Apple Sues Movie Theater Chain With Similar 'Apple Cinemas' Name

[Jumpthesnark]

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.

People were able to watch movies with Apple devices for years before Apple Cinemas opened, as many people here have mentioned. I watched movies on Apple devices and services long before 2013.

First movies available for purchase in the iTunes store was 2006. First Apple TV device was 2007. And the ability to watch movies on a Mac predates both of those by years.

 

[maxoakland]

People were able to watch movies with Apple devices for years before Apple Cinemas opened, as many people here have mentioned. I watched movies on Apple devices and services long before 2013.

First movies available for purchase in the iTunes store was 2006. First Apple TV device was 2007. And the ability to watch movies on a Mac predates both of those by years.

None of those things give them the right to sue a company that specializes in physical theaters.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

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.

Copyright and trademark law came about to protect the rights of individuals and businesses when it comes to their created works, their brand, etc. And to protect people from fraudulent or counterfeit products. Some of the first trademarks were used by bakers so people knew where their bread came from. And all of that came well after people were branding their herd animals so they could prove if someone else stole them, and artists have been signing their work to ensure its authenticity - their creative cultural works - for millennia.

I learned the word Apple long before I got an iPad mate.

I'm glad that's not how trademark and copyright work. Just because you learned the alphabet when you were a child, doesn't mean you could have a prayer of stopping the company that owns Google from registering its name or protecting its trademark. You can complain about it all you want, they're still gonna be Apple and Alphabet. Trademark allows for the usage of common words.

 

[CasinoOwl]

Apple Cinemas was silly to pick that name, IMO. Anyone who wants to use the Apple name and an apple for a logo should expect to get challenged as they grow bigger. Apple seems to have ignored this when it was just a few stores. Now that the company is expanding, they would be foolish not to protect their brand.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

None of those things give them the right to sue a company that specializes in physical theaters.

Of course they do. To infringe on a company's trademark, a possibly infringing business doesn't need to have the exact same business model.

Go to Detroit and try to open an auto painting company called Ford Motors Paint, or General Motors Paint and see how far you get.

They not only have the right but as many many people here have already mentioned, they have the fiduciary and legal duty to sue in order to protect their trademark. Failure to do so means that the next time someone opens a business with a name that could possibly confuse the public about whether it's Apple Inc. or some other Apple, they could easily lose such a case in court because they failed to enforce their trademark this time.

 

[duncandb]

Next up, Apple sues Mother Nature for creating apples. Also starts it’s own Holy Crusade as Vatican mentions apples numerous time in their book “The Bible”.

Where does the bible mention apples?

 

[Ethosik]

So what? I can look at an apple and think of Apple the company. Apple Inc can’t make apples not apple like. The fact that the logo is based on an apple doesn’t really automatically give Apple Inc the right to ask this of a third party. If it was a close representation of the Apple logo - fair enough. But it isn’t. Likewise with the name. Apple Inc v Apple Cinemas are two clearly different names, regardless of them both having Apple there. If Apple Cinemas was called just Apple then fair enough. But it’s not.

If Apple was called something not as generic as the name of a fruit, and had invented a logo based on the name, then fair enough. Google for example is non ambiguous.

Once again it’s an example of Apple claiming something as theirs when in fact it’s stolen. Both the name and the logo are not truly very original and are infact something else entirely. There should be limits for trademarking in this case.

Please read up on how to run a business before bashing Apple for this. You are REQUIRED to fight trademarks, even if you don't want to or there could be a pass in some cases otherwise you LOSE your trademark. Joe's Store might be fine not fighting, but Apple will NOT want to lose Apple trademark.

 

[Ethosik]

Closely is the point. The apple logos are not similar. For an example of similarity see when Walgreens sued Wegmans because the script W logo was similar.

I believe something similar happened with WWF and they had to re-name to WWE.

