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

[Makosuke]

To answer your question - YES, they should have foreseen this. Apple is one of the biggest brands IN THE WORLD. Just because Nike isn't a theatre company doesn't mean it's cool for me to start Nike Cinemas. It's a really dumb decision.

Not to mention, at the time they started this brand Apple already had a huge, influential media division, a decades-long history of TV boxes, and a large movie rental/streaming store and business. Plus, of course, was widely used on the backed of movie production and had two products (albeit unrelated) with “Cinema” in the title.

Apple, Inc. may not have had theaters in 2013, but you could absolutely rent a movie from Apple for watching on a movie-watching device sold by Apple, so even then if it had been a national chain it would have been extremely questionable.

The actual legal test is “only a moron in a hurry would confuse the two”, and an Apple Cinema accepting ApplePay for tickets to see an Apple Studios movie in the same mall as an Apple Store—when three of those things are the same globally-famous company and one is completely unrelated—does not take a moron or a hurry to cause confusion to an average, not-news-savvy consumer.

 

[goborgh]

If I were Tim Apple, I would buy the entire chain, and offer an Apple Theater+ subscription where you can go to our own theater chain playing Severance on repeat + other shows and movies.

 

[jonnysods]

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.

Hey you might be onto something there, check this out:

 

[DownUnderDan]

Has Tim thought of meeting them half way? Maybe a gold plaque or something?

 

[bgillander]

Hey you might be onto something there, check this out:

View attachment 2536909

Your quotation shows that Apple Inc was in the business of charging their customers to view movies in 2008, which would be 5 years prior to Apple Cinemas first charging their customers to view movies.

That seems like Apple Inc has a very good case even without considering the fact that they have had a trademark on the term Apple Cinema Display since at least 1999.

 

[bgillander]

LOL...didn't "Apple Records" sue "Apple Computer" for the same reason, back in the day? This will be eventually settled out of court...

Yes, and Apple Computers ended up paying them a half billion dollars for their Apple trademarks.

 

[bgillander]

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?

If your restaurant was called Apple Cinema Foods or Apple iPhone Foods, they would have a strong case. If Apple Cinemas had called themselves Apple Theaters, they would probably be okay.

Of course, when they then tried to trademark Apple Cinemas last year, they shook a hornet’s nest.

 

[AppleEnthusiast1995]

The fact that it was denied due to confusion and they still ran with it is just plain stupid. Apple definitely has a slam dunk case with this.

 

[nathansz]

Yes because I actually know the law.

What hubris to believe you are the only person that knows anything about anything

 

[bgillander]

Yes this will absolutely cause confusion, particularly with Apple's recent push into movies (which is what I imagine prompted this suit). It's the same name and both use an apple logo. Trademark law doesn't care what nerds like us think, it cares what the average consumer thinks. And it's readily apparent that the average consumer would look at the Apple Cinemas logo and think it's associated with Apple (Inc.).

This is a dumb position for them to take and they're absolutely going to lose.

I would imagine it was more likely triggered by Apple Cinemas’ attempt to trademark “Apple Cinemas” last year. I must give them credit for their chutzpah.

But I’m sure my current attempt to trademark “Apple Air” for my apple scented air fresheners will be successful, since it is a different industry and only includes two of the words from other Apple Inc trademarks!

 

[laptech]

Your quotation shows that Apple Inc was in the business of charging their customers to view movies in 2008, which would be 5 years prior to Apple Cinemas first charging their customers to view movies.

That seems like Apple Inc has a very good case even without considering the fact that they have had a trademark on the term Apple Cinema Display since at least 1999.

That is irrelevant because the receiving device has to be the same or similar. At that time 2008 iTunes was only available on hand held devices and computers. Apple cannot claim that because it had iTunes movie rentals in 2008 it now holds the rights to movies being shown on electronic devices. That's totally absurd which would result in Apple facing tens of thousands of law suits every year from companies that show movies on electronic devices.

Apple using Apple Cinema Display is irrelevant also because it's area of use is totally different to that of the movie theatre Apple Cinema.

Apple Cinema will probably loose on the grounds of confusion because whilst Apple has been known for decades it's name did not really become a world wide well known name until the iphone was made. Before then if what wanted to hear anything about Apple you had to by magazines such as MacWorld. Now the name Apple is well known everywhere it has created the problem that anything with the Apple name in it people now assume it has something to do with the Apple company because the iphone puts Apples name well and truly on the worlds map.

 

[bgillander]

That is irrelevant because the receiving device has to be the same or similar. At that time 2008 iTunes was only available on hand held devices and computers. Apple cannot claim that because it had iTunes movie rentals in 2008 it now holds the rights to movies being shown on electronic devices. That's totally absurd which would result in Apple facing tens of thousands of law suits every year from companies that show movies on electronic devices.

Apple using Apple Cinema Display is irrelevant also because it's area of use is totally different to that of the movie theatre Apple Cinema.

