Apple Cinemas may come to regret their name as lawyers step in

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in General Discussion

Apple has filed a lawsuit against the movie theater Apple Cinemas over what it says is a deliberate attempt to capitalize on its name.

Sign reading 'Apple Cinemas' with a stylized apple logo, featuring 'ScreenX' and 'ACX' logos beneath on a light background.
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

  • Reply 1 of 11
    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.
    lotonesPancake
     0Likes 2Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 11
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,383member
    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. 
    Anilu_777
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 11
    Anilu_777anilu_777 Posts: 613member
    Initially I thought Apple was opening a cinema to screen its own films so yes I think they have a case
    Alex1N
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 11
    lotoneslotones Posts: 152member
    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. 
    israndy
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 11
    anthogaganthogag Posts: 147member
    Apple Cinemas, they could make the entrance to their theatre look like walking into an Apple store. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 11
    This reminds me of when the Olympics were taking place in Atlanta in 1996 the Olympic committee went around suing every Greek restaurant that had Olympia in their name.
    ravnorodom
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 7 of 11
    Why in the world they name their company Apple in 2010? They are asking for trouble.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 11
    lotones said:
    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?
    M68000
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 11
    It's because the next iPhone will, have Pro Res RAW and they are branding it iPhone 17 Cinema Pro.  
    Imagine cinema engraved on the side of an iPhone. They will sell like crazy.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 11
    Also imagine an iPhone with 13 stops of dynamic range the same as a Sony FX30. 
    Insanely good video with the new camera and filmic Grain style embedded. 
    Not to mention 12 bit colour.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 11
    Edit White Balance and ISO in post in FCP in the edit with Pro Ress RAW.  
    The best cinematic camera for under $2000.... just.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.