Comparing Apples to Apples: Where Must the Line be Drawn in Trademark Law?
This blog discusses the potential impact of Apple, Inc.’s recent lawsuit in Massachusetts Federal District Court against local cinema chain, Apple Cinemas, for alleged trademark infringement and dilution.
As a New Englander, I immediately paused when I read in the news that Apple was suing a local movie theater, Apple Cinemas. Why was Apple, a global tech conglomerate, suing a small, local cinema from New England?
Apple Cinemas started out as a regional cinema, opening its first theater in 2013 in Cambridge, MA, but attributes its name to the shopping mall it was originally planned to open at, the Apple Valley Mall in Rhode Island. Compl. ¶¶ 54-55, Apple Inc. v. Sand Media Corp, No. 1:25-CV-12173 (D. Mass. Aug. 1, 2025), Dkt. No. 1. After opening its first location in Cambridge, Apple Cinemas began to expand across New England, including Waterbury, CT in 2014 and Barkhamsted, CT in 2015. Id. ¶¶ 55-56. It maintained this momentum until 2022. Id. ¶ 56. In December 2023, it opened its first location outside of New England in Pittsford, NY and then another in White Plains, NY in May 2024 – only half mile from the Apple Store in White Plains. Id. ¶¶ 57, 59. With nation-wide expansion in sight, Apple Cinemas opened another location in Rochester in March 2025 and announced plans in June 2025 to open its first location in San Francisco, CA. Compl. ¶¶ 61, 63. This garnered Apple’s attention.
There are three instances that together likely prompted Apple to sue Apple Cinemas. The first pertains to the two applications Apple Cinemas filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in February 2024 and in March 2024 to register the trademarks APPLE CINEMAS and ACX - APPLE CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE (Serial Nos. 98427530 and 98442811, respectively). Compl. ¶ 58; Answer ¶ 58, Apple Inc. v. Sand Media Corp, No. 1:25-CV-12173 (D. Mass. Sep. 19, 2025), Dkt. No. 35. The PTO originally denied these applications in October 2024 because of their resemblance to Apple’s registered trademarks APPLE STUDIOS (Registration No. 7107534) and APPLE TV (Registration No. 7269838), among others. See Id. ¶¶ 60, 77. In April 2025, Apple Cinemas appealed and as of now, the applications remain live and pending. Answer ¶¶ 58, 75-76, 81.
The second moment that seems to have induced Apple’s response was when, in December 2024, Apple sent Apple Cinemas a cease-and-desist letter after the PTO’ s initial rejection of their trademark applications. Compl. ¶¶ 9, 60. Apple Cinemas admitted to receiving this communication in their answer. Answer ¶ 9. Despite receiving it, however, Apple alleges Apple Cinemas continued their nationwide expansion into 2025, announcing the opening of their first California location in June 2025, a mere one-hour drive from Apple’s headquarters. Compl. ¶ 63.
The last straw was the apparent confusion the new cinema’s opening sparked in the local community. Leading up to the theater’s opening, local online discussion boards exhibited confusion about the new theater’s connection with Apple. Compl. ¶¶ 88-98. Apple included snapshots of various conversation chains in their complaint demonstrating how locals were questioning the connection between the two companies. One such discussion chain read:
Comment: Like a theater just for AppleTV films?
Response A: Zero relations from that Apple company
Response B: But I agree that the cinema name is confusing.
Compl. ¶ 90. Recognizing the growing confusion between Apple Cinemas and Apple among online chat forums, as well as the ongoing trademark dispute with the PTO, and failed attempts to reach an understanding independently between the parties, Apple turned to the courts.
On August 1, 2025, Apple sued Apple Cinemas in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts for “deliberate[ly] misus[ing] [] Apple’s world famous APPLE trademark and service mark” and “capitaliz[ing] on the highly-regarded Apple brand in connection with the aggressive nationwide expansion of” their franchise. Compl. ¶ 1. Apple pleads three claims: that Apple Cinemas violated Sections 32, 43(A) and 43(C) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125, 1125(C)), alleging an infringement of registered trademarks, false designation of origin, and federal dilution by blurring. Compl. ¶¶ 107-29. The Lanham Act is the federal statute governing trademark law in the United States, outlining regulations and procedures for trademark violations. See 15 U.S.C.§ 1114. Apple Cinemas filed their answer on September 16, 2025, denying Apple’s allegations and asserting various defenses, including the use of independent trademarks, claiming the two companies function in separate trade circles, and a lack of intent to ‘tarnish’ Apple’s reputation in response to Apple’s dilution by blurring claim. See Answer ¶¶ 1–15 (Affirmative Defenses)
Apple raises four points in support of its claims. First, it alleges Apple Cinemas knew of the potential trademark violations, given their applications were initially denied (or paused) by the PTO yet continued to expand with its existing branding. See Compl. ¶ 102 (comparing two of Apple’s famous logos with Apple Cinema’s logo). This claim centers largely around the fact that the respective logos are very similar, both incorporating an apple with a distinct stem and rainbow stripes, but also alleges confusion is exacerbated due to both companies operating in similar trade circles. See Compl. ¶ 103-04.
