Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Shouldn't have made sensible comments on a Mac forum, Mortimer. They get queasy.
At this rate, it is only a matter of time when Apple necessitates that nobody has stores called "xyz Apples" or "xyz Apple Store" and sell, gulp, apples. Or, dare we say, apple juice.
You have it right; it is mere technicality wherein a theater business is calling itself Apple Cinemas. Was it only Jobs' prerogative to name a company after fruit and now nobody else can? A company making pillows could well name itself Micro Soft Pillows (not Microsoft), and they would have a reasoning to offer in court - the pillows might be made of microfiber and be soft.
As you said, the solution was that common English words should NOT be allowed to be trademarked in the first place.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Maybe but Apple has been providing “cinema” type services for quite some time. Their logo could be seen as being too close to Apple’s logo. Apple is required to protect its patented hardware and trademarks so even if they lose they’ve done what’s necessary for its stock holders.
When apple cinemas was a single outlet it wasn’t worth the effort but once it hit SF, Apple needs to challenge it.
If hitting SF means trouble for Apple Cinemas, would hitting the market where Apple Cinemas operates mean trouble for Apple? Genuinely asking; can nobody in the U.S. now use the word Apple for any sort of business? Apple Fruit Mart/ Apple Cosmetics/ Apple Technologies opening in SF, would that ruffle Apple? Back to the question, can nobody in the U.S. use the word Apple for their business? If that is the case, then it is simply laughable.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
If hitting SF means trouble for Apple Cinemas, would hitting the market where Apple Cinemas operates mean trouble for Apple? Genuinely asking; can nobody in the U.S. now use the word Apple for any sort of business? Apple Fruit Mart/ Apple Cosmetics/ Apple Technologies opening in SF, would that ruffle Apple? Back to the question, can nobody in the U.S. use the word Apple for their business? If that is the case, then it is simply laughable.
You are incorrect. You are allowed to use the language in a trade or service mark. What's laughable is that you think International Business Machines and General Electric, for instance, should be banned, as those are words in common usage. Apple owns the trademark in the classes in which they claim its use. This is not complicated. Go ahead and open your fruit stand.
As for Apple Technologies, if Class 42 is for Technology and Scientific services, then I assume Apple has a ™ in that class, so you can't use it. Appleicious or Appellate might be available though as long as you can show it doesn't lead to public confusion.
You know, it's not like all the known words and images and combinations thereof are used up for trademarks, so I'm not sure why you're upset. There are currently 6450 marks with the USPTO with the word "apple", and 12,330 apple marks no longer used. Plenty of room in the pool.
I think this could be quite an interesting situation! If "Apple Cinemas" is using that name without permission or proper branding, Apple could definitely intervene.
Except they don't have anything similar branding wise. Having g the generic word Apple in your name does not mean it is an apple product or associated with it
Rename it Big Apple Cinemas. Don't have to change a thing except add the word to the logo. It can even go to the left of their "film apple" they already have. Everyone will think it's some NYC based thing, but so what?
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Maybe but Apple has been providing “cinema” type services for quite some time. Their logo could be seen as being too close to Apple’s logo. Apple is required to protect its patented hardware and trademarks so even if they lose they’ve done what’s necessary for its stock holders.
When apple cinemas was a single outlet it wasn’t worth the effort but once it hit SF, Apple needs to challenge it.
If hitting SF means trouble for Apple Cinemas, would hitting the market where Apple Cinemas operates mean trouble for Apple? Genuinely asking; can nobody in the U.S. now use the word Apple for any sort of business? Apple Fruit Mart/ Apple Cosmetics/ Apple Technologies opening in SF, would that ruffle Apple? Back to the question, can nobody in the U.S. use the word Apple for their business? If that is the case, then it is simply laughable.
You can use the word "Apple" in a name for a business, as long as consumers can not confuse that business as being owned, operated or endorsed by Apple, Inc.
Consumers would not confuse Apple Flower Shop, Apple Burgers, Apple Pie Shop, Apple Plumbing Supply, Apple And Oranges Grocery Store, The Apple Cider Shop, Apple Bar and Grill, Apple Tree Trimming Service, Apple Asphalt and Cement Store, Candy Apple Shop, Applebee's Bar and Grill and so and so on, as being own, operated or endorsed by Apple Inc..
