dragonherder

FelixCox said:

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 

lotones said:

VictorMortimer 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.

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.