’re joking, right? A casual average person wouldn’t be confused from watching F1, an Apple Studios film from Apple Inc, at an Apple Cinemas?

Let’s talk to AMC Theatres and have them rebrand to Disney Cinemas. By your logic, no one would be confused by watching a Disney movie at a Disney Cinemas.

yes! clearly this is a same thing because all of us pick Disneys off a tree and make Disney pies

 

[bcollett]

yes! clearly this is a same thing because all of us pick Disneys off a tree and make Disney pies

The logic is Apple (the company) is an established Brand so well-known that almost anything (other than actual fruit and fruit related items like pies) would be easily confused as related to Apple (the company). No one is suggesting Disney is a common word like Apple, only that they are such an established brand that one would could not use their name without it appearing related to the established brand. Even if someone named Disney opened a laundromat, they wouldn’t be able to call it Disney Laundromat. Disney isn’t in the laundromat business, but the average consumer would be confused by it.

 

[Jonnod III]

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

Oh, I thought that was some weird porn site.

 

[JohannesO]

If you see the logo there is probably no confusion.
If you don’t see the logo there is probably a lot of confusion.
#Text #Audio #Friends

Why did the company wait 10 years to file their brand with the Patent Office?
Why did they try to get the confusing word mark and not the less confusing combined or figurative trademark?

https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000098427530

The attempt to get a trademark is what probably got Apple's attention.

By the way Apple has given up the trademark Apple Cinema Display in the US three years ago, not (yet) in other countries.

https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/#/tmview/detail/US500000075562410

 

[xnsys]

Let me guess, Apple are looking at branching out after the F1 movie, and Apple Cinema's will become a reality.

 

[Radin.Y]

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.

Since 5 years ago, they technically can, and Sony did buy a relatively small theater chain. But I am not aware of any major shift in studio/screening dynamics yet. Seems everyone is playing it safe for now, but that can easily change.

 

[ForkHandles]

That’s not really how TMs work. The recent push into films was the impetus for the suit but Cinemas was always violating Apple’s TM, it just didn’t care until now. It’s still infringement.

Absolutely this.

Cinemas chose a name in 2013 that happened to be used by the most valuable company in the world.

In any court that is called Passing Off.

Cinemas should take the money and rebrand, not waste a single dime on a lawyer.

 

[Marbles1]

Not sure Apple Cinemas will win this... but it's always a bit tricky when a company uses a brand name which is just an everyday thing like a fruit. You don't get any issues with made up names like Pepsi (comes from dyspepsia, but Pepsi itself is unique), or Compaq, or Microsoft or IBM.

I know Steve Jobs is a marketing god and probably back in the day calling your tech company 'Apple' was absolutely fine as no one else was using a non-techie name.

I've no doubt apple will win, but makes me wonder how far a company could go if they picked a name that was even more common than 'Apple', and they were in multiple industries.

E.g. if a company was able to call themselves 'Technology' or 'Artificial Intelligence' or even 'Cloud' back in the 80s, would they still get to hold that copyright even now?

 

[Ctrlos]

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.

Google is a proper noun though whereas Apple is a generic word used in all sorts of instances and products. Consumers dont get confused buying Apple Juice at their grocery store, Apple Cider at their local pub or think Steve Jobs managed the Beatles.

Its like when T-Mobile tried to trademark the generic magenta colour in its logo. Its absurd.

 

[Hooyah]

I think Apple are in the wrong here. If the other company had it first, it’s theirs…

And come on, over what, Apple TV+?! Surely this only adds to the losses from that lol

 

[nholm]

Google is a proper noun though whereas Apple is a generic word used in all sorts of instances and products. Consumers dont get confused buying Apple Juice at their grocery store, Apple Cider at their local pub or think Steve Jobs managed the Beatles.

By that logic the cinemas should be built inside actual apples to avoid confusion.

 

[MRSugarD]

Amazing how people are always against Apple on an Apple rumors blog. Apple has a brand to protect and they have a case here. Why didn‘t the cinema call themselves Apple Valley Cinemas instead to avoid any confusion? And this name should commemorate their first location? Come on. Apple was already a huge established brand name when they were founded and I can see why Apple doesn‘t want to be confused or linked with them.

 

[star-affinity]

Google is a proper noun though whereas Apple is a generic word used in all sorts of instances and products. Consumers dont get confused buying Apple Juice at their grocery store, Apple Cider at their local pub or think Steve Jobs managed the Beatles.

Its like when T-Mobile tried to trademark the generic magenta colour in its logo. Its absurd.

It is both a generic word and the name of one of the largest tech companies. On one hand I agree on the word apple being very generic and on one hand I can understand that when there's an organization with the same name that deals with media just like Apple Inc. there is room for some confusion (just like Apple has shown examples of).

And – like someone mentioned – Apple had a display called Apple Cinema Display.
At least I think there is more room for confusion than saying apple juice or the fruit apple is not confused with having to do with the tech company Apple Inc.

Hmm… Not easy. I guess it shows that it's good to come up with a unique name for your company.