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

[Black_Mage]

I hope Apple loses this lawsuit. The word Apple is a generic term. I often wondered what would happen if a big tech company decided to name AI, Sharon Apple, after buying the rights from the company that made Macross Plus. Would Apple sue them despite the fact they bought the rights to use a character from another company?

Sharon Apple

Sharon Apple (シャロン・アップル, Sharon Appuru) is a virtual idol and one of the antagonists of the Macross Plus OVA and its theatrical adaptation, Macross Plus Movie Edition. She also appeared in the short-lived manga adaptation, Macross Plus: TAC Name. She is an artificially created idol singer whose...

macross.fandom.com

 

[CapitalIdea]

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 literally produces movies and has for years, including a best picture winner 3 years ago. As per the article, people are already confusing the two.

 

[apple2022]

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?

I probably won't be the first to point out that apple wasn't making movies in 2013

 

[Awsaim]

Don't let them find out about Apple Insurance

 

[HiVolt]

If Apple didn't get into Film Making, Distribution, Sales...it wouldn't be a problem...but now...

They opened in 2013, why didn't they sue right away?

 

[hugodrax]

Who’s next, Applebees?

Edit: it’s a joke, it’s a god damn joke, turn off your brain and laugh

Actually Applebees pays royalties to Apple. They negotiated ages ago.

 

[thebart]

One of my eye doctors is Dr. Apple.

Uh oh, I hope their practice isn't called Apple Vision Professionals

 

[jlc1978]

The story is hilarious, of course, people complain. Apple is too generic an idea to claim only Apple.com has the rights to it. People are going to jump all over the story and crap all over it.

Except Apple isn’t generic. No one calls PCs Apples when referring to computers or cinemas, for example; unlike thermos, cellophane in the US, and escalator. Bayer also lost heroin and aspirin due to WWI.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

IIRC, Apple Computer’s move into music after agreeing not to after the first suit triggered the following actions.

 

[JapanApple]

Except Apple isn’t generic. No one calls PCs Apples when referring to computers or cinemas, for example; unlike thermos, cellophane in the US, and escalator. Bayer also lost heroin and aspirin due to WWI.

I didn't refer to any of such. Frankly speaking, I don't care if Apple is right or wrong. (I still get my stock dividend from Apple.) Legal precedent or image likeness, etc., can always be claimed. By the simplest past examples of IP cases in this case, "APPLE", in fact it doesn't get any basic understanding of how claims can be assumed.

 

[Boeingfan]

Movie goers are confused about who owns the cinema? Look at the logo. Now, just sit down, shut up and eat your popcorn.

 

[Boeingfan]

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?

If you eat apple pie at Applebee’s does that make the average consumer unable to realise that applebees don’t own the patent over said pie? Come on, you’re not comparing apples to apples 🤣

 

[Greenmeenie]

Funny how Steve Jobs stole the Apple name from the Beatles back in the day who also sued Apple… and now Apple is suing this tiny movie theatre chain.

 

[JapanApple]

Funny how Steve Jobs stole the Apple name from the Beatles back in the day who also sued Apple

Now that is funny, on many levels.

 

[canadianpj]

I'm ususally one to defend Apple on things but this is petty, really, really petty.

 

[ikramerica]

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.

Or is it ridiculous that a company used a trademarked name for no particular reason.

Was pineapple taken? Kumquat? Orange? Banana? Why Apple?

“We were gonna maybe open on in a place but didn’t …”

 

[Killa78]

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?

I'm with Apple cinemas for sure. Does that logo look like Apple's logo? And how many cinemas does Apple currently own? Having said that Trump managed to get elected. So maybe there are enough fools...

 

[jlc1978]

I didn't refer to any of such.

Except you stated “Apple is too generic an idea to claim only Apple.com has the rights to it.”

Just because a term is used generically to describe one class of products doesn’t preclude it from being trademarked for a completely unrelated product.

By the simplest past examples of IP cases in this case, "APPLE", in fact it doesn't get any basic understanding of how claims can be assumed.

Trademark and case law would disagree with you.

So I guess I’m not sure what your is point.

 

[Killa78]

Or is it ridiculous that a company used a trademarked name for no particular reason.

Was pineapple taken? Kumquat? Orange? Banana? Why Apple?

“We were gonna maybe open on in a place but didn’t …”

I see your point. But do you really look at that logo and think of Apple inc? There's no way the cinema would negatively impact Apple. Apple may well be within their rights but it's petty.

 

[krell100]

Petty ********.

 

[Killa78]

Pathetic posts in here. This infant theater knew exactly what they were doing, and had ample opportunities to change their logo. Stop with hyperbolic comments. It’s like Reddit in here….

You know the backstory then? Do tell.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

When I first saw the cinemas logo, I did wonder if it was apple. That logo does them no favours. If it’s true that people have commented on the cinemas website believing it to be part of apple then that will cause them issues. If I walked past a such a place in London I too would think it’s part of Apple Inc.

Yeah, I wouldn’t doubt that it’s a response to folks contacting Apple about it. Ohhh, and it’s a sketchy site, too. Try declining optional cookies.

 

[WebHead]

In Australia Apple sued the Woolworths grocery chain over its logo. It's still using it...

 

[ikramerica]

I think Apple is right on this. Apple Originals releases films, and CODA won Best Picture and F1 has made over half a billion dollars. It is perfectly reasonable to think that some people might think that Apple owns the theaters.

Even in 2013, the people who started the chain should've taken into consideration that they were using the name of one the world largest companies. The name came from Apple Valley Mall? Then why not call it Apple Valley Cinemas? Probably because Apple Valley Mall didn't want confusion over the name!

One will need to check that whole mail trail during discovery but you are probably right. The mall operator may very well have denied their name to prevent confusion.

But not before Apple TV

Apple has a case that they were in the movie exhibition business FIRST.

On an AppleTV you could rent or buy movies to watch via iTunes.

And Apple has submitted, as support for their lawsuits, a collection of legitimate complaints they have received about their “cinemas” which can demonstrate that consumers are confusing the names in the wild, not just in theory.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Pathetic posts in here. This infant theater knew exactly what they were doing, and had ample opportunities to change their logo. Stop with hyperbolic comments. It’s like Reddit in here….

Yeah, just did a quick check and it seems this started when they applied for a trademark on Apple Cinema and were rejected. Then Apple, as all companies are REQUIRED to do, sent a cease and desist to the owners of Apple Cinemas. Because, if a company doesn’t contest trademark disputes, they lose their trademark. Starbucks was ok losing “Christmas Blend”, but not Apple’s not ok losing the “Apple” name.