The time to contest this was many years ago. Just because Apple has a film business now shouldn't affect the situation. They should simply do what they've been doing until now. Live with it.
There may well be some confusion initially but that isn't the fault of the cinema. How much confusion has there been in the areas where these cinemas have existed for years now? Very little I imagine.
Nope, that's not what you said. Let's consider what you said:
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.
Hasn't happened. Apple Inc have not opened a movie theatre and have given no indication that they are about to.
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.
Hasn't happened.
Or worst yet, another theater can end up with a trademark of your theater name and force you to stop using that name.
Hasn't happened. Again, Apple Inc operate no theatres.
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.
Hasn't happened, and moreover is not totally true, since trademarks can be disputed.
And still you offer no reason why Apple Cinemas need an "excuse" for not having registered a trademark. You need an excuse when you have done something wrong, and not registering a trademark is in no way a thing that needs to be excused.
Nope, that's not what you said. Let's consider what you said:
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.
Hasn't happened. Apple Inc have not opened a movie theatre and have given no indication that they are about to.
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.
Hasn't happened.
Or worst yet, another theater can end up with a trademark of your theater name and force you to stop using that name.
Hasn't happened. Again, Apple Inc operate no theatres.
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.
Hasn't happened, and moreover is not totally true, since trademarks can be disputed.
And still you offer no reason why Apple Cinemas need an "excuse" for not having registered a trademark. You need an excuse when you have done something wrong, and not registering a trademark is in no way a thing that needs to be excused.
The USPTO had already rejected the company (Sand Media) that operate Apple Cinemas, a trademark for "Apple Cinema" when they applied for one in 2024. The reason stated was that consumers could easily confuse "Apple Cinemas" as being own and operated by Apple, Inc. After that announcement Apple Inc sent Sands Media a cease and desist letter that they must stop using "Apple Cinemas" as it infringes upon Apple Inc. trademarks. Apple no longer have to prove it. Apple didn't even have to contest the application. Sand Media can no longer legally use the name "Apple Cinemas" for their theaters. They're now doing something illegal. Not even attempting to get a trademark for "Apple Cinemas" 10 years ago because of a ...."we don't need no stinking badges.... mentally, might end up now costing them millions. At least if they got rejected when trying to get the trademark back then, they would had known that they had to stop using "Apple Cinemas" going forward. Instead of waiting until 2024 to find out, after adding many more theaters to their chain. If Sand Media is a publicly traded company, they better have an good excuse of why they waited until 2024 to apply for a trademark to a name they been using for over 10 years.
>According to court documents, the cinema chain previously attempted to
trademark both “Apple Cinemas” and “ACX – Apple Cinematic Experience.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected both applications
in 2024 due to potential confusion with Apple’s existing trademarks.
Despite this, Apple claims the cinema brand ignored cease-and-desist
requests and continued marketing its “high-tech” offerings.<
Sand Media don't have a leg to stand on. If they had tried to trademark "Apple Cinemas" 10 years ago, they might had had a better chance, no matter how slim of a chance, to get a trademark . But no way they were going to get one after this announcement in 2019.
One can easily contest a trademark when it is being applied for. But once a trademark is issued, it's an uphill battle to get the trademark removed. If Sand Media had gotten a trademark for "Apple Cinemas", Apple Inc would most likely have to pay them millions of dollars to give up their trademark to "Apple Cinemas". Apple inc. paid $500M to Apple Corp for rights to all their trademarks, to end the constant court battles between them. That's because Apple Corp own the trademark for "Apple " in the music business. And because Apple Computers own a trademark, Apple Corp had negotiate an agreement between them. If Apple Computers didn't already own the trademark , Apple Corp might have been able to prevent Apple Computers from getting one for "Apple Computers", even though Apple Corp was not in the computer business.
Here;s a case where Apple paid $60M for the trademark rights for "iPad" in China.
Here's a case where Apple didn't have to pay Cisco a dime for their "iPhone" trademark. Cisco had let their trademark to "iPhone" expire, thus allowing Apple snatch the trademark because the USPTO listed the iPhone trademark as "abandoned".
BTW- It seems that Sand Media didn't exist until 2021. I have no idea who operated Apple Cinemas before 2021. Or maybe they just changed their corporate name or just decided to incorporate for tax reasons. But it's listed as a "foreign profit corporation". But haven't been able to find out from what foreign country. But appears to be run by an executive staff consisting of 3 people. Notice their email address. Even their email address borders on infringing on Apple trademarks.
