davidw

tiredskills said:

davidw said:

tiredskills said:

lotones said:

tiredskills said:

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.

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

AppleZulu said:

So Spotify still doesn't offer lossless audio or spatial audio? 

Their "premium" plans appear to still only include compressed, lossy audio, and they're more expensive than Apple Music, which does include lossless, spatial and a second specialized app for classical music. Also, Apple pays artists better.

Interesting.

I keep reminding people that neither Apple, Spotify or most of the music streaming services, pays the artist directly. They all pay the music industry about 70% of their paid subscription revenue. Then the music industry calculates how much each artist get per stream from each of the services, using the same formula for each service. It just works out that Apple Music pays more per stream because the average Apple Music subscriber stream less music per month than the average Spotify subscribers. Thus the 70% subscription revenue is spread out across less total streams. But in total dollars, Spotify pays way more to the music industry because they got way more paid subscribers than Apple Music. The artist make less per stream with Spotify, but might make more money over all because more subscribers means more streams. 

https://pudding.cool/2022/06/streaming/

Where Spotify royally screws the artist is with their free ad supported tier. There are more users on the free tier, than there are on the paid subscription tier.  With the ad support tier, Spotify pays the music industry a percentage of their ad revenue. This amounts to the artist only getting 1/10 of what they get paid per stream on the paid subscription tier. Where they might get $.008 per stream on the paid subscription tier, they only get $.0008 per stream on the ad supported tier. When added together, artist makes way less per stream with Spotify, than with Apple Music, which don't have a free ad supported tier. And most Artist can not opt out of the free tier, if they want their music on the paid subscription tier. From what I read, Spotify free tier is profitable. Mainly because they pay so little of their ad revenue to the music industry. But that profit don't come close to making up for how much they lose with their paid subscription tier.  .

tiredskills said:

lotones said:

tiredskills said:

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.

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. 

phoenix1386 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.

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.

tshapi said:

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 

dragonherder said:

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.

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.