 

[Ethosik]

Come on Apple; you’ve got better things to do I’m sure? Are people really that confused? How many people try to take a bite out of their Macintosh computers? 3 out of every 10,000 customers at most. Let confused people be confused.

You think Apple really wants to be spending their time doing this? I have been in these battles before. I would rather focus my attention on improving the business, not trying to fight a trademark deal and meeting with lawyers. But you need to do this as a business, unless you are fine losing your trademarks. Apple does NOT want to lose their trademarks.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

When this company was founded, Apple didn't have any cinema aspirations just like Apple Records had no tech market aspirations

When this company was founded, they didn’t try to trademark the name because they knew it would be rejected. Which means, they knew, from the very start, that choosing “Apple” for a name was a bad idea.

 

[jlc1978]

What has a set top box got to do with a cinema?

Both exhibit movies.

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

Apple already was in the same basic business when Apple Cinemas came up with its name.

Also, Apple is a pretty generic name anyway. Very common. Apple should lose and have to pay some damages

But it is not a generic term wrt computers that descirbes the prroduct or its function, so it can be used a as tradmark.

It's not Apple Cinema's fault Apple decided to encroach into their market about a decade after Apple Cinema started

Apple was in the same business way before them, and had even used the term Apple Cinema in a poduct name.

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

Hardly.

It's crazy how fealty to Apple results in such backwards thinking

Or some basic understanding of trademark law.

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.

Apple Cinema dos not have a film/studio arm either, that Apple started one after Apple Cinema was named is irrelevant. What is relevant is both are in the exhibition business, and Apple was there first.

That's how trademark law is intended to work

Trademark law is working as it should.

None of those things give them the right to sue a company that specializes in physical theaters.

Sure, Apple was in teh distribution business first and Apple Cinema's name and logo is likely to cause confusion over ownership.

 

[HMI]

What has a set top box got to do with a cinema?

digital distribution in that industry.

 

[bgillander]

To be comparable, Apple would have had to to be involved in the movie industry before Apple Cinemas, Apple Cinemas existed before Apple Studios, and before any Apple Originals came out.

This example now would be more like if Apple Inc sued Apple Records instead.

You don’t generally go after companies using generic item names in their branding in industries you aren’t involved in, and it’s pretty poor sport to go into an industry at a later date and then start legal action against a company that’s been in that industry longer than you have.

Wait, you think Apple Cinemas actually produces movies? They just display them to customers, and Apple Inc has been in the movie rental business since 2006, prior to Apple Cinemas’ 2013 debut. And Final Cut Pro has been around since 1999. And the ability to display movies dates back to QuickTime in 1991.

Apple Cinemas explanation for their name also defies logic, as naming a product for something you ended up not doing seems like a really bad business move, and appears a stretch as bad as the Baby Ruth story.

But if you really want to focus on movie production even though Apple Cinemas has nothing to do with that, I believe the first product of Apple Films was “The Magical Mystery Tour” in 1967, and Apple Inc purchased the Apple trademarks from Apple Corps (the parent of Apple Films) in 2007. Since it appears that Apple Inc now license the use of the Apple trademarks back to Apple Corps, it would seem that they would actually be required by this to pursue Apple Cinemas to protect that trademark, even if only for Apple Corps.

 

[bgillander]

I believe something similar happened with WWF and they had to re-name to WWE.

Yeah, the World Wrestling Federation was asked to not use the abbreviation WWF by the World Wildlife Fund who had already used WWF for years, but then went and branded everything WWF, causing the World Wildlife Fund to have to lay the smackdown on them. Later, the WWE came up with a script where it was all their idea, in a further ripoff of PeeWee Herman’s “I meant to do that” shtick.

Correcting The Record On Why The WWF Changed Its Name To WWE

On Sunday, WWE unveiled the first episode of its new limited documentary series on WWE Network, Ruthless Aggression, covering the early to mid-2000s in the company. In the process, they told a massive whopper about why the company changed its name from WWF to WWE in 2002.

www.forbes.com

 

[bgillander]

None of those things give them the right to sue a company that specializes in physical theaters.