But businesses with names like Apple Headphones Shop, Apple TV Repair Shop. Pineapple Computers, Candy Apple Computers, Apple Electronics, Apple Mobile Phone Repair Shop, Apple PC Software Company, Apple Sheet Music Store, Apple Video Rental Shop, Apple Recording Studio or in any business that Apple Inc. is known to be in, would not be able use "Apple" in their name, as consumers could easily confuse that business as being own, operated or endorsed by Apple Inc..
It's just amazing how many Apple nay sayers here don't realize that the Trademark Board, when rejecting trademarks, is doing so for the benefit of the consumers. They think some how Apple Inc. is getting special treatment and they won't stand for that.
Apple doesn’t have a “cinema” but Apple does have a digital streaming presence, a production company and cinema displays and technology. If I remember correctly a standard patent or tm lasts initially 20 years
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
The Beatles' record label Apple Corp initially took issue with Apple Computers, until Apple agreed not to get into the music business, which it ended up doing anyway 20+ years later. At that point they sat down and renegotiated.
"Apple Cinemas" had to know what they were doing. All they had to do is name their company literally anything other than the same as the most popular company on the planet. But they went ahead and did it anyway, and are refusing to even negotiate with Apple. Either they are extremely naive in business, or intentionally malicious trademark infringers. Either way they deserve to be sued into the ground.
The thing is apple doesnt have a cinema so that isnt a comparison and its a generic word at that. Also 15 years is a damn long time to wait to sue someone. Apple. No restaurant can open and call themselves Starbucks because Starbucks already operates in the food service industry so that is a complete non argument unless you are really dense.
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.
Initially I thought Apple was opening a cinema to screen its own films so yes I think they have a case
Except Apple Cinemas existed well before Apple was making movies. What happens if Apple Inc. all of the sudden decided to make pies? Every pie company in the country can no longer call a pie made with apples, an "Apple pie"?
But they made displays with the "Apple Cinema" name well before 2010.
If Apple were to enter the pie business, they would not be able to stop other pie businesses from using the word "Apple" in their business name because "apple" is generic to the pie business. Just like how Apple with a trademark on "Apple Computers", can not stop any computer business from using the word "computers" in their business name as "computer" is a generic term in the computer business. Apple have a trademark on "Apple" in the computer business because "apple" is not a generic term in the computer business. "Apple" is also not a generic term in the movie theater business. Thus is can be trademarked in a name for the movie business. But only so long as the term "Apple" can not be confused with any trademarked business or product that already exist in the trademark category that a movie business would fall under. If the term "apple" was generic to the movie business, then Apple would not be able to stop any movie theater business from using the term "Apple" in their business name. Just like how Apple would not be able to stop any pie business from using the term "Apple" in their business name.
People here claiming the "apple" is a generic word don't know what they are talking about. The term "generic" takes on special meanings when applying to trademarks. Just because the term "apple" is generic in the pie business, it doesn't mean that it's generic in the computer business, movie theater business, tv repair service business, auto repair business, fast food diner business, clothing business, toy business, etc.
Apple doesn’t have a “cinema” but Apple does have a digital streaming presence, a production company and cinema displays and technology. If I remember correctly a standard patent or tm lasts initially 20 years
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
The Beatles' record label Apple Corp initially took issue with Apple Computers, until Apple agreed not to get into the music business, which it ended up doing anyway 20+ years later. At that point they sat down and renegotiated.
"Apple Cinemas" had to know what they were doing. All they had to do is name their company literally anything other than the same as the most popular company on the planet. But they went ahead and did it anyway, and are refusing to even negotiate with Apple. Either they are extremely naive in business, or intentionally malicious trademark infringers. Either way they deserve to be sued into the ground.
The thing is apple doesnt have a cinema so that isnt a comparison and its a generic word at that. Also 15 years is a damn long time to wait to sue someone. Apple. No restaurant can open and call themselves Starbucks because Starbucks already operates in the food service industry so that is a complete non argument unless you are really dense.
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.
Your augment is all over the place and contradicting.
You are correct in that no business can open a restaurant using the "Starbuck" name because even though Starbucks don't have restaurants, Starbucks is in the food business. The same would be true that one can not open a "McDonalds Apple Pie Shop". Apple can't complain because they are not in the pie business and "apple" is generic in the food business. But surely McDonalds can complain because they are in the food business. It can be argued that consumers could easily mistaken any restaurant with "Starbucks" in their name as a restaurant own by Starbucks. The same would be true for any apple pie shops with McDonalds in its name, as being own by McDonalds.
