You do know this was a Supreme Court case right? Whatever administration is in charge would have no bearing on the case at all. Please tell me people still understand we have 3 branches of government...for the moment anyways.
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
The big boys don't always win:
www.theguardian.com
Sometimes common sense gets the win.
Apfelkind cafe owner wins trademark battle with Apple
US firm withdraws objection to Bonn cafe's trademark application in Germany after two-year legal correspondence
Not sure if win is the correct adjective here. She didn't lose, and Apple walked away, with the tail between their legs. What's funny when you read the Guardian article 🙄 is the use of hyperbole. These days, the media have to grossly exaggerate any comment. The also stated that Apple Computers won an epic high court battle against Apple Corps. Sadly the truth didn't make it to their story, and that despite this amazing win, Apple settled the dispute, by paying $500 million for the trademark rights.The big boys don't always win:
Sometimes common sense gets the win.Apfelkind cafe owner wins trademark battle with Apple
US firm withdraws objection to Bonn cafe's trademark application in Germany after two-year legal correspondence
I completely understand the UK legal term A Moron in a Hurry but why wasn't this a problem for Apple Computers in 2024? Or 2014? If they can attempt to stop a German cafe owner in 2014, a sole trader who operates one small business from trademarking his localised 'Apfelkind' business name then they should have gone after a cinema chain spread across the Atlantic NE already.
Perhaps to some people it was confusing but it was equally confusing the last year and the year before. Why now? Is the loss of the $20bn from Google that much of a hole in their income?
You recognized, the article is from October 2013?
The story was hilarious at that time in Germany. A trillion-dollar-company intimidating a small cafe owner was way over the top.
Disney is a namesake where Apple is a fruit. There are businesses here with the name Apple that are unrelated. There was a time when being higher in the alphabet was important so people found you first in the phone book. I don't think people automatically believe something with the word Apple belongs to the company Apple. Unless you think Apple makes all Apple Pies.
Not if you think the cinemas are owned by Apple. Which is what this lawsuit is about.
If every Apple Orchard in the country were to attempt to register an “Apple” trademark which includes in its description “electronics stores” they most certainly would go after them. Apple Cinema could simply modify their trademark request and likely fly through.
It’s a classic trademark mis-spelling. The actual number is a Googol.
Apple Cinemas existed way before Apple TV shows and Movies, just like Apple Corp Ltd.(Beatles music studio), there's no confusion here. Apple is acting like a bully. Consumers are not confused by name unless dumb @ss Apple corporate employees are. Corporate Greed Money Grab. Who's next to sue? Applebees Grill? Apple Farm? McIntosh Apple? Apple Pie?
Last edited:
When I saw first saw the logo I though Apples had opened a cinema chain it was only when I read the story I realised it was not Apple.
It is brand confusion and would leave people to think it is owned by Apple and if they give a bad experience or go bust it could tarnish Apple's brand.
If I was Apple I would do the same actions as them
It is brand confusion and would leave people to think it is owned by Apple and if they give a bad experience or go bust it could tarnish Apple's brand.
If I was Apple I would do the same actions as them
This should tell them that they aren’t going to win this. They knew exactly what they were doing in 2013.
I never heard of Apple Cinemas till now. I lived in San Francisco for several years that included 2014. There might be a mom and pop store named "Apple Radio Repairs" that no one here or at Apple heard off.
Also, this case has come up after "repeated efforts to resolve the matter amicably". Who knows how long this was. Definitely long before this very recent news of a potential loss of $20B. Hell, they would have started preparing the papers before this news.
Honestly, if I saw Apple Cinemas suddenly pop up in San Francisco and it has any bit of focus on clean designs, I would think this was from Apple Inc. At least I would check it out to see if it was from Apple.
When Apple Computers was started, they weren't in the film business. When Apple Cinemas was started, Apple Computers wasn't in the film business. You're saying that Apple can literally get into any business they want, 20 years down the road, and anyone who has a brand that is similar to what Apple decided it wants to do is in jeopardy and should change their name to get out of Apple's way? Is that how trademarks work?
Apple suing Apple Cinemas after 15 years is peak corporate clown show. A $3 trillion company acting like a handful of movie theaters are going to confuse people into thinking they can buy an iPhone with their popcorn. Anyone defending this nonsense is living on a different planet.
Nice try, but Apple Cinemas has existed for 15 years without a single person thinking they were walking into an Apple Store to buy a MacBook. This isn’t about “consumer confusion,” it’s about a trillion-dollar company flexing its lawyers for no real reason. If your Disney analogy worked, AMC would’ve been sued a decade ago for showing Marvel movies yet somehow, the public survived without losing its grip on reality.
Ok well you're commenting in the forums on a nerdy Apple rumors site so your opinion on this has little relevance.
The first time I heard of an apple cinemas opening in my area (a few years ago I think) I actually associated it with apple computer. I wasn't interested in it enough to do any research, but I honestly assumed that apple cinemas was apple's brick-and-mortar manifestation for Apple TV+ content.