The time to contest this was many years ago. Just because Apple has a film business now shouldn't affect the situation. They should simply do what they've been doing until now. Live with it.
There may well be some confusion initially but that isn't the fault of the cinema. How much confusion has there been in the areas where these cinemas have existed for years now? Very little I imagine.
There's more to trademarks than just the name. From what I read, most of their theaters before were in small suburb towns spread out on the east coast. Those theaters probably didn't have the high tech look they do now. Then they started to build theaters in big shopping malls and near Apple Stores. They're boasting that they want to add 100 more theaters through out the US. They just recently added the "Apple" logo to the name. Apple might had had a tougher time to prove infringement when their theaters back then looked nothing like what Apple would design. Their theaters now have the "high tech" look of an Apple Store.
Design, color and type style are also considered when determining trademark infringement. Some times just changing the type style or color makes the difference between infringement and not. Apple trademarks goes beyond just the name "Apple".
Here's an interesting list of design trademarks that most would not think were trademarked.
Anyone who confuses Apple Cinemas with Apple, especially considering the Apple Cinemas logotype, is an idiot.
And especially considering that Apple Cinemas have been in business since 2013 and Apple didn't go after them until now, I would hope the courts would say, "too late!" Apple Cinemas only owns 14 theaters. Apple should just let it go. They come off as bullies otherwise.
Apple may produce movies that play theatrically, but they're not going into the exhibition business.
Look in any big city directory listing and there's a hundred companies with Apple in the name.
Is Apple going to sue New York City because it calls itself "The Big Apple"?
Anyone who confuses Apple Cinemas with Apple, especially considering the Apple Cinemas logotype, is an idiot.
And especially considering that Apple Cinemas have been in business since 2013 and Apple didn't go after them until now, I would hope the courts would say, "too late!" Apple Cinemas only owns 14 theaters. Apple should just let it go. They come off as bullies otherwise.
Unfortunately this is not how American law works. You have been a registered commenter since 2007, you should know this by now because this is most definitely NOT the first time Apple has gone after another entity for trademark violation. Nor will it be the last time. And it's not just Apple who does this.
The trademark owners need to actively protect their trademarks otherwise they risk losing them. That's how the law works, not just here in the USA and not just Apple. About twenty years ago Big bad McDonald's went after a little nearby mom-and-pop coffee shop that called themselves McCoffee and guess who won? That's just one of tens (if that hundreds) of thousands of legal actions.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that there are laws that define what is allowable with a trademark. My guess is there's a 98% chance that Apple Cinemas will eventually pick a new name, whether it is settled out of court or goes into litigation. The big question is how much Apple Cinemas wants to spend to pursue this. Ignoring cease-and-desist letters is free. But it has gone beyond that now. Now that this company is in expansion mode, right in Apple Inc.'s backyard, it has come to their attention.
Note that copyright and trademark laws are similar in many other places in the world.
Anyone who confuses Apple Cinemas with Apple, especially considering the Apple Cinemas logotype, is an idiot.
And especially considering that Apple Cinemas have been in business since 2013 and Apple didn't go after them until now, I would hope the courts would say, "too late!" Apple Cinemas only owns 14 theaters. Apple should just let it go. They come off as bullies otherwise.
Apple may produce movies that play theatrically, but they're not going into the exhibition business.
Look in any big city directory listing and there's a hundred companies with Apple in the name.
Is Apple going to sue New York City because it calls itself "The Big Apple"?
People that have no understanding of why and how Trademark laws works, shouldn't be calling other people idiots.
With Trademarks laws, it is infringing upon another trademark even if the name you're using might just only confuse consumers into thinking that another company is involve with your business or product.
Even if one knows that Apple do not have theaters, it would still be infringing on Apple trademarks if consumers somehow even think "Apple Cinemas" are theaters that Apple might be endorsing for the showing of Apple produced movies. Just like how consumers knows that theaters with the "THX" mark are not own by George Lucas, but have sound systems that are certified by Lucus sound production company ..... "THX".
The idiots are those that would think 'THX" are just common letters in the English alphabet, been in use with theaters for over 10 years and thus generic in the business, so any theater can use them with the name of their theaters. And then proceed to call anyone an idiot for thinking that having "THX" in the name of the theater might mean George Lucus is involve with the theater.