Second, as mentioned above, Apple cites to various online chat forums alleging confusion about whether the Apple Cinemas theater opening in San Francisco was related to Apple. See Compl. ¶¶ 88-99. One such online post read as follows:
I’m not one for frivolous lawsuits where a large company goes after a small business (Jarritos the soda company vs Jarritos the restaurant on South Van Ness for example)... but Apple Cinemas, when Apple itself has a movie streaming platform, sure seems like a fair example. I certainty assumed THAT Apple was behind the new theater. A pretty risky endeavor (not even counting their name) for a relatively small chain.
Comp. ¶ 91.
Third, Apple alleges there is significant overlap in services between Apple Cinemas and Apple, as both provide some sort of streaming service. Apple also cited overlap in the names of similar products, including a screenshot of results from an internet search of the phrase “apple cinemas” which generated images and results of both Apple Cinemas locations as well as an Apple monitor called ‘Apple Cinema Display.’ See Compl. ¶¶ 100-01 (displaying a screen capture of the search results).
The final allegation Apple raises in their complaint is that Apple Cinemas, in its quest to expand and relocate their locations to shopping centers often with an Apple Store nearby, is evidence that Apple Cinemas “[is] trading off Apple’s goodwill.” Compl. ¶ 70 . Apple then cites statistics showing that Apple stores can increase total sales at malls by 10% and allow landlords to charge more in rent. Compl. ¶ 69.
Courts consider various tests, enumerated in both the Lanham Act and the common law, when evaluating trademark infringement. The Lanham Act requires a plaintiff to prove they own and use the disputed trademarks, the defendant used similar or identical branding without plaintiff’s permission, and because of the unauthorized use, consumers were confused and plaintiff was harmed. See Lyons v. Gillette, 882 F. Supp. 2d 217, 226 (D. Mass. 2012) (citing Venture Tape Corp. v. McGills Glass Warehouse, 540 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2008)). While the first two elements are relatively clear, the third – likelihood of confusion among consumers – is harder to determine. See id. The First Circuit Court of Appeals considers eight criteria to help assess whether this prong is satisfied, and, while no one factor in this list is dispositive, they help the Court assess the alleged confusion. See Shelby v. Factory Five Racing, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 2d 205, 215 (D. Mass. 2010). These include: “the similarity of the marks; the similarity of the goods; the relationship between the parties’ channels of trade; the relationship between the parties’ advertising; the classes of prospective purchasers; evidence of actual confusion; defendant's intent in adopting its mark; and the strength of the plaintiff's mark.” Lyons, 822 F. Supp. 2d at 226 (quoting Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 10 n.6 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Pignons S.A. de Mecanique de Precision v. Polaroid Corp., 657 F.2d 482, 487 (1st Cir. 1981))). Based on its complaint, it is likely Apple will speak to the similarity between the respective branding, the overlap in circles of commerce, and the online platform confusion to support this claim. It may fall short, however, of persuading the Court of a malicious intent on Apple Cinema’s part, the advertising element, and the similarity of goods, as Apple Cinemas may be able to argue that in-person movie theaters are separate from of Apple’s streaming and other media services. How much confusion is too much confusion, given it appears confusion was only centered around, at least per the evidence provided by Apple, the California opening? The Court will have to weigh the evidence in light of these factors to decide.
Regarding Apple’s dilution claim, the Court requires that a plaintiff “prove that someone caused the ‘blurring or dilution by tarnishment of [a] famous mark.’” Lyons, 822 F. Supp. 2d at 228 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)). Compared to trademark infringement, dilution by blurring does not require proof of confusion, but does require that the trademark be ‘famous.’ Id. at 228. The Lanham Act considers “a mark [] famous if it is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States,” or if the trademark, “for the major part of the century[,] [has] been [a] household [name].” Id. at 228 (first quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and then quoting TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Commc’n’s, Inc., 244 F.3d 88, 99 (2d Cir. 2001)). It likely goes unsaid that Apple meets the ‘famous’ threshold for purposes of its dilution claim. Where the Court may require more convincing is whether the alleged confusion and infringement does in fact impair the distinctiveness of Apple’s famous mark. See Shelby, 684 F. Supp. 2d at 216. Should the fact that Apple Cinemas operated with little apparent ‘confusion’ regarding its connection to Apple in New England and New York factor into the Court’s analysis? Or that Apple sued only after Apple Cinemas expanded onto its home turf, so to speak?
Whether Apple will prevail on these claims will be a question for the Court. This case, however, may raise important considerations as to allegations of trademark violations, particularly when there is an imbalance in power and influence as there is here. Will the Court lean into the PTO’s initial rejection of Apple Cinemas’ application or weigh public policy concerns of restricting small business competition with a massively influential company like Apple? We will have to wait on the Court for an answer.