Vatican is the author of the Boble?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”.
I’m not gonna get into this. I wasn’t reaching like you were.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Apple consistently acts with emotionsand Apple is a business - they don’t act with emotions.
"Leave the multi billion dollar company aloooooone!!!"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.
*cough* multi-trillion"Leave the multi billion dollar company aloooooone!!!"
What??!!! It's not an Apple owned subsidiary like Beats!!!??? I demand compensation... I thought I was getting iWings and iBurgers!Who’s next, Applebees?
Edit: it’s a joke, it’s a god damn joke, turn off your brain and laugh
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.If Apple didn't get into Film Making, Distribution, Sales...it wouldn't be a problem...but now...
"Leave the multi billion dollar company aloooooone!!!"
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.
So you don't believe that Apple should, or has the right, to defend it's trademarks & brand name?Jeez Apple.
Lay off .. my lord...
They should sue macrumors right? I’m always very confused when I’m here.So you don't believe that Apple should, or has the right, to defend it's trademarks & brand name?
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.Hopefully Apple Inc. doesn't start making pies.
Unfortunately, trademark law is like that.Seriously Apple, grow a pair
...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.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.
Ok so the notion that Apple is in the right here because they now produce movies is…a stretch.United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
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.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.
What mark are they defending here? The word Apple? Because the logo doesn’t look anything like Apple, Inc.’s logo.They are required by trademark law to defend their marks.
Then it should be they that must name it something elseIt's also highly plausible that Apple might want to open a cinema in California at some stage.
I say hopefully... probably they should never have allowed Apple as a trademark way back whenever...
...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.
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.
What mark are they defending here? The word Apple? Because the logo doesn’t look anything like Apple, Inc.’s logo.