Apple Cinemas may come to regret their name as lawyers step in
Apple has filed a lawsuit against the movie theater Apple Cinemas over what it says is a deliberate attempt to capitalize on its name.
An Apple Cinema displaying the company's logo -- image credit; Apple
It's not usually a surprise when a corporation sues to protect its name or trademarks, and usually it's more unexpected when they fail. But Apple Cinemas opened its first theater in 2013, and it was founded in 2010, yet Apple seemingly left it alone until now.
That's because up until recently, Apple Cinemas was a small chain based in Massachusetts. But in the course of an initially quite slow expansion, it opened a theater in San Fransisco in July 2025, and apparently that was too close to home for Apple.
As first spotted by MacRumors, Apple has filed suit because Apple Cinemas has announced plans to add 100 further theaters nationwide. According to Apple's full filing, the movie company has "refused to engage with Apple's repeated efforts to resolve the matter amicably."
More, Apple alleges that there is already public confusion over its involvement in the chain, and cites social media posts as evidence. Plus it claims that Apple Cinemas marked the opening of its San Francisco theater by touting "its 'high-tech' offerings'," as it "teased another San Francisco Bay Area theater coming soon."
Apple maintains that these two theaters are close to its Apple Park headquarters, and claims that Apple Cinemas is intentionally pursuing nationwide expansion near Apple's retail store locations.
Reportedly, the owners of the chain applied to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2024 to register "Apple Cinemas" and "ACX -- Apple Cinematic Experience". Both applications were denied, specifically because USPTO said they were likely to cause confusion with Apple's prior trademarks.
Apple subsequently sent a cease and desist letter to the chain's owners, Sand Media. The owners have not commented publicly.
There are multiple businesses whose names include the word "Apple." However, this movie theater chain is expanding just Apple is seeing success with films such as "F1: The Movie," and as the filing points out, also had success with an Apple Cinema Display.
According to Apple Cinema listings, the theater chain is currently screening Apple's "F1: The Movie" movie on its new San Fransisco screen, called Apple Cinemas Van Ness Imax. Ticket prices are $18.75 for an adult's regular seat, $16.75 for seniors and children.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
The whole point of a trademark and it's enforcement is to ensure that consumers are not confused by which company made the product. How would consumers know which bottle of Coke was made by Coca Cola if any brand of cola can put "Coke" on their bottles? I bet your kid wouldn't be too happy if he ask for an iPod and you bought home a Zune because you thought he meant any MP3 player.
Besides, here were talking about the trademark of a company name, not a product. "Apple" is not generic for any computer company or any computer products. If you walked into a computer store and ask to see an Apple laptop and the clerk brings out a Dell, time to shop at another computer store. Trademarks of a company name never become generic under trademark laws, no matter how long the company been around. And if the name is trademarked, it means that the name was not generic at the time they got the trademark. And unlike copyrights, trademark never expires, so long as it's still in use. RCA trademark along with Nipper is so well known that it can not be used by any company for any product, even though RCA been around for over 100 years. It's a joke that you think 10 years might be long enough for any company to use the trademark name of another. Just try to name your gas station "Shell" and see how far you get trying to convince the Trademark board that "Shell" is a common English word, "Shell" has become generic to mean a gas station and it's been more than 10 years that the company had the name.
With this case, notice that the company behind "Apple Cinema" was denied a trademark in 2024 so they never got a trademark for "Apple Cinema" back in 2010. Most likely because they knew Apple would protest. Apple at the time was already marketing the Apple TV and into streaming movie rentals, video download sales and pay per view. Or that Apple knew about the name, allow the small town theater to keep the name, but did not allow them to trademark the name. If Apple Cinema actually got a trademark for the name back in 2010, it might be an uphill battle for Apple to force them to stop using it now. Apple would most likely have to buy the name from them. But fortunately the trademark board don't consist of Apple haters and their only concern is whether consumers could easily mistaken "Apple Cinema" to be own by Apple Inc.
And no, one can't get a trademark on apple pie as it's descriptive and commonly used already.
That means Apple Cinemas, being apparently in the entertainment business, is also likely infringing Apple's class 42 trademark, and would likely cause confusion to consumers. That probably was the reason they got a trademark rejected.
As far as Apple defending every single incidence of infringement, that is not required. Many times an infringement is inconsequential, and would not have to be defended against. Apple would not be expected to defend a potential trademark infringement against a tiny Apple Video store in Peotone, Illinois. It's more a pattern of failing to defend trademark infringement that a court would consider in judging a trademark to have become generic or not defendable in a particular case.
As we have read on this site for many years, Apple goes after a myriad of what they view as infringers (I would even say they are over-zealous in that activity, failing to separate the wheat from the chaff).
Microsoft's name also doesn't make sense for anything other than software. Apple is not a movie theater and use a generic name. Unless these people take the branding and visuals apple might be told to sit down and shut up. The place is a movie theater and also if apple had such a problem why not sue 15 years prior.
Also given the branding here no one would associate them with apple directly unless they are idiots so claiming brand confusion. Apple really doesn't have much od a legal leg to stand on, but they will throw their weight and money around and force the change thru sheer brute force as the theater wont be able to fight it long term.
Also this theater chain has been around since 2010.
If the mark was generic then it's not distinctive and wouldn't receive a mark. Apple isn't generic for movies; "Movies" is generic (merely descriptive). You are not prohibited from using words that exist in your TM/SM application.
Also, the mark owner/applicant has only to a have a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce to have the mark approved, assuming everything else passed muster. So even if big Apple wasn't providing movies or entertainment when they got the mark, it's still valid (if challenged) if they can demonstrate by business records that they had the intention to do so at the time of submission to the USPTO. In this case it would be very unlikely for Apple to fail on that challenge, ducks in a row and so forth.