They have over 2000 trademarks to sift through so knock your socks off. Make a note that many are under general services and combine with the presumed name of Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Movie Theater Chain With Similar 'Apple Cinemas' Name
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have over 2000 trademarks to sift through so knock your socks off. Make a note that many are under general services and combine with the presumed name of Apple.
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.
Last edited:
Sure (I wasn't trying to re-define the law) - and its fine if different companies want to use the same common term in clearly different businesses. Except in the 1970s it was pretty obvious that the microcomputer business had nothing to do with (say) the music publishing business or even the film business (well, you'd need to be pretty visionary) - 40+ years later and the personal computer is becoming a key distribution media for music and films... Oops.
Not sure what you can do - except that's probably why a lot of new companies have made-up pig Latin-esque names...
Someone better tell Alphabet, Amazon, Caterpillar, Adobe, etc. etc. etc. that their trademarks should be meaningless too.
And I probably shouldn't be the first to point out that Apple Cinemas doesn't make movies either. Can you watch a movie at the Apple Cinemas, and on an Apple device? Yes.
They don't have to. In the apple case, apple is descriptive of the product becasue, well, it is an apple. That's why an apple orchard can't trademark "Apple Orchard".
It does for companies in the same business as the trademarked logo.
The standard is likely to cause confusion, not being identical.
But that is the whole point of trademark law in It allows the use of terms that may b descriptive of a product in one area but not associated with it in another.
Not necessarily to a mathematician, and of course there's Alphabet...
There is nothing stolen about it. Apple picked a name that is not descriptive of the product, just as Orange Micro, Pineapple Computing, etc. Apple just happened to survive and prosper.
There are, Apple likely would be unable to stop Apple HVAC from using Apple or some sort of apple emblem, for example.
and are there any Apple devices called Apple cinema? No.
For the last time, trademark law requires this from Apple. This is how "facial tissues" became synonymous with Kleenex, same thing with Band-Aids. If you don't fight things like this, you lose the trademark.
But, yes, it is lame....
But, yes, it is lame....
Not really the point, this is about names, not ownership. Pretty sure studios/distributors have owned cinemas in the past.
Question is, if you saw a cinema called "Amazon Cinema" or "Prime Movie House", "Paramount Theatre" or "20th Century Films" (all words with non-trademarked meanings - I'm leaving Netflix out of this!) would the typical person assume that they were run, sponsored or endorsed by the well-known movie distributors/producers?
It's really not inconceivable that a streaming service like Apple TV+ or Amazon would open a theatre to give their productions the kudos of a theatrical release.
Probably "Apple" and maybe "Apple Cinema". They may even have registered/attempted to pre-emptively register "Apple Cinema" given their involvement in the film business. They could claim that was "confusing" since it will often appear in plain text, without the logo or distinctive font. I'd guess that the complaint will cover the logo. the text and the combination, individually and jointly.
Thing is, even if Apple lose the ruling will help establish a line in the sand that Apple Cinemas can't cross in the future.
I'd guess the main thing that would alert the reader that this was not the Apple inc. we know is that Apple wouldn't be seen dead using that horrible font and a cheesy gradient fill
No more ridiculous than thinking that when most consumers see the word "Apple" on a business, they're going to immediately associate it with one company, first and foremost. And it ain't a regional movie chain.
Apricot, Tangerine, Raspberry Pi... ISTR an advert for a Pear II back in the 80s but that was a blatant copy and got stomped. Apple probably started the trend of fruity computer names.
If they stole it from anybody it was Apple corp. (of Beatles fame) but any conflict of interest was non-obvious in the 70s and that conflict didn't really arise until the Mac started making recognisable musical noises (hence the famous "Sosumi" beep sound).
There are: Apple Cinema Display®
Yea, the story is Woz and Jobs liked the Beatles and admired Apple records and hence the name. Jobs even came up with Newton under an apple tree as the first logo, maybe to avoid looking like they copied Apple Records?
Anyway, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in 1978, shortly after they started using Apple Computer, and came to an agreement that fell apart when Apple started making sounds and music; Apple eventually bought the rights to Apple from Apple Corps and licensed them back. That arrange met works for bot parties as well as protects their rights.
It wasn’t until now that the company tried to trademark Apple Cinema. If they hadn’t tried to trademark the name of one of Apple’s products, they probably would have been in the clear… well, until they decided to open a theater in California.
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.
You also likely wouldn’t send your entire life savings to a Nigerian prince that just needs a little help expatriating his money, either. Unfortunately, there are millions that would.
If you think this is bad, wait till the iPhone 17 iMAX edition comes out this fall. Then the confusion really begins.
I'll ignore the device called the Apple Cinema Display (first released 14 years before this theater chain opened its doors) and reply with a serious question: Under trademark law, what would you define as a violation? Do they (the theater chain) need to actually call themselves "Apple Inc. Cinemas" and use the exact same logo as Apple does before you would see it's a trademark violation? If not, where would you draw the line?
The whole "Apple didn't start making movies until after Apple Cinema used teh name..." argument is a red herring. Apple Cinema does not make movies or distribute them, it shows them much as Apple does with AppleTV and did before Apple Cinema was founded in 2010.
It doesn't have to be closely, just likely to be confused; and I suspect if you just showed people the logo they would more likely pick Apple than Apple Cinema as whose it is.
Or, I mean, there are 218,630 words in common english usage that are NOT “Apple”. While some of those are the names of other trademarked companies, I’m sure they could have found a unique one.
Anyone today naming anything “Apple <whatever>” thinking that it’s safe and no one’s ever used it is looking for future trouble. When the trademark office says “No, you can’t trademark that name”, that’s also kind of a hint that maybe they shouldn’t be named that.Not according to the folks at the trademark office that rejected their trademark.
Wait the Apple drop on New Year’s Eve isn’t an Apple computer sponsored holiday? 🤯
Are you a youngster who doesn't know the history?
In 1981 Apple Corps (the Beatles company) sued Apple Computer over trademark infringement. Apple Computer paid Apple Corps around $80k for use of the name Apple. Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. Apple Corp agreed to stay out of computers.
In 1991, after Apple Computer had added lots of AV capabilities to the Mac, it was accused by Apple Corps of violating their agreement. Apple Computer paid Apple Corps approx. $26 million to settle the dispute. Apple Computer was allowed to use the name Apple in digital audio, but not as a music publisher or distributor.
In 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computer over its launch of the iTunes Music Store. Apple Corps lost that suit because the court ruled that a music store wasn't a breach of their trademark agreement because it wasn't a record label.
In 2007, Apple Inc. paid Apple Corps tens of millions of dollars for all trademarks related to "Apple". They licensed certain trademarks back to Apple Corps to use in the music business.
Trademarks are serious stuff. The confusion between Apple products and Apple Cinemas is real. Apple is and has been operating in adjacent spaces. Apple TV hardware was streaming video for 6 years before Apple Cinema was created. Given that Apple also produces Apple TV apps, has a full-fledge Apple TV+ streaming service, and produces content through Apple Apple Studios LLC (which includes theatrical releases) and given that Apple Cinemas is now showing F1 The Movie, an Apple Studios film, in their theaters, the potential for confusion is huge.
Last edited:
Apple TV was released in 2007. Apple was in the video distribution and presentation business for 6 years before Apple Cinema was created.