So why can't Apple complain about about the name "Apple Cinema"? You said because Apple do not have any movie theaters. But Starbucks don't have any restaurants and yet you say that they can stop restaurants from using "Starbuck" in their name because Starbucks is in the food business. Well, Apple is in the movie industry business. The same business cinema theaters are in. Consumers can easily mistaken a movie theater named "Apple Cinema" as being own by Apple Inc.. Even though Apple do not have any movie theaters, Apple do have a prominent presence in the movie industry.
FYI- it was not a theater chain in 2010. It was just a small town theater in MA at the time. It later got bought out and the company that bought them out created a chain of movie theaters with that name. They had no rights to use that name for their chain of theaters as the original theater did not own a trademark to that name.
BTW- The real reason why one can't use the term "Starbucks" (or "Microsoft" for that matter. ) in any business ventures is because those terms are also copyrighted, not just trademarked.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Shouldn't have made sensible comments on a Mac forum, Mortimer. They get queasy.
At this rate, it is only a matter of time when Apple necessitates that nobody has stores called "xyz Apples" or "xyz Apple Store" and sell, gulp, apples. Or, dare we say, apple juice.
You have it right; it is mere technicality wherein a theater business is calling itself Apple Cinemas. Was it only Jobs' prerogative to name a company after fruit and now nobody else can? A company making pillows could well name itself Micro Soft Pillows (not Microsoft), and they would have a reasoning to offer in court - the pillows might be made of microfiber and be soft.
As you said, the solution was that common English words should NOT be allowed to be trademarked in the first place.
That don't matter in trademark law. The only thing that will matter is whether consumers can be confused by the name and think the pillow store is owned by Microsoft. Just because it's "Micro Soft" make no difference in trademark law. If you were to verbally tell a friend you're heading to the Micro Soft Pillow Store, will your friend know its "Micro Soft" and not Microsoft? What about the Micro Soft Pillow Store advertising on the radio? Will consumers know it's "Micro Soft" and not Microsoft when they hear the ads? And it doesn't matter if no one would ever think that Microsoft owns a pillow store because Microsoft owns the copyright to "Microsoft". "Microsoft" is not a word in the English language and one can't even get a trademark that phonically sounds like "Microsoft".
If you own a business named Internal Body Medicine, you can get a trademark using that name. But you can not have a company logo with just the letters ....I... B... M. It doesn't matter to the trademark board that those are the initials of your company name. The trademark board will rule that having a logo with just the letters .. I...B...M... will confuse consumers into thinking that your company is somehow related to the company most people know as .... International Business Machine. Specially if the first or only thing the consumers might notice is your logo.
Even if your legal name is Mack Donalds, you won't be able to trademark "Mack Donalds Burgers and Fries" for your family operated burger joint.
The Trademark Board is looking after the consumers when they reject trademarks that consumers might easily mistaken for another company or products made by another company.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
Actually it matters a fair amount, and the reasonable parameter would be that Apple Inc were not in the cinema business in 2013.
Clearly a number of poster not only don't understand what trademark (or copyright law) is, but how it is applied let alone why it's applied.
Monster Cable had the predatory practice of going after everyone who used the word "monster" in their business name or products. I don't know how many of those cases when to court and how many were found for Monster. Many of the defendants settled because they didn't have the money for court costs. Monster hasn't been in the news for a long time but they're still in business. They hawk overpriced gear (Monster speaker cable) but that's a different matter.
This is not what Apple is doing. Apple Cinemas' logo is clearly a stylized version of Apple's apple. They knew this going in and Apple apparently let this single use alone. Years later Apple Cinemas has plans to add 100 theaters and now it's a potential threat to Apple's trademark, people thinking that this is related to Apple Inc in some way. So Apple sues.
I can see that the time span of 2010 to 2025 will probably need to be addressed in court, but I have no doubt that Apple will prevail. Rightfully so. The "Apple" and apple in Cinemas' logo are not mere descriptors as in apple pie. Apple is not suing manufacturers of candy apple red paint. All this has been detailed in several other posts.
