Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yea, but previously they existed locally. Now that they're going nationwide, it's a whole different story. Apple has EVERY right to bring this lawsuit!!! I never heard of Apple Cinema before today. Upon first reading the name in this post, I initially assumed it was a new Apple venture. But it wasn't.
They're not a "local" business. They are in the Northwest of the country. We have one in Rochester, and I don't even know where the Apple Valley mall that they reference is. For people who know something about movie theater chains, they've been around for years--and they made a name for themselves, obviously have nothing to do with Apple Inc. and they have been on Apple's radar for years. Apple just now had an issue with them because the company is expanding.
 
Wait, so you're with Apple Cinemas here?

Apple has a film/studio arm. If F1 played at this theater, you'd be watching an Apple Studios film at an Apple Cinemas. Don't you think the average consumer wouldn't be able to figure out that they're two different companies?
But who was first?
 
It certainly makes you wonder if Apple Corps (owned by the Beatles) had kept pushing it's claim for trademark infringement against Apple Computer, what would have become of Apple today because Apple Corps owned the trademark first and they could have prevented Apple Computer from using the name Apple and the logo of an Apple but instead money was more important to Apple Corps and they allowed Apple Computer to pay huge sums of money to purchase the Apple corps trademark from the Beatles.

That being said Apple Cinema has been around since 2013 and Apple did nothing BUT as soon as the owner of the cinema tried to trademark the name that is when Apple stepped in. It would seem Apple only step in when a company tries to trademark a name that has the word 'Apple' in it or contains a logo that is very similar to the Apple logo which is why they went after a US small business seller who tried to trade mark a pear shaped logo but Apple complained saying it looked far to similar to it's Apple logo. The company in question had been in business a number of years before it tried to trademark it's logo. So yes to me it seems there are companies out there using Apple in their name or using a similar logo but as soon as the company tries to trademark that name or logo, Apple goes after them.

Apple is currently going after a fruit union in Switzerland because Apple say's it's logo of a red apple that the union has used for over 111 years is too similar to it's logo. So it begs the question, how can Apple be allowed to sue a company that has used a logo of an apple for over 111 years. It all comes down to trademarks. If a company/business does not trade mark their logo, the company that does own the trademark can challenge it regardless of how long the logo had been in use for.
 
But who was first?


Based on this Apple

This is exactly right.

Surprised it's not also mentioned that Apple introduced Apple Cinema Displays as early as 1999.


Open and shut case.


And based on the article itself:
The first warning came from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which in October 2024 denied Sand Media Corp Inc.'s trademark applications for the "Apple Cinemas" and "ACX — Apple Cinematic Experience" marks, given they were likely to cause confusion with Apple's prior trademark rights, according to the complaint.
 
The first warning came from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which in October 2024 denied Sand Media Corp Inc.'s trademark applications for the "Apple Cinemas" and "ACX — Apple Cinematic Experience" marks, given they were likely to cause confusion with Apple's prior trademark rights, according to the complaint.

That's a key point that is overlooked in the discussion, the USPTO denied the trademark application, and Apple sent a standard cease and desist. When Apple Cinemas went ahead, Apple took the needed steps to protect its trademarks.

As for the business area, Apple was in the movie exhibition business before Apple Cinemas; something Apple Cinemas should have considered when branding their theaters.
 
As for the business area, Apple was in the movie exhibition business before Apple Cinemas; something Apple Cinemas should have considered when branding their theaters.
If you apply Apple Corp. logic re. Apple being "in the music business" then Apple have been "in the movie business" since they released QuickTime in 1991. :)

It certainly makes you wonder if Apple Corps (owned by the Beatles) had kept pushing it's claim for trademark infringement against Apple Computer
They did keep pushing - the dispute rumbled from 1978 to 2007 with multiple cases and settlements until Apple (computer) started winning in 2006. It does rather look like a case of "deepest pockets always win" given the changing relative wealth of Apple Corp vs Apple Computer over that time... Bizarrely, Apple Corps case started to sound more rational in the 2000s when Apple got involved in actual music distribution than in the early days when they were arguing over the Mac's ability to play sounds.