As for the 13 years where Apple did not complain about its use, the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" might only had had a chance to keep using 'Apple Cinemas" if they already had a trademark to begin with. But the idiots operating Apple Cinemas never applied for a trademark for "Apple Cinemas" until 2024. By that time, it was way too late (not to imply that they any chance for a trademark before that.) and the USPTO rejected their application because the name can be confused with Apple Inc..
So as of now, the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" can not use the name because they never had a trademark for it and they can't get one now. At anytime during the 13 years, Apple could had easily gotten a trademark for "Apple Cinemas", if they didn't already have one and forced the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" to change the name. The only way now for them to keep the "Apple Cinemas" name is for Apple inc. to lose their trademark. Or they can make an offer to buy out Apple Inc. trademarks. What would you think it would cost them, to buy the trademarks to one of the most valuable brand name in the World? It cost Apple Inc. $500M to buy out Apple Corp trademarks and those trademarks are included in the deal.
This isn't copyright laws where one don't have to register their original work in order to have some copyright protection. With Trademark, it's the first to trademark gets the trademark, regardless if some one else been using the mark for 13 years, without a trademark. And just because you been using a name without a trademark for 13 years, it doesn't mean that the USPTO will automatically give you a trademark or offer any protection for you to keep on using the name, without a trademark. And as of now, unless you're Apple Inc., not even a company that's been using "Apple Cinemas" for 13 years, can get a trademark for "Apple Cinemas" (as a name for a theater.).
Maybe the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" can open a movie theme bakery shop and trademark the name ..... "Apple Cinema Buns", so it won't be a total lost.
Comments
The time to contest this was many years ago. Just because Apple has a film business now shouldn't affect the situation. They should simply do what they've been doing until now. Live with it.
There may well be some confusion initially but that isn't the fault of the cinema. How much confusion has there been in the areas where these cinemas have existed for years now? Very little I imagine.
Hasn't happened. Apple Inc have not opened a movie theatre and have given no indication that they are about to.
Hasn't happened.
Hasn't happened. Again, Apple Inc operate no theatres.
Hasn't happened, and moreover is not totally true, since trademarks can be disputed.
And still you offer no reason why Apple Cinemas need an "excuse" for not having registered a trademark. You need an excuse when you have done something wrong, and not registering a trademark is in no way a thing that needs to be excused.
https://www.tuaw.com/2025/08/05/apple-sues-apple-cinemas-over-trademark-dispute/
>According to court documents, the cinema chain previously attempted to trademark both “Apple Cinemas” and “ACX – Apple Cinematic Experience.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected both applications in 2024 due to potential confusion with Apple’s existing trademarks. Despite this, Apple claims the cinema brand ignored cease-and-desist requests and continued marketing its “high-tech” offerings.<
Sand Media don't have a leg to stand on. If they had tried to trademark "Apple Cinemas" 10 years ago, they might had had a better chance, no matter how slim of a chance, to get a trademark . But no way they were going to get one after this announcement in 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/media/apple-movie-theaters.html
One can easily contest a trademark when it is being applied for. But once a trademark is issued, it's an uphill battle to get the trademark removed. If Sand Media had gotten a trademark for "Apple Cinemas", Apple Inc would most likely have to pay them millions of dollars to give up their trademark to "Apple Cinemas". Apple inc. paid $500M to Apple Corp for rights to all their trademarks, to end the constant court battles between them. That's because Apple Corp own the trademark for "Apple " in the music business. And because Apple Computers own a trademark, Apple Corp had negotiate an agreement between them. If Apple Computers didn't already own the trademark , Apple Corp might have been able to prevent Apple Computers from getting one for "Apple Computers", even though Apple Corp was not in the computer business.
