Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Evidence #000001:
the-far-side-garden-of-eden.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: edvj
I can see how there would be confusion in the name especially because of trying to trademark “Apple Cinema Experience”, but at the same time the rest is its branding is very unlike Apple. So I’m conflicted.
 
Apple has “Apple Pay” and the “Apple Card”, and “Apple Cash”, and the “Apple Wallet.” Are they going to sue Apple Bank in New York too? :rolleyes:

Apple Inc. should pay the cinema chain to change its name, if this if this is the road Tim Apple (Cook 😛) wants to go down.
 
I’m not gonna get into this. I wasn’t reaching like you were.

Fair enough, but Apple's actions are well within what trademark law requires them to do to protect their trade name. an avoiding t becoming generic.

Apple Inc. (the iPhone company) distributed its first film in late 2019, a documentary entitled "The Elephant Queen." "The Elephant Queen" premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2018, then Apple struck a distribution deal with A24 (the film's studio) in 2019. Apple Cinemas started doing business in 2013 — more than half a decade before Apple Inc. got into the movie business. Evidently Apple Cinemas incorporated in 2010, although the first Apple Cinemas theater opened in 2013.

Apple Cinema's not in the movie distribution business, they are a theater; which is essentially the same type of business as Apple was in when it introduced AppleTV as a way to watch movies.

IMHO, it wasn't a very smart business move to name your company with the same name as a very large company that already has trademarks and is known to vigorously defend its trademarks.

But in 2013 Apple had nothing to do with film/cinema, right? So Apple Cinemas were there first, it should be them who get to use the name, not Apple. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?

AppleTV came out in 2007 and thus Apple was in the business of showing movies before them.

Apple has “Apple Pay” and the “Apple Card”, and “Apple Cash”, and the “Apple Wallet.” Are they going to sue Apple Bank in New York too?

Since Apple Bank for Savings has been around for 160 years and has used Apple Bank since 1983 and thus has used the name for almost as long as Apple, so I would doubt it. No one is likely to confuse the two companies.

Apple Inc. should pay the cinema chain to change its name, if this if this is the road Tim Apple (Cook ) wants to go down.

Why? That would reward their behavior and encourage others to do the same in hopes of a payoff. If anything, if Apple opened a bank they should negotiate rights with Apple Bank for Savings, IMHO; or just buy it outright.
 
Limited presence in the Northeast, then of all the places in the country to move their Apple Theaters to, they go to San Francisco next?
 
Fair enough, but Apple's actions are well within what trademark law requires them to do to protect their trade name. an avoiding t becoming generic.



Apple Cinema's not in the movie distribution business, they are a theater; which is essentially the same type of business as Apple was in when it introduced AppleTV as a way to watch movies.

IMHO, it wasn't a very smart business move to name your company with the same name as a very large company that already has trademarks and is known to vigorously defend its trademarks.



AppleTV came out in 2007 and thus Apple was in the business of showing movies before them.



Since Apple Bank for Savings has been around for 160 years and has used Apple Bank since 1983 and thus has used the name for almost as long as Apple, so I would doubt it. No one is likely to confuse the two companies.



Why? That would reward their behavior and encourage others to do the same in hopes of a payoff. If anything, if Apple opened a bank they should negotiate rights with Apple Bank for Savings, IMHO; or just buy it outright.
"Leave the multi billion dollar company aloooooone!!!"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: mwhite
Who’s next, Applebees?

Edit: it’s a joke, it’s a god damn joke, turn off your brain and laugh
What??!!! It's not an Apple owned subsidiary like Beats!!!??? I demand compensation... I thought I was getting iWings and iBurgers!

Yes a good one, thanks! And yes many folks who's whole net and self worth are tied to AAPL will not find any humor or agreement in anything making fun of or critical of Apple...
 
If Apple didn't get into Film Making, Distribution, Sales...it wouldn't be a problem...but now...
And so when in 2013 Apple Cinemas started, it was OK, but now that Apple Inc. has changed what they do, Apple Cinemas can't continue to grow their business? Hopefully Apple Inc. doesn't start making pies.
 
"Leave the multi billion dollar company aloooooone!!!"

When it comes to trademarks, yes that is a good idea.

And so when in 2013 Apple Cinemas started, it was OK, but now that Apple Inc. has changed what they do, Apple Cinemas can't continue to grow their business? Hopefully Apple Inc. doesn't start making pies.

As Apple pointed out in the complaint, they were a small regional chain and thus flew under the radar. Once they went national and came to Apple''s attention, they took action to protect their trademarks.
 
Hopefully Apple Inc. doesn't start making pies.
Hopefully the USPTO and their worldwide equivalents aren't quite so incompetent as to allow anybody to trademark "apple" in the context of actual fruit.

I say hopefully... probably they should never have allowed Apple as a trademark way back whenever...

Seriously Apple, grow a pair
Unfortunately, trademark law is like that.

If a few years down the line some big corp bought up up Apple Cinemas and launch a streaming channel called "Apple Cinema", letting it pass now could make it harder for Apple to object.

It's also highly plausible that Apple might want to open a cinema in California at some stage.

As Apple pointed out in the complaint, they were a small regional chain and thus flew under the radar. Once they went national and came to Apple''s attention, they took action to protect their trademarks.
...and if the court accepts that then it's a good thing overall as it would help establish that big companies didn't have to go after every local Mon & Pop "paying hobby" with a vaguely similar name "just in case" they got bigger down the line.

Even in 2013 naming any business "Apple anything" was kicking a sleeping dog, esp. as the reason for using the name sounds somewhat nebulous.
 
Apple is in the movie distribution business but not the restaurant business. Trademark registration requires selecting one more “classes” (industries) in which your mark applies. Also, if you don’t defend your trademark you can lose it.
How many movie distributors currently own movie theaters? To suggest the general public would be confused and think Apple, the iPhone company now owns movie theaters is kinda ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mwhite
I say hopefully... probably they should never have allowed Apple as a trademark way back whenever...

I get what you are saying but trademark and service mark law allows the use of common terms as long as they do not directly describe the goods or services it represents and if it has become strongly associated with a specific brand or business.

That has allowed apple to trademark Apple, Ohio State to trademark THE, Nike "JUST DO IT" in their specific categories.

That makes sense because it allows companies to develop a brand in a specific category that is unique and valuable; while preventing trademarking descriptive names.

...and if the court accepts that then it's a good thing overall as it would help establish that big companies didn't have to go after every local Mon & Pop "paying hobby" with a vaguely similar name "just in case" they got bigger down the line.

I'm guessing that is the case since Apple mentioned it in the filing. To expect a company to search out and act against any potentially infringing name, no matter who small of a company, would be unrealistic and make trademark protection very weak.

Even in 2013 naming any business "Apple anything" was kicking a sleeping dog, esp. as the reason for using the name sounds somewhat nebulous.

Very sound advice. "Do not anger dragons" is a good plan.

How many movie distributors currently own movie theaters? To suggest the general public would be confused and think Apple, the iPhone company now owns movie theaters is kinda ridiculous.

However, Apple is also in the business of showing films and TV to endusers, and has been before Apple Cinemas started using the name. In addition, they own the rights to Apple Cinema Display.

What mark are they defending here? The word Apple? Because the logo doesn’t look anything like Apple, Inc.’s logo.

I respectfully disagree and think if you just showed people the logo and asked to name whose company it represents, a significant percentage would respond Apple as in the tech company and not Apple Cinema; even if you did it in Apple Cinema's geographic region.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.