I don't think there are any good guys in this game, but if you look at the history it's easy to understand Apple's "do unto others before they do unto you" attitude.
 


In a federal court in Massachusetts on Friday, Apple sued a small movie theater chain named Apple Cinemas over alleged trademark infringement.

Apple-Cinemas.jpg

"Apple Cinemas is knowingly and intentionally using the name Apple to sow confusion for its own benefit," alleged attorneys for Apple, in a complaint filed against all Apple Cinemas locations, and a Sand Media Corp Inc. company connected to the chain.

Established in 2013, Apple Cinemas maintained a limited presence in the Northeastern U.S. until last month, when it opened a theater in San Francisco. The complaint alleges that Apple Cinemas is pursuing a nationwide expansion across the U.S., including in areas near Apple's headquarters and retail stores, leading Apple to take action.

"Faced with Defendants' plan to expand to 100 theaters nationwide, as well as widespread public confusion about Apple's involvement in the theaters, Apple has no alternative but to file this lawsuit to protect its brand and customers from deception," the complaint states.

Apple Cinemas currently has 14 locations, according to its website.

Apple's "repeated efforts to resolve the matter amicably" were unsuccessful. The lawsuit alleges that the companies behind Apple Cinemas have received multiple warnings that the name would cause confusion among consumers, but carried on. The complaint includes examples of some people who believed that Apple Cinemas was owned by Apple, in the comment sections of various online news articles and social media posts.

The first warning came from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which in October 2024 denied Sand Media Corp Inc.'s trademark applications for the "Apple Cinemas" and "ACX — Apple Cinematic Experience" marks, given they were likely to cause confusion with Apple's prior trademark rights, according to the complaint.

Apple has very strong trademark rights in connection with a wide range of goods and services, including movie distribution, its attorneys said.

The second warning came in December 2024, when Apple sent Sand Media Corps Inc. a cease and desist letter directly, according to the complaint. Apple's attorneys also communicated with the company by phone and in writing several times, but it knowingly pushed forward with its Apple Cinemas expansion plans, the complaint adds.

As for how the Apple Cinemas name came to be? According to the complaint, the founders of the chain claim they adopted the name due to a planned first location at the Apple Valley Mall in Rhode Island, but they never opened a location there.

Apple is seeking both an injunction and monetary damages.

Article Link: Apple Sues Movie Theater Chain With Similar 'Apple Cinemas' Name
Apple stands, you're next!!!
 
What is your point? Apparently, there are thousands of companies that use the name Apple in their names. Apple Bank, for example, predates Apple Computer by more than 100 years. It's probably not great for your SEO but I don't think that's what Steve Jobs was thinking about when he decided to name the company Apple Computer either.
The point is, apparently, that Apple Cinema doesn’t predate Apple (and there aren’t thousands of companies that use the name Apple in their name). And, if the goal was to come up with a name for a cinema that would be legal challenge free (and, that they’d be able to trademark), there are over 200,000 words to choose from. Like American Movie Classics or Regal. And, a company also has the choice to use a name not even from the 200,000, like Cinemark. Adding that, there’s a MASSIVE number of things, other than Apple, that a company can call themselves (there’s a huge list of theaters that had no problem avoiding using trademarked terms in their name) AND get that term successfully trademarked. In 2010, naming yourself Apple or Microsoft or Oracle was simply not smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
A movie theater suddenly pops up in San Francisco with the name Apple Cinemas out of the blue. I would be thinking that Apple is starting their own theater chain. It's to eliminate the confusion and protect their name and likeness.

What if it's a dump or people have bad experiences. They're going to say I went to the new Apple theater and the popcorn was terrible and the seats uncomfortable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaren
Someone better tell Alphabet, Amazon, Caterpillar, Adobe, etc. etc. etc. that their trademarks should be meaningless too.