Hopefully you are not the judge in this case, since that seems like a really strange interpretation of trademark rules, but the courts certainly do seem rather unpredictable these days, so I guess we will see.

 

[bgillander]

When this company was founded, they didn’t try to trademark the name because they knew it would be rejected. Which means, they knew, from the very start, that choosing “Apple” for a name was a bad idea.

Even worse, the story says they DID try to trademark it later in 2024.

“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 Cinematic Experience” just feels like they were trolling Apple at that point. Makes me think their next move would be to label each of their theatre screens as “Apple Cinemas’ Display”, because “they originally planned to open their second theatre in a mall named “Display Creek Mall”, but then didn’t.

 

[bgillander]

I’m reminded of the shoe being on the other foot when Apple Records gave Apple Computer (as was their official name) heck in the courts over such matters.

Actually, that Old Brown Shoe would be on the exact same foot, as Apple Inc bought those very trademarks from Apple Corps in 2007 for a half billion dollars, giving them the reason to give Apple Cinemas heck in the courts now, so this seems a rather similar replay. If Apple Cinemas can somehow find enough cash to convince Apple Inc to sell the Apple trademarks, perhaps we will see them reenact this with a fourth company in 20 years, but, more likely, Apple will prevail based on the earlier trademark office denial of the “Apple Cinemas” and “ACX — Apple Cinematic Experience” marks.

 

[Dr McKay]

Wait, you think Apple Cinemas actually produces movies?

nope

 

[jlc1978]

But if you really want to focus on movie production even though Apple Cinemas has nothing to do with that, I believe the first product of Apple Films was “The Magical Mystery Tour” in 1967, and Apple Inc purchased the Apple trademarks from Apple Corps (the parent of Apple Films) in 2007. Since it appears that Apple Inc now license the use of the Apple trademarks back to Apple Corps, it would seem that they would actually be required by this to pursue Apple Cinemas to protect that trademark, even if only for Apple Corps.

Good point. That gives Apple even more reason to prevail; although I doubt they need it. Personally, I would advise Apple Cinema to change their name to avoid spending a whole lot of money on a fight they will lose and potentially cripple their expansion plans.

 

[maxoakland]

Hopefully you are not the judge in this case, since that seems like a really strange interpretation of trademark rules, but the courts certainly do seem rather unpredictable these days, so I guess we will see.

That’s the way trademarks work. You don’t just get a blanket control over a word. You get protection from other people using your trade mark in the markets where you use it

Trademark was invented to protect businesses from impostors. If you aren’t in a specific market, there’s no reason to protect you in that market and it only would result in people being unable to use a word in every industry. That makes no sense

Remember, if trade mark law worked the way you want it to, Apple Records could’ve blocked Apple from ever implementing audio capabilities in their computers

 

[jlc1978]

That’s the way trademarks work. You don’t just get a blanket control over a word. You get protection from other people using your trade mark in the markets where you use it

Trademark was invented to protect businesses from impostors. If you aren’t in a specific market, there’s no reason to protect you in that market and it only would result in people being unable to use a word in every industry. That makes no sense

Which is the relevant in this case because Apple is in the film exhibition business and has been before Apple Cinema entered it.

Remember, if trade mark law worked the way you want it to, Apple Records could’ve blocked Apple from ever implementing audio capabilities in their computers

Which was why Apple Computer worked out a deal with them. Jobs could have renamed Apple to avoid conflict had he wanted to but was able to negotiate a deal that worked for both companies.

 

[maxoakland]

Which is the relevant in this case because Apple is in the film exhibition business and has been before Apple Cinema entered it.

Oh, really? When did Apple exhibit films before 2013?

Which was why Apple Computer worked out a deal with them. Jobs could have renamed Apple to avoid conflict had he wanted to but was able to negotiate a deal that worked for both companies.