This is more than just some posters not understanding trademark and copyright law. This is some posters not seeing Apple as protecting their brand, but as Apple being an 800lb gorilla crushing the sole of poor innocent businesses. Regardless of trademark law. Bad Apple. Bad bad Apple.
That's not the case.
Apple Cinemas will probably not get to use that name for additional theaters. Will they have to eliminate it from the original MA theater? Could Apple say keep that but the rest have to go? I look forward to the outcome whatever it may be.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
Actually it matters a fair amount, and the reasonable parameter would be that Apple Inc were not in the cinema business in 2013.
If Apple was not in the "cinema" business in 2013, then what is the company that owns "Apple Cinema" excuse for not trademarking the name "Apple Cinema", when they had the chance. 12 years is a long time to wait to apply for a trademark on a name they wanted and is already using for their business? I mean, how stupid of them for naming a whole chain of theaters with a name that they could had trademarked years ago, but didn't. And if they didn't think that they could get a trademark on the name because of Apple. then how much more stupid of them to a name a chain of theaters with a name they know they couldn't own a trademark to? Trademark law isn't like copyright law where one don't have to copyright their original work in order to have copyright protection. It's more like patent laws where the first to get the patent, owns the patent. Even if others had working models of the same invention stashed away in their labs, years before, but never applied for the patent to.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
Actually it matters a fair amount, and the reasonable parameter would be that Apple Inc were not in the cinema business in 2013.
If Apple was not in the "cinema" business in 2013, then what is the company that owns "Apple Cinema" excuse for not trademarking the name "Apple Cinema", when they had the chance.
Why would they need an excuse? Registering a trademark isn't required to run a business.
Anyone with the least bit of common sense would know that Apple does not own any brick-and-mortar movie chains. Yes, they do produce their media.
maybe, but when I go to an Apple Cinema, I fully expect to see a huge Apple Cinema Display.
All joking aside, millions of people with "common sense" don't keep track of even basic tech news as you might. It's just not their point of focus. So when they hear "Apple Cinemas", they are going to naturally assume it's an Apple branded cinema, especially if they are even just casually aware of Apple producing movies.
That's what the issue is, and why trademark law exists.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
Actually it matters a fair amount, and the reasonable parameter would be that Apple Inc were not in the cinema business in 2013.
If Apple was not in the "cinema" business in 2013, then what is the company that owns "Apple Cinema" excuse for not trademarking the name "Apple Cinema", when they had the chance.
Why would they need an excuse? Registering a trademark isn't required to run a business.
Because if you don't trademark the name of your business, when you could have, anyone operating the same business as yours, can use that name. Even for the same business down the street from yours.You wouldn't own it, just because you were first to use it. So now consumers might mistakenly think you own both businesses.
What if your customers tells their friends how awesome your sound system is and highly recommends them to catch a movie at your "Apple Cinema". But their friends ends up going to the theater down the street from yours, that has the same name. Or worst yet, another theater can end up with a trademark of your theater name and force you to stop using that name. This can't happen if you had trademarked your business name, as no other theaters would be able to use your trademarked name and no other theaters would be able to trademark it.
Just exactly why do you think Trademark laws exist? So that big companies like Apple can bully smaller companies? LOL
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
Actually it matters a fair amount, and the reasonable parameter would be that Apple Inc were not in the cinema business in 2013.
If Apple was not in the "cinema" business in 2013, then what is the company that owns "Apple Cinema" excuse for not trademarking the name "Apple Cinema", when they had the chance.
Why would they need an excuse? Registering a trademark isn't required to run a business.
Because if you don't trademark the name of your business, when you could have, anyone operating the same business as yours, can use that name. Even for the same business down the street from yours.You wouldn't own it, just because you were first to use it. So now consumers might mistakenly think you own both businesses.
What if your customers tells their friends how awesome your sound system is and highly recommends them to catch a movie at your "Apple Cinema". But their friends ends up going to the theater down the street from yours, that has the same name. Or worst yet, another theater can end up with a trademark of your theater name and force you to stop using that name. This can't happen if you had trademarked your business name, as no other theaters would be able to use your trademarked name and no other theaters would be able to trademark it.
Just exactly why do you think Trademark laws exist? So that big companies like Apple can bully smaller companies? LOL
That explains why it might be a good idea, not why Apple Cinemas need an excuse for not doing it. they haven't done anything wrong.
