Impossible to move on in MR. The Popcorn Lust is overpowering in here these days.....
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
Impossible to move on in MR. The Popcorn Lust is overpowering in here these days.....
Not sure if you remember, Apple has a similar battle, but were on the other side, when Apple Record's, took Apple Computers to court, for trademark infringement. That battle was about Apple Records protesting about Apple Computers being involved in the music business. The settled, for a fee, and Apple Computers agreed not to be involved in music, when subsequently Apple created the iTunes Store, Apple Records went after them again, but lost and appealed, and it dragged on, until there was a settlement where it was reported, that despite the initial decision going the way of Apple Computers, Steve Jobs bought the trademark rights for $500 million.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.
So expect many twists and turns in the latest Apple battle.
Isn't this (Apple) the company that was sued by Apple Records, owners of the Beatles catalog? Didn't Apple have to agree to never enter the music industry? Didn't Apple later create iTunes?
Amazing how history repeats itself. If Apple Cinemas start making phones and computers, then Apple might have a case.
Amazing how history repeats itself. If Apple Cinemas start making phones and computers, then Apple might have a case.
From what I have been reading about trademark law, Apple do not own the actual word Apple because if they did they would be able to sue every Apple fruit producer on the planet. The word Apple can be applied to a type of business class though and no other business in the same class (field of operation) can use the same word. Apple Cinema is in a different business class so unless Apple's trademark has an inclusion for movie theaters they should not be able to win this.
Compu-Global Hyper Meganet?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.
It’s not against per se, just that planetary tech conglomerates shouldn’t be able to just wave their legal wand at everything they dislike. Most of us are fans of the products and occasional critics of their culture. Some people here seem to want to burn them down whereas others are so blinkered that they’d probably offer Tim Cook both of their kidneys.
Lest we forget Apple Computers, as it was had to settle against Apple Corps (The Beatles record label) on no less than three occasions. In the end Apple Computers bought out all Apple-related trademarks from Apple Corps in 2007 for about £500m, partly because Steve Jobs was a fan of the Beatles. This might give them a right to sue over the cinema chain name, but it curiously hasn’t been a problem for the last 12 years.
I would understand if they used "Apple" in any other context and "cinema" is just one category they are in but why call a cinema chain "Apple". That seems so "random" like I'd understand calling it "Popcorn Cinema" or something but who "eats" an Apple at a cinema
Apple TV+ wasn't a thing in 2013. So they weren't producing. only selling through iTunes
edited to add + as forgot about the streamer box
Last edited:
If they’d gone with Apple Theaters, I might agree with you, but Apple has had a trademark on Apple Cinema Display since 1999, I believe, and dropping a single word from another entity’s trademarked name would easily be considered confusing. I expect this is why Apple Cinemas’ trademark application was turned down when they applied for it last year… a mere 11 years after they opened, and a quarter century after Apple trademarked Apple Cinema Display.
I like you are getting into the public perception of it. This is really about how novice customers and common people perceive it. Trademarking a specific shade of magenta ( Pantone “Rhodamine Red U” ) sounds ridiculous.
Until you realise that in current scenario, if someone uses that shade in a mobile setting, people will think it's T-Mobile.
It's not all shades of magenta we are talking about.
Similarly by 2013, if someone names something Apple in America, thats not related to the fruit in anyway, people will think it was Apple Inc. Especially "Apple Cinemas", when iTunes and Apple TV already existed. And if Apple can prove this was wilfully done, they should win.
Ironically, you just gave the exact reason Apple Inc. need to do this, since they paid Apple Corps that half billion dollars for actual ownership of all those trademarks. I believe they now license them back to Apple Corps who, as the parent of Apple Films, produced their first film called “Magical Mystery Tour” in 1967. Since Apple Corps pay Apple Inc for use of the trademark, it further increases Apple Inc’s responsibility to defend that trademark.
That said, Apple Cinemas don’t produce films, so the main trademark issue I see would be their decision to use the name Apple Cinemas in 2013, when Apple Inc had already held the trademark for Apple Cinema Display at least 14 years, no later than that monitor’s debut in 1999. Apple Cinema then applying to trademark their name and “Apple Cinematic Experience” in 2024 was a foolhardy move that is likely one of the things that forced Apple Inc’s hand and brought them to this point, despite the fact that their trademark application was denied.
Apple and cinema may both be generic terms, but I believe the Trademark Office treats combinations of words in trademarks as non-generic, even if the separate words are generic.
I don’t believe there is any actual mention in the bible of an apple being in the garden of eden, just fruit, so Tim doesn’t even need to ask.
I don't think someone is going to the Apple Store to watch Fantastic 4 or going to Apple Cinemas to get a MacBook Air by mistake. This lawsuit is plain dumb.
Actually, Apple TV was a thing in 2013, as it first came out in 2007. (Apple TV+ came out in 2019, and, yes, Apple’s trademarked names are confusing.)
And Apple Cinemas aren’t producing films, only renting access to seats to view films in their theatres.
I would say that is a safe bet in a case where both parties are named Apple (along with “Apple will lose”), but I guess they could settle with no decision.
Well, we here on MacRumors obviously aren't confused. But go on the street and poll 100 regular Joes, and I guarantee a significant number will show some "confusion".
If I were the CEO of Apple, I can see how this company's actions would be bothersome to me. I'm glad Apple is suing.
Apple TV, Apple Music, way too close for comfort. Maybe if Apple were simply a technology company, I could see where these hooligans could be allowed to keep their name. But Apple is much more than that nowadays.
I can fear the film getting stuck in their projectors right now.
Apple, finish them!
Reminds me of when Apple record company sued Apple computer company for trademark infringement. If Apple movie viewing company would review that case and just use Apple computer company’s own words against them, might have a chance to win.
