Apple's cinema lawsuit might seem ironic, but it was inevitable
Apple vs Apple was one of the most epic trademark battles in history. The Beatles' record label Apple Corps sued Apple Computer (now Apple Inc) in a series of legal disputes over almost three decades until the latter finally paid $500 million to settle and acquire Apple Corps' trademarks, allowing it to use the name and logo for music distribution via iTunes.
Given that history, it's not surprising that a lot of people are commenting on the apparent irony of the situation now that Apple Inc is suing Apple Cinemas. Apple (the tech company) says the cinema chain "knowingly and intentionally using the name Apple to sow confusion". But the tech giant doesn't operate any cinemas and only started making films relatively recently. So is it all Apple and oranges?
Owned by Sand Media Corp Inc, Apple Cinemas was founded in 2013 and now has 14 venues. With a logo that features an apple formed by a ream of film, the chain was limited to the Northeastern US, but it's recently opened a cinema in San Francisco under 50 miles from Apple's Cupertino headquarters. It now plans a major nationwide expansion, which seems to be what's sparked Apple to take action.
The Cupertino Apple says in its complaint: "Faced with Defendants' plan to expand to 100 theaters nationwide, as well as widespread public confusion about Apple's involvement in the theaters, Apple has no alternative but to file this lawsuit to protect its brand and customers from deception," the complaint states.
The lawsuit cites cases in which people believed Apple Cinemas was owned by Apple Inc, illustrated by comments from online news reports and social media posts. It also says that the iPad-making Apple sent Sand Media a cease-and-desist letter in December 2024, but that the owner of the cinema chain continued with its expansion plans. It's now seeking an injunction and monetary damages.
Apparently, Apple Cinemas' name dates back to an aborted plan to open its first location at the Apple Valley Mall in Rhode Island. It never actually opened there, but it kept the name when it opened its first cinema in Massachusetts in 2013.
That was over five years before Cupertino's Apple founded Apple Studios and started making Apple Original Films, although Apple did previously sell the flat-panel monitor Apple Cinema Display between 1999 and 2011. It seems that Sand Media had its application to trademark the names "Apple Cinemas" and "ACX — Apple Cinematic Experience" rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office last year.
Could Apple Cinemas really confuse people? The case is likely to bring up once more the so-called 'moron in a hurry' test, which Apple itself tried to use as a defence against Apple Corps back in 2006, when it argued that even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about the difference between iTunes and the Apple Corps record label.
The court will have to consider how similar the brand's logos are in terms of look and feel, and any direct evidence customers have confused the brands.
While some people criticise Apple for bullying a smaller business, it's worth remembering that companies have to protect their brands or lose them, and Apple is one of the most valuable brands in the world. Trademark lawsuits aren't only about the money – they're often the only way that a company can test whether a legal infringement exists in order to shape the legal definition of its brand.
Grab the popcorn because the outcome of the case won't just define the fate of Apple Cinemas but also the potential scope and value of the Apple brand.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mom Corrects Mother-in-Law at Family Dinner After She Takes Credit for Baby's Name
The woman insists she was the one who chose her daughter's name, but her husband says the correction should have waited until they were alone NEED TO KNOW A woman says her mother-in-law took credit at dinner for naming her 11-month-old daughter She immediately corrected the claim, with her husband confirming the real story Her husband later told her she was right, but says she should have waited for a private moment A woman turns to the Reddit community for advice following an awkward family dinner where her mother-in-law took credit for naming her 11-month-old daughter. She explains in her post that she and her husband have been married for almost two years and that the name came from a beloved character in a 'very popular book/movie franchise' they both enjoy. 'When we found out we were having a girl, one of the names that was immediately top contender was the name of a character I really like,' she says. Over time, that name became the only one she wanted, and the couple eventually shared it with their parents. She remembers her mother-in-law questioning whether there might be an alternative spelling that could cause confusion. 'I had said no it wouldn't and had explained to her the subtle difference in pronunciation,' she recalls. 'It was a whole conversation I'd had with her.' Fast forward to a family gathering at her in-laws' home for dinner. Her brother-in-law and his wife were there as well, and everyone was watching the baby cruise around the room, laughing and glancing back to see who was watching. Her sister-in-law's wife remarked how radiant the baby looks and how she'd 'really taken to her name literally.' That's when her sister-in-law said it was a 'really good choice by my MIL,' leaving the new mom confused. 'I asked what she's talking about and my SIL said that my MIL had been the one to recommend the name, right?' she shares. Her mother-in-law then chimes in to agree, saying she'd said it was a good name. The poster remembers being 'literally stunned for a second' before speaking up. She made it clear she was the one who came up with the name, sharing how she knew of it and that her husband also recognized it from the franchise. She even turned to her husband for confirmation, which he gave — though uncomfortably. Her mother-in-law responded that 'names are a collective family effort, and everyone pitched in,' but the woman still pushed back. 'I still said this name was one that was very dear to me and it was one I'd come up with,' she explains. Later that night, when they got home, her husband started receiving texts from his mom and sister. While he told her she's correct in her version of events, he also said she was 'tactless.' 