Also, none of what you said there has happened, or is a present threat of happening to Apple Cinemas. That's not what this article is about at all.
Hopefully 2010 is far enough away that they'll be able to use the elapsed time to demonstrate that the trademark is now generic.
Lots of places and things are named apple, including a very common and popular fruit. This is why common English words should NOT be trademarkable in the first place. Apple should have stuck with Apple Computer if they wanted something trademarkable.
Oh, so anyone should be able to open a restaurant and call it "Starbucks"? Or hell... an electronics store, and call it "Microsoft"? yeah... no.
What common meaning do Starbucks and Microsoft have where you are?
The fact that word "apple" has a common meaning is irrelevant. When you trademark that word for your business name, you have the right to defend your business identity, within reasonable parameters.
Actually it matters a fair amount, and the reasonable parameter would be that Apple Inc were not in the cinema business in 2013.
If Apple was not in the "cinema" business in 2013, then what is the company that owns "Apple Cinema" excuse for not trademarking the name "Apple Cinema", when they had the chance.
Why would they need an excuse? Registering a trademark isn't required to run a business.
Because if you don't trademark the name of your business, when you could have, anyone operating the same business as yours, can use that name. Even for the same business down the street from yours.You wouldn't own it, just because you were first to use it. So now consumers might mistakenly think you own both businesses.
What if your customers tells their friends how awesome your sound system is and highly recommends them to catch a movie at your "Apple Cinema". But their friends ends up going to the theater down the street from yours, that has the same name. Or worst yet, another theater can end up with a trademark of your theater name and force you to stop using that name. This can't happen if you had trademarked your business name, as no other theaters would be able to use your trademarked name and no other theaters would be able to trademark it.
Just exactly why do you think Trademark laws exist? So that big companies like Apple can bully smaller companies? LOL
That explains why it might be a good idea, not why Apple Cinemas need an excuse for not doing it. they haven't done anything wrong.
Also, none of what you said there has happened, or is a present threat of happening to Apple Cinemas. That's not what this article is about at all.
Comments
As for Apple Technologies, if Class 42 is for Technology and Scientific services, then I assume Apple has a ™ in that class, so you can't use it. Appleicious or Appellate might be available though as long as you can show it doesn't lead to public confusion.
You know, it's not like all the known words and images and combinations thereof are used up for trademarks, so I'm not sure why you're upset. There are currently 6450 marks with the USPTO with the word "apple", and 12,330 apple marks no longer used. Plenty of room in the pool.
Consumers would not confuse Apple Flower Shop, Apple Burgers, Apple Pie Shop, Apple Plumbing Supply, Apple And Oranges Grocery Store, The Apple Cider Shop, Apple Bar and Grill, Apple Tree Trimming Service, Apple Asphalt and Cement Store, Candy Apple Shop, Applebee's Bar and Grill and so and so on, as being own, operated or endorsed by Apple Inc..
But businesses with names like Apple Headphones Shop, Apple TV Repair Shop. Pineapple Computers, Candy Apple Computers, Apple Electronics, Apple Mobile Phone Repair Shop, Apple PC Software Company, Apple Sheet Music Store, Apple Video Rental Shop, Apple Recording Studio or in any business that Apple Inc. is known to be in, would not be able use "Apple" in their name, as consumers could easily confuse that business as being own, operated or endorsed by Apple Inc..
It's just amazing how many Apple nay sayers here don't realize that the Trademark Board, when rejecting trademarks, is doing so for the benefit of the consumers. They think some how Apple Inc. is getting special treatment and they won't stand for that.
If Apple were to enter the pie business, they would not be able to stop other pie businesses from using the word "Apple" in their business name because "apple" is generic to the pie business. Just like how Apple with a trademark on "Apple Computers", can not stop any computer business from using the word "computers" in their business name as "computer" is a generic term in the computer business. Apple have a trademark on "Apple" in the computer business because "apple" is not a generic term in the computer business. "Apple" is also not a generic term in the movie theater business. Thus is can be trademarked in a name for the movie business. But only so long as the term "Apple" can not be confused with any trademarked business or product that already exist in the trademark category that a movie business would fall under. If the term "apple" was generic to the movie business, then Apple would not be able to stop any movie theater business from using the term "Apple" in their business name. Just like how Apple would not be able to stop any pie business from using the term "Apple" in their business name.