Yes, I believe people’s dictionary should not be for sale. Make new words and embed them with meaning like so many have done e … 7up, Pepsi, Coca-Cola …

So yes … tell them. They can adopt them but cannot buy their graphic and semantics.

Look. This problem is silly. It is one of those created by the state and in no way came about to protect the rights of the population and their culture.

I learned the word Apple long before I got an iPad mate.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
I like Apple Cinemas it is actually a very nice place to watch a movie at. Yes at first I wondered if they were part of Apple but a quick search said no so not sure how much confusion there actually is. Also suing more than a decade after they started? Get real Apple (the one that makes computers and phones :)
 
And I probably shouldn't be the first to point out that Apple Cinemas doesn't make movies either. Can you watch a movie at the Apple Cinemas, and on an Apple device? Yes.
Yes but Apple Cinemas as a brand that uses the word Apple and has to do with movies PREDATES Apple computers being interested in films. Apple doesn’t get blanket retroactive rights to every industry. See Apple Corps. Music.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
I like Apple Cinemas it is actually a very nice place to watch a movie at. Yes at first I wondered if they were part of Apple but a quick search said no so not sure how much confusion there actually is. Also suing more than a decade after they started? Get real Apple (the one that makes computers and phones :)
And Apple TV boxes for over a decade. 😉
 
Apple Cinemas was founded in 2013, Apple Studios was founded in 2019. Apple Inc didn’t start producing Apple Original Series content until 2016, nor Apple Original Films content until 2019. As Apple Cinemas is a functioning business who actually offer a service/product, yes I am in favour of them since they picked the name Apple first in the TV/Movie industry.

The only way I’d be supportive of Apple Studios in this is if Apple Cinemas was a copyright/patent troll with no footprint anywhere.
Clearly you didn’t read the whole article. The complaint is about Apple Cinemas suddenly start to expand, making use of the recent hit of the Apple Studios success.
 
There are a lot of people here mocking the possibility that someone could get confused, but I’ve been in a conversation when this happened. Apple Cinemas got pretty large quickly by surviving the pandemic and buying up the bankrupt Zyacorp that owned the “Cinemagic” Chain in New Hampshire and Maine. They’re also buying an AMC theater that recently closed in NH. Anyway, as signs announced the reopening of our hometown Cinemagic as an “Apple Cinemas” my father-in-law mused to my father about Apple expanding into the theatrical space.

By this point Apple had been selling digital movies and TV shows via iTunes for over 15 years. My polite suggestion that I was almost certain that this theater was totally unrelated (I mean the logo is different) went seemingly unheard. “Maybe I can get a discount with my Prime membership!” my father-in-law laughed.

These guys are in their early 70s, and generally very with it, but I have no idea who or what they think owns any given tech company!
 
This is ridiculous. It's like when the Beatles' Apple records sued Apple for using the name Apple. Trademarks are only supposed to apply to the company's market. When this company was founded, Apple didn't have any cinema aspirations just like Apple Records had no tech market aspirations

Also, Apple is a pretty generic name anyway. Very common. Apple should lose and have to pay some damages
 
Wait, so you're with Apple Cinemas here?

Apple has a film/studio arm. If F1 played at this theater, you'd be watching an Apple Studios film at an Apple Cinemas. Don't you think the average consumer wouldn't be able to figure out that they're two different companies?
It's not Apple Cinema's fault Apple decided to encroach into their market about a decade after Apple Cinema started

Legally, this would be grounds for Apple Cinema to sue Apple for trademark infringement.

It's crazy how fealty to Apple results in such backwards thinking
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
Wait, so you're with Apple Cinemas here?

Apple has a film/studio arm. If F1 played at this theater, you'd be watching an Apple Studios film at an Apple Cinemas. Don't you think the average consumer wouldn't be able to figure out that they're two different companies?
Yeah, and Apple made their film/studio arm a long time after Apple Cinemas started in 2013. Legally, Apple Cinemas is the company that could sue for damages due to market confusion, not Apple. At least in a country with a legal system that didn't favor the wealthy and powerful

That's how trademark law is intended to work
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.