Apple Cinema will probably loose on the grounds of confusion because whilst Apple has been known for decades it's name did not really become a world wide well known name until the iphone was made. Before then if what wanted to hear anything about Apple you had to by magazines such as MacWorld. Now the name Apple is well known everywhere it has created the problem that anything with the Apple name in it people now assume it has something to do with the Apple company because the iphone puts Apples name well and truly on the worlds map.

The “receiving device” in that example would actually be the customer’s eyes, as both involve movie display. And Apple TV came out in early 2007 and was hooked to many a projector. As for your “rights to movies being shown on electronic devices” theory, that would be a patent concept, not a trademark, and no one is arguing that here, as far as I have seen.

Your concept of “totally different” is totally different from mine. The combination of the words Apple and Cinema was unique enough for the Trademark Office to approve Apple Inc’s application of Apple Cinema Display in 1999 AND to deny Apple Cinema’s application 25 years later. If they were in a “totally different” area of use, Apple Inc’s initial use of Apple Cinema Display would have never been made, as the name would have made no sense to anyone and Apple would have had no reason to trademark it, but film editors using FCP were also using Apple monitors, so the name made complete sense. But beyond that, if you think area of use is the only determinant, go try opening a bumper shop and trademarking your business name as Google Chrome Bumpers and let me know how that goes.

And Apple Computers has been well known worldwide for almost 50 years now. The Apple trademarks they purchased from Apple Corps are even older, at almost 60 years old, but, sure, Apple Cinemas never heard of either prior to naming their company after a mall they were never in, but somehow forgetting the Valley part of Apple Valley Mall.

Edit: Also, please realize that being able to buy multiple magazines specifically dedicated to something is a pretty good indicator that that something is well known.

 

[Makosuke]

Hey you might be onto something there, check this out:

View attachment 2536909

In the real world rather than AI summary, Apple actually first started selling movies digitally in 2006 along with the announcement of the AppleTV set-top-box (originally called iTV before a trademark dispute just like this with the British network ITV forced them to change it!).

Apple had sold 2 million movies by mid 2007, so they were in the movie distribution business, and reasonably successful at it, long before this chain existed.

 

[wyliej]

The fact that it was denied due to confusion and they still ran with it is just plain stupid. Apple definitely has a slam dunk case with this.

Which Apple?

For those who keep talking about the "Apple Cinema Display"--that trademark was cancelled in 2022.

 

[Flight Plan]

Why not rebrand to "Apple Tree Valley Cinema", or even "Appletree Valley Cinemas"?

Or have fun with the double entendre and call it "Red Delicious Cinemas"? I'd stay away from "Granny Smith", though; unless you specialize in Civil War era films.

 

[ignatius345]

Not true. Sony Pictures owns Alamo Drafthouse. The law that prohibited studios from owning theatres was overturned in 2021 under the Biden Administration.

Netflix also bought the Paris Theater in Manhattan. I believe they did it so they could do limited theatrical releases of their films so they would be eligible for Academy Awards. (The vast majority of their programming is amazing repartory stuff -- retrospectives on directors, film genres. Really worth going to if you're in the area.)

 

[bgillander]

Which Apple?

For those who keep talking about the "Apple Cinema Display"--that trademark was cancelled in 2022.

Interesting viewpoint. Do you have any reason to actually believe that or perhaps maybe even a source to back it up?

Apple appears to disagree:

Legal - Trademark List - Apple

www.apple.com

 

[wyliej]

The USPTO disagrees with Apple:

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

tsdr.uspto.gov

The trademark may exist in other countries, however.

 

[bgillander]

The USPTO disagrees with Apple:

Trademark Status & Document Retrieval

tsdr.uspto.gov

The trademark may exist in other countries, however.

Cool. That seems a pretty major ball drop by Apple Inc. Maybe Apple Cinemas does have a snowball’s chance, after all.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not sure Apple Cinemas will win this..

That the USPTO has ALREADY handed them a fail, it’s about as sure as a sure thing can be that they’re going to lose.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If Apple Cinemas start making phones and computers, then Apple might have a case.

If Apple Cinemas had not included “electronics stores” in their trademark application, they might have flown under the radar. So, they’re obviously looking for attention with their actions. If their plan was “make sure people know we exist”, success because I had no idea they were a thing.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Why not rebrand to "Apple Tree Valley Cinema", or even "Appletree Valley Cinemas"?

Or have fun with the double entendre and call it "Red Delicious Cinemas"? I'd stay away from "Granny Smith", though; unless you specialize in Civil War era films.

Those wouldn’t have given them as much engagement on social media. It’s all about attention for them, but I still wonder, for what benefit?

EDIT: I get it, it’s a part of their rollout strategy and potentially a way to make a quick buck. If they win, best case, they still agree to resubmit their trademark application without the parts that defines Apple’s business. If they lose, they’ve gotten lots of free publicity about their west coast location that helps it to be more profitable quicker. Best BEST case is that they’re not forced to change their name OR trademark application (unlikely as it’s been rejected already) and they get some money out of selling the trademark to Apple, again, all about bolstering their expansion plans.