People here claiming the "apple" is a generic word don't know what they are talking about. The term "generic" takes on special meanings when applying to trademarks. Just because the term "apple" is generic in the pie business, it doesn't mean that it's generic in the computer business, movie theater business, tv repair service business, auto repair business, fast food diner business, clothing business, toy business, etc.
You are correct in that no business can open a restaurant using the "Starbuck" name because even though Starbucks don't have restaurants, Starbucks is in the food business. The same would be true that one can not open a "McDonalds Apple Pie Shop". Apple can't complain because they are not in the pie business and "apple" is generic in the food business. But surely McDonalds can complain because they are in the food business. It can be argued that consumers could easily mistaken any restaurant with "Starbucks" in their name as a restaurant own by Starbucks. The same would be true for any apple pie shops with McDonalds in its name, as being own by McDonalds.
So why can't Apple complain about about the name "Apple Cinema"? You said because Apple do not have any movie theaters. But Starbucks don't have any restaurants and yet you say that they can stop restaurants from using "Starbuck" in their name because Starbucks is in the food business. Well, Apple is in the movie industry business. The same business cinema theaters are in. Consumers can easily mistaken a movie theater named "Apple Cinema" as being own by Apple Inc.. Even though Apple do not have any movie theaters, Apple do have a prominent presence in the movie industry.
FYI- it was not a theater chain in 2010. It was just a small town theater in MA at the time. It later got bought out and the company that bought them out created a chain of movie theaters with that name. They had no rights to use that name for their chain of theaters as the original theater did not own a trademark to that name.
BTW- The real reason why one can't use the term "Starbucks" (or "Microsoft" for that matter. ) in any business ventures is because those terms are also copyrighted, not just trademarked.
If you own a business named Internal Body Medicine, you can get a trademark using that name. But you can not have a company logo with just the letters ....I... B... M. It doesn't matter to the trademark board that those are the initials of your company name. The trademark board will rule that having a logo with just the letters .. I...B...M... will confuse consumers into thinking that your company is somehow related to the company most people know as .... International Business Machine. Specially if the first or only thing the consumers might notice is your logo.
Even if your legal name is Mack Donalds, you won't be able to trademark "Mack Donalds Burgers and Fries" for your family operated burger joint.
The Trademark Board is looking after the consumers when they reject trademarks that consumers might easily mistaken for another company or products made by another company.
Monster Cable had the predatory practice of going after everyone who used the word "monster" in their business name or products. I don't know how many of those cases when to court and how many were found for Monster. Many of the defendants settled because they didn't have the money for court costs. Monster hasn't been in the news for a long time but they're still in business. They hawk overpriced gear (Monster speaker cable) but that's a different matter.
This is not what Apple is doing. Apple Cinemas' logo is clearly a stylized version of Apple's apple. They knew this going in and Apple apparently let this single use alone. Years later Apple Cinemas has plans to add 100 theaters and now it's a potential threat to Apple's trademark, people thinking that this is related to Apple Inc in some way. So Apple sues.
I can see that the time span of 2010 to 2025 will probably need to be addressed in court, but I have no doubt that Apple will prevail. Rightfully so. The "Apple" and apple in Cinemas' logo are not mere descriptors as in apple pie. Apple is not suing manufacturers of candy apple red paint. All this has been detailed in several other posts.
This is more than just some posters not understanding trademark and copyright law. This is some posters not seeing Apple as protecting their brand, but as Apple being an 800lb gorilla crushing the sole of poor innocent businesses. Regardless of trademark law. Bad Apple. Bad bad Apple.
That's not the case.
Apple Cinemas will probably not get to use that name for additional theaters. Will they have to eliminate it from the original MA theater? Could Apple say keep that but the rest have to go? I look forward to the outcome whatever it may be.
What if your customers tells their friends how awesome your sound system is and highly recommends them to catch a movie at your "Apple Cinema". But their friends ends up going to the theater down the street from yours, that has the same name. Or worst yet, another theater can end up with a trademark of your theater name and force you to stop using that name. This can't happen if you had trademarked your business name, as no other theaters would be able to use your trademarked name and no other theaters would be able to trademark it.
Just exactly why do you think Trademark laws exist? So that big companies like Apple can bully smaller companies? LOL
Also, none of what you said there has happened, or is a present threat of happening to Apple Cinemas. That's not what this article is about at all.