Here;s a case where Apple paid $60M for the trademark rights for "iPad" in China.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18669394
Here's a case where Apple didn't have to pay Cisco a dime for their "iPhone" trademark. Cisco had let their trademark to "iPhone" expire, thus allowing Apple snatch the trademark because the USPTO listed the iPhone trademark as "abandoned".
https://www.nhcompanyregistry.com/companies/sand-media-nm-inc/
BTW- It seems that Sand Media didn't exist until 2021. I have no idea who operated Apple Cinemas before 2021. Or maybe they just changed their corporate name or just decided to incorporate for tax reasons. But it's listed as a "foreign profit corporation". But haven't been able to find out from what foreign country. But appears to be run by an executive staff consisting of 3 people. Notice their email address. Even their email address borders on infringing on Apple trademarks.
https://www.nhcompanyregistry.com/companies/sand-media-nm-inc/
Design, color and type style are also considered when determining trademark infringement. Some times just changing the type style or color makes the difference between infringement and not. Apple trademarks goes beyond just the name "Apple".
Here's an interesting list of design trademarks that most would not think were trademarked.
https://www.onlinevisibilityacademy.com/buildings-that-are-trademarked/
So use a little more imagination.
And especially considering that Apple Cinemas have been in business since 2013 and Apple didn't go after them until now, I would hope the courts would say, "too late!" Apple Cinemas only owns 14 theaters. Apple should just let it go. They come off as bullies otherwise.
Apple may produce movies that play theatrically, but they're not going into the exhibition business.
Look in any big city directory listing and there's a hundred companies with Apple in the name.
Is Apple going to sue New York City because it calls itself "The Big Apple"?
The trademark owners need to actively protect their trademarks otherwise they risk losing them. That's how the law works, not just here in the USA and not just Apple. About twenty years ago Big bad McDonald's went after a little nearby mom-and-pop coffee shop that called themselves McCoffee and guess who won? That's just one of tens (if that hundreds) of thousands of legal actions.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is that there are laws that define what is allowable with a trademark. My guess is there's a 98% chance that Apple Cinemas will eventually pick a new name, whether it is settled out of court or goes into litigation. The big question is how much Apple Cinemas wants to spend to pursue this. Ignoring cease-and-desist letters is free. But it has gone beyond that now. Now that this company is in expansion mode, right in Apple Inc.'s backyard, it has come to their attention.
Note that copyright and trademark laws are similar in many other places in the world.
With Trademarks laws, it is infringing upon another trademark even if the name you're using might just only confuse consumers into thinking that another company is involve with your business or product.
Even if one knows that Apple do not have theaters, it would still be infringing on Apple trademarks if consumers somehow even think "Apple Cinemas" are theaters that Apple might be endorsing for the showing of Apple produced movies. Just like how consumers knows that theaters with the "THX" mark are not own by George Lucas, but have sound systems that are certified by Lucus sound production company ..... "THX".
The idiots are those that would think 'THX" are just common letters in the English alphabet, been in use with theaters for over 10 years and thus generic in the business, so any theater can use them with the name of their theaters. And then proceed to call anyone an idiot for thinking that having "THX" in the name of the theater might mean George Lucus is involve with the theater.
As for the 13 years where Apple did not complain about its use, the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" might only had had a chance to keep using 'Apple Cinemas" if they already had a trademark to begin with. But the idiots operating Apple Cinemas never applied for a trademark for "Apple Cinemas" until 2024. By that time, it was way too late (not to imply that they any chance for a trademark before that.) and the USPTO rejected their application because the name can be confused with Apple Inc..
So as of now, the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" can not use the name because they never had a trademark for it and they can't get one now. At anytime during the 13 years, Apple could had easily gotten a trademark for "Apple Cinemas", if they didn't already have one and forced the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" to change the name. The only way now for them to keep the "Apple Cinemas" name is for Apple inc. to lose their trademark. Or they can make an offer to buy out Apple Inc. trademarks. What would you think it would cost them, to buy the trademarks to one of the most valuable brand name in the World? It cost Apple Inc. $500M to buy out Apple Corp trademarks and those trademarks are included in the deal.
This isn't copyright laws where one don't have to register their original work in order to have some copyright protection. With Trademark, it's the first to trademark gets the trademark, regardless if some one else been using the mark for 13 years, without a trademark. And just because you been using a name without a trademark for 13 years, it doesn't mean that the USPTO will automatically give you a trademark or offer any protection for you to keep on using the name, without a trademark. And as of now, unless you're Apple Inc., not even a company that's been using "Apple Cinemas" for 13 years, can get a trademark for "Apple Cinemas" (as a name for a theater.).
Maybe the company that owns "Apple Cinemas" can open a movie theme bakery shop and trademark the name ..... "Apple Cinema Buns", so it won't be a total lost.