Yes or no, they always have real film studios as co producers (meaning doing almost everything), they would go nowhere on their own yet.Apple has its own film studios, and it’s a film producer nowadays, has it not?
Yes or no, they always have real film studios as co producers (meaning doing almost everything), they would go nowhere on their own yet.Apple has its own film studios, and it’s a film producer nowadays, has it not?
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 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.
Yes, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office thinks it will create brand confusion, which is why they denied Apple Cinemas a trademark.Does anyone really think this "Apple Cinemas" will create brand confusion?
Or iTunes Movie rentals.I would be more sympathetic if Apple Cinemas existed before Apple Computers.
It’s a classic trademark mis-spelling. The actual number is a Googol.
Maybe not you, but if the intentional for confusion…Who thinks that?
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.Good. It’s a movie theater, Tim. No one is confused here.
Sadly, the courts won’t decide. Apple Cinemas will lose ultimately because Apple can afford to litigate forever, whereas the other guys can’t.Well, let the courts decide.
Winner: lawyers first
Popcorn ready
Not true. Plenty of Apple-named businesses.Apple essentially stole the ability to use an apple as ones branding.
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.LOL. Apple is a generic word man. Stop fanboying
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.
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.Are you sure Apple registered a trademark for "Apple the film exhibitor"? "iTunes" name seems a little bit off.
I didn’t think a lot of people actually hate anything anti appletim apple = evil
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?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.
Ok well you're commenting in the forums on a nerdy Apple rumors site so your opinion on this has little relevance.
Sadly, the courts won’t decide. Apple Cinemas will lose ultimately because Apple can afford to litigate forever, whereas the other guys can’t.
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=sfti1So 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.
Trademark law is generally not silly enough to pretend all media consumption happens in a single industry.
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.Meanwhile... Apple Records was founded in 1968.