So why won't Apple do that with this tiny little upstart? If Apple records could do it, why won't Apple, Inc do it?

 

[bgillander]

Oh, really? When did Apple exhibit films before 2013?

So why won't Apple do that with this tiny little upstart? If Apple records could do it, why won't Apple, Inc do it?

Well, since Apple Corps included Apple Films, and they eventually sold the Apple trademarks to Apple Inc for a half billion dollars in 2007, it seems likely that Apple Cinemas would need to spend quite a bit more than that in 2025 to convince Apple Inc to part with those trademarks.

And expanding from a regional theatre chain to a national one takes Apple Cinemas out of the “tiny little upstart” category, which is one of the main reasons for this case.

Edit: And I expect Apple Cinemas trying to trademark “Apple Cinematic Experience” in 2024 would further irritate Apple Inc, not exactly helping their negotiations, since Apple has had the trademark on Apple Cinema Display since 1999.

 

[bgillander]

That’s the way trademarks work. You don’t just get a blanket control over a word. You get protection from other people using your trade mark in the markets where you use it

Trademark was invented to protect businesses from impostors. If you aren’t in a specific market, there’s no reason to protect you in that market and it only would result in people being unable to use a word in every industry. That makes no sense

Remember, if trade mark law worked the way you want it to, Apple Records could’ve blocked Apple from ever implementing audio capabilities in their computers

This has nothing to do with how I want trademark law to work, as that assumes I want it to work like it currently does.

Apple Corps sued Apple again in 1989 because of the audio capabilities added to Apple products and Apple Computer settled with them to set the boundaries of each company’s turf. Apple Computer paid Apple Corps for those audio capabilities.

Apple Corps were, and Apple Inc are, both doing the same thing, which is defending their trademarks as required by the trademark process.

 

[jlc1978]

Oh, really? When did Apple exhibit films before 2013?

Apple was exhibiting films before 2013, via AppleTV, and Apple Corp was in the film business way before then.

Apple owns trademarks in that business from their own streaming as well as Apple Corps previous work..

It's not a leap to think "Apple Cinema" is an Apple product, and not a sepearate company given how well know Apple is and their efforts in that business. IANAL, but based on what I know a 'reasonably prudent consumer' would determine their is a strong likelyhood of confusion at a trial.

Since trademark law relies on the likely hood of confusing, it's reasonable to determine Apple Cinema's use of Apple Cinema is likely to cause confusion; which is why the USPTO denied the trademarks to them.

So why won't Apple do that with this tiny little upstart? If Apple records could do it, why won't Apple, Inc do it?

Apple had the money to buy the rights, and since Apple Corp got what they wanted via a license, a deal was worked out. Neither wanted an expensive court fight that may have resulted in a bad outcome for either or both.

I doubt Apple Cinema has the money to fight Apple, and since they would likely lose, IMHO, to continue would be a very bad business decision.

What I don't get was when Apple sent a cease and desist letter they went forward anyway; maybe they thought the publicity would be valuable to get a more national footprint and then would change their name? That Apple wouldn't fight them?

At any rate, using an Apple in their logo and the names Apple and Apple Cinema, when Apple has trademarks for one and one very close to Apple Cinema, both of which have been in use long before they came on to the scene, was probably not a winning idea.

Apple has paid for trademarks held by others, as witnessed by the Macintosh vs McIntosh Laboratory, a well known high-end audio equipment manufacturer. Jobs may have been trying to be cute by using Macintosh instead of McIntosh, but again, IMHO, McIntosh Laboratory had a much better argument for their trademark than Apple Cinema does. Apple wisely decided to make a deal and paid to secure the rights to the trademark Apple's application to trademark "Macintosh" was denied because of its phonetic similarity to McIntosh Laboratory's existing brand.

Has apple gone overboard in some cases by sending cease and desist orders or threatening alwsuits, certainly, I would argue yes; but not in this case.

Edit: added cite