Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.
The expansion beyond the regional cinemas is what triggers this lawsuit. There are probably a dozen “Bob’s Burgers” scattered around different states all different but all using the same name. If Bob’s Big Boy tried to expand in a state where one existed they would likely need to use a different name in that state (same as America’s Tire Company replacing Discount Tire Company in some states).

Apple operates nationally. So they hold the trademark on Apple related to movies at the National level but anybody preceding them at a local level can continue to operate locally. When Apple Cinemas expanded to California they triggered this. Further, Apple likely still holds priority for selling movies on iTunes before 2013 but likely never asserted the trademark back then because they were unaware of Apple Cinemas operations. Once you become aware, you have to defend your trademark or lose it.

It is very much why “App Store” failed as a trademark. It was never defended at first and Steve Jobs even referred to “other people’s app stores”. You cannot retroactively defend a trademark. Also. “App Store” was a stupid trademark to try to assert retroactively because it is like “Grocery Store”. Apple needed to assert that and register it when the word “App” replaced “Application” and “Program” (looking at Windows there). But it was too late for Apple on that one.

NOTE: Apple Records had priority in music and received or still receives money for Apple Computer for using the Apple name for Apple Music and maybe even as far back as opening the iTunes Store.
 
I usually write off similar-name businesses with common nouns as stupid, but yeah, I think this one is kinda unavoidable. Apple is the most recognized brand on earth and has an entire film division hyping big-budget films, so a nationwide theater chain with the same name is ripe (ha!) for confusion about whether the theater Apple is the same as the movie-studio Apple, even if you leave out the tech and other businesses.

Apple itself was in a fairly similar situation with the Beatles label Apple Corps, in which they mostly lost their initial court case but got a pass because they were not making music, had mixed results in others once they did, and eventually bought the other company’s name for around half a billion dollars.

The legal test is actually known as “only a moron in a hurry”, as in “only a moron in a hurry would be confused by the similarities”. Apple Theaters showing an Apple Studios film absolutely does not pass that test.

It’s true that the theater chain was named before Apple got into movies, but certainly long after it was a household name associated with media, and Apple didn’t bother them as long as they were only local.

It’s like the burger place near where I live named ”Hamburger King” (which I think might’ve even predated the chain)—nobody bothered them even though they were a few blocks from a Burger King, but if they’d tried to expand nationally there would have been issues.
 
Just curious…are there any movie studios that own movie theater chains in the United States? Is it actually legal?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nrose101
As for how the Apple Cinemas name came to be? According to the complaint, the company behind the chain claims 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.
Yeah, Apple Cinemas is cooked. If that’s how they founded the name, the judge will likely side with Apple.

I would settle if I were Apple Cinemas or let Apple buy the company.
 
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.
Apple is in the movie business now, maybe not cinemas, but in the industry.

But it doesn’t matter. Trademark protection is not just an idle thing, you cannot trademark your brand, sit back and hope all goes well. The law requires you to proactively protect your trademark. Trademark dilution is real and courts will look at this over time.

This just isn’t about being “poor sport”, not how the law works unfortunately.
 
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.
 
The settlement should be Apple, Inc., paying Apple Cinemas for their legal costs! It's absolutely ridiculous that the word "Apple" can't be used in any product that would in a 1-in-a-million chance confuse someone thinking the product actually came from Apple, Inc.
Apple is required to protect its trademark. These type of lawsuits happen everyday.
 
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?

No, given the way the logo looks.

Apple should have just done a deal to either buyout the company or deal to buy out the name then this lawsuit.

Why? Apple has a valid trademark to defend. Apple Cinema, at a minimum, should have had a logo vastly different than Apple's.

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.

Apple had Apple TV before Apple Cinema came into existence; and it clearly was in the TV/Movie industry.
It amazes me a company would take a name so close to Apple's trademarks and not expect a fight.
 
LOL yeah, let's start suing orchards, now!

I suspect Apple will lose this lawsuit, or it will be protracted. Apple can't claim ownership on the name Apple across all industries, and life in general -- "prior art", too. The apple itself has existed, the word has been ubiquitous, as has been the symbol of an apple. It would be a different matter if this company was in technology. There is the complication of Apple Studios and Apple TV. So who knows, but we should watch this one.

If Apple loses this (and they'll ap-peel, get it?), it may invalidate other similar lawsuits --- anyone here with legal experience, please provide your perspective.

I also don't see how a theater is threatening Apple's brand. Maybe I need some Apple Smart Glasses to see that? LOL
 
Oh yeah…

Dead ringers…

Apple-Cinemas.jpg
View attachment 2533893

Are you seriously suggesting these two look the same?

Who could possibly be confused?

If anyone thinks those logos look the same, they need to visit the eye doctor.
 
An easy win for Apple Cinemas, of course - after that, they should just ask Apple for a few million dollars’ settlement.
 
Apple really acting like everyone is so dumb they wouldn't know the difference between a movie theater and apple products. What a load of crap. Hope they lose and have to pay their laywers fees for apple cinemas.
 
i still remember when Steve named a company after his favorite band's (the beatles) record company 🙃

And eventually settles a trademark lawsuit,

Apple Valley Mall! Come on Apple! As long as you are already at the courthouse, you might as well sue the mall owners too.

Apple is not in the mall business.

A regional business may retain rights to a name but may not be able to expand nationally using the same.

Exactly, that became an issue when schools with the same initials began expanding their presence beyond their original region. For example, OSU vs OSU, where ultimately an agreement to use the trademark concurrently, which also allows them to ue non-licensed users. Trademarks are interesting, as OSU has a valid trademark on THE, after an agreement with Marc Jacobs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.