'He said we know it was my name, and our daughter has a beautiful name that suits her, why make it into something that causes bitterness,' she recounts. The next day, her husband had a routine phone call with his mother, and she asked if her mother-in-law is still upset. 'He said she was,' the woman writes. 'He said that he understood why I did it but it wasn't the time and place.' That's when she turned to Reddit to ask if she was wrong. One commenter calls out her husband's stance, quoting his words: ' 'He said that he understood why I did it but it wasn't the time and place.' Did he happen to share with you when would have been a better time to correct your mother in law's revisionist history and why he didn't have a word with her and correct her himself? Big fat, NTA.' Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. The original poster replies that her husband never gave a specific alternative moment. 'No, he didn't say it but he said it shouldn't have been clarified in front of an audience,' she explains. 'So I'm assuming he meant when it was just me with MIL.' She adds that if her mother-in-law had made the comment when they were alone, she would have corrected her then. 'I didn't enjoy saying it in front of others,' she admits. 'It's just that's when it was brought up.' Now she's left wondering whether defending the truth about her daughter's name in the moment was worth the fallout. Read the original article on People Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
16 minutes ago
- CNN
NBA clears Boston Celtics' $6.1 billion sale to Bill Chisholm
A group headed by Bill Chisholm is set to take control of the Boston Celtics after the NBA Board of Governors unanimously approved the sale on Wednesday. The NBA wrote in a statement, 'The transaction is expected to close shortly.' The reported $6.1 billion valuation for the club makes it the second-largest sale price for a US sports franchise, behind the $10 billion valuation for the Los Angeles Lakers when Mark Walter purchased that team in June. Chisholm and his partners are buying at least 51 percent of the Celtics. The ownership stake will increase in 2028, according to the purchase contract, when Chisholm's group is scheduled to buy out the remaining minority shareholders at a $7.3 billion valuation. According to multiple media reports, Chisholm will take over as the Celtics' governor when the sale goes through. Outgoing owner Wyc Grousbeck is expected to serve as alternate governor and remain the CEO through 2028. Grousbeck will cede his role when he no longer has the required ownership stake of at least 15 percent. Chisholm, the co-founder and managing partner of the California-based private equity firm STG Partners, is a Massachusetts native and longtime Celtics fan. Grousbeck and the outgoing ownership group Boston Basketball Partners LLC purchased the Celtics for $360 million in 2002. During that group's tenure, the club won NBA titles in 2007-08 and 2023-24 – the latter representing Boston's league-record 18th championship.
Android Authority
17 minutes ago
- Android Authority
YouTube Music gets another music discovery tool that Spotify doesn't have
Edgar Cervantes / Android Authority TL;DR Google is testing a new Daily Discover feed in YouTube Music. Like the existing weekly discover, the daily discover aims to help you find artists or music similar to what you already listen. Google only appears to be testing it at the moment, as the feature hasn't rolled out widely. Although its supremacy is contentious, YouTube Music is easily among the top five music and podcast streaming services globally. Its popularity naturally stems from the fact that it automatically sorts music (or other audio-based media) uploaded to YouTube. While the automatic sourcing already allows you to discover more tracks, including renditions, covers, audiobooks, etc., YouTube Music is adding a new Daily Discover feed to make the process much easier. We recently learned that Google is testing a new Daily Discover option to recommend new tracks every day based on your preferences. The feature, as spotted by Reddit user One_Flow_8127, is positioned somewhere on the homepage. It appears on top of the 'Trending songs for you' section, which appears after several scrolls on YouTube Music's homepage on the Android app. Based on the screenshots shared, we can see these recommendations show up in a carousel format, and people can scroll left or right to explore multiple recommendations. The feature shows recommendations for particular soundtracks instead of entire playlists, and also tells you the reason why it is being suggested. However, if you prefer, the suggestions also come with a 'Play All' button that should combine all tracks into a new playlist. The primary motive behind this feature is to learn about new artists and their music, which may be loosely based on your interests and listening habits. While its biggest competitor, Spotify, also offers discovery features, it primarily focuses on familiar artists and dispenses these recommendations in playlists instead of regular tracks. Don't want to miss the best from Android Authority? Set us as a preferred source in Google Search to support us and make sure you never miss our latest exclusive reports, expert analysis, and much more. The daily discover option itself isn't new and was previously spotted by another Reddit user, BarisberatWNR, about a month ago. However, for them, the recommendations appeared in a different location on the homepage, suggesting YouTube may be testing varied placements to see what is likely to get the most attention. Last month, another user posted in Google's Community forums about the feature appearing and then being removed from their account. From what we expect, the daily discover feature could complement or substitute YouTube's Discover mix, a playlist refreshed weekly instead of daily. To be able to access this weekly discover playlist, you must scroll down on YouTube Music's homepage and spot it under the 'Mixed for you' tab. This appears to be a limited test for certain users, as many others on the original Reddit post have commented about not receiving it. We can't access the feature either, and it isn't easy to ascertain whether this is meant to be an A/B test or a rollout. Further, it appears to have turned it on from the server-side, so updating the app to a newer version will not achieve positive results, though there is no harm in doing so. Follow
