Yes or no, they always have real film studios as co producers (meaning doing almost everything), they would go nowhere on their own yet.
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
Your post got me thinking in that Apple is the one complaining about the issue of confusion but here is the thing, it is Apple that has created the confusion by going into the movie business. People will visit Apple Cinema to watch movies like Fantastic 4, Spiderman, Iron Man because when they see billboard adverts of the movies they know where to got to watch it. Now take the wildly published F1 movie, Apple was one of the production companies of he movie and one of the movies distributor's thus any promotional material for the movie would have Apple's name plastered over it. Seeing the Apple name on posters of the movie, many people will be of the view that Apple Cinema is somehow linked to all of this due to the Apple name.
I therefore wonder if Apple Cinema's lawyers could argue around that point that Apple themselves created the confusion to begin with by adding movie production to it's catalogue of things it's involved in because if it had not done this there would have been no problem.
Yes, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office thinks it will create brand confusion, which is why they denied Apple Cinemas a trademark.
Or iTunes Movie rentals.
Or Final Cut Pro.
Or the Apple Cinema Display.
Apple has been involved in movie production and distribution for decades.
Back in the day, I would have made a similar argument. I honestly forget the full details, but it is easily searchable, but there was a dispute between Apple Records (the company that produces Beatles music) and Apple, Inc. And then something about how people aren't going to confuse Apple computer with Apple music/records because Apple computer was not in the music industry at that time. True, it wasn't at that time, but look at it now. It certainly has expanded and even has expanded to have its own studio and streaming service. So yeah, at this point, Apple Cinemas can be confused with Apple, Inc.
LOL...didn't "Apple Records" sue "Apple Computer" for the same reason, back in the day? This will be eventually settled out of court...
Sadly, the courts won’t decide. Apple Cinemas will lose ultimately because Apple can afford to litigate forever, whereas the other guys can’t.
Not true. Plenty of Apple-named businesses.
Apple is asserting its trademark in an area where there is an overlap and where the other guys have already had their trademark denied. In essence, just finishing what the patent and trademark office has already made a determination.
I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong. But Apple is not and cannot assert ownership over the use of the word Apple universally or even broadly and I don’t need to be a lawyer to know that.
Apple as a company name is no longer just a generic word. Apple notoriously had a legal fight with The Beatles over the name Apple decades ago. This is not a new concept. Any company using the name "Apple ____" with an Apple for a logo may be found in violation if it's close enough. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it has worked historically.
That doesn’t matter at all. Apple is a trademark and their business in the film industry predates Apple Cinemas by nearly 15 years to some extent.
Anyway, Apple Cinemas argument stems from the Apple Valley geographic region, and if they honestly believed that, they would be names Apple Valley Cinemas.
Apple is no more a specific geographic descriptor as west or valley or new or high or maple or whatever.
I didn’t think a lot of people actually hate anything anti apple
I presume you were making a joke and still got a lot of downvotes
A lot of people need to chill out honestly
By your logic if I open a restaurant called apple foods would Apple sue me 30 years time if they decide to start selling food by then?
Now I'm worried for little Apple Bank, a little NYC-metro bank. I don't bank there but they're cute (not how I pick a bank but some people do). However, once Apple banking expands beyond Apple Card, who gets to be Apple Bank? Though if Apple really wants to be a bank maybe they should just buy them? They wouldn't even have to change their name...
Trademark law is generally not silly enough to pretend all media consumption happens in a single industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer?wprov=sfti1
Otherwise AMC that airs movies and made Breaking Bad and Mad Men on TV and AMC+ service, would be in a dumb fight with AMC that runs AMC At Home on demand and AMC theaters.
Exactly. That's one reason why it should be easy for Apple Inc. to prevail in this case.
Which is why Apple Computer, Inc. was involved with multiple lawsuits with Apple Records, most of which they didn’t do well in, and eventually just bought the name for half a billion dollars and allowed Apple Records to keep using it.