PDA

View Full Version : Judge Skeptical of Apple's 'Appstore' Trademark Claims




MacRumors
Jun 22, 2011, 05:21 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/22/judge-skeptical-of-apples-appstore-trademark-claims/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/194052-amazonappstore.png

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/194052-amazonappstore.png)
A federal judge has hinted she will deny a motion (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-22/apple-bid-to-bar-amazon-appstore-will-likely-be-denied.html) from Apple asking the court to prevent Amazon.com from using the term "Appstore" for its Android app marketplace while a lawsuit over Amazon's use of the term continues. Apple initially sued Amazon this past March (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/21/apple-sues-amazon-over-app-store-trademark/).

Bloomberg quoted (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-22/apple-bid-to-bar-amazon-appstore-will-likely-be-denied.html) U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton saying Apple had not demonstrated "real evidence of actual confusion" among customers trying to differentiate between Apple and Amazon's stores, and this was a "stumbling block for Apple." The judge continued, saying she was "troubled by the showing that you've made so far, but that's where you're likely not to prevail at this early juncture."

There was no indication from the judge how quickly she intends to rule on the matter.

Article Link: Judge Skeptical of Apple's 'Appstore' Trademark Claims (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/22/judge-skeptical-of-apples-appstore-trademark-claims/)



LucasG
Jun 22, 2011, 05:22 PM
Sounds fair, I think. When I hear App Store it could be any online app store. When I here iTunes Store I think of Apple's App Store.

dethmaShine
Jun 22, 2011, 05:24 PM
Yup!

I think Apple should give it up on that. Too generic man! :|

smoge
Jun 22, 2011, 05:25 PM
trademarking the word appstore is like trademarking the little i in font of a word.
It only a matter of time before i hat to pay for that.

itsthenewdc
Jun 22, 2011, 05:27 PM
Sounds fair, I think. When I hear App Store it could be any online app store. When I here iTunes Store I think of Apple's App Store.

Granted, it is a pretty generic term.. but you can't really tell me that when you hear App Store you don't think of Apple first? Android has for the most part been associated with the term marketplace. Apple pretty much made the term it is today, despite the generic aspect.

*LTD*
Jun 22, 2011, 05:28 PM
Apple should have obtained rights to it back in 2008.

Goof on Apple for making the attempt, but it might very well be that at this point, consumers won't get confused. Apple already differentiates themselves conspicuously enough, even in this area.

yourstation
Jun 22, 2011, 05:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I disagree. You have to think back to when Apple was the only App Store. It did mean Apple and another organisation using the term and trying to make it generic should not sway the judgement here.

HiRez
Jun 22, 2011, 05:32 PM
Ouch, that's like being taken to the woodshed for lawyers I guess. I agree, just give it up. Some things are worth fighting for, this isn't one of them.

314631
Jun 22, 2011, 05:33 PM
This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

HiRez
Jun 22, 2011, 05:35 PM
Granted, it is a pretty generic term.. but you can't really tell me that when you hear App Store you don't think of Apple first?

Is this an argument that the term is so closely associated with Apple that they should own it, or is it an argument that because you think of Apple first, it's not hurting them at all to have others use it (and may actually be benefitting them)?

Andy-V
Jun 22, 2011, 05:38 PM
This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

Not this again.

Microsoft calls their OS 'Windows'. 'Windows' is in no way a generic term for an operating system. Yes, within multiple OS's there are 'windows', but MS has no trademark on that. They are still called 'windows' in Mac OS.

This is generic in the sense that it seems a bit like trying to trademark 'Laptop store' or something. App is a shortening of 'application'. Maybe Apple were the first to shorten it like that, but it's become too widely used for them to TM it now.

Robincognito
Jun 22, 2011, 05:39 PM
I dearly hope we don't hear hear further cries of "but Word and Windows are really generic; how is it that these words were trademarked by Microsoft?"

Because "Word" and "Windows" have never been used to describe a word processor or an operating system. Trademarking "Appstore" is like trademarking "Grocery Store". It's absurd.

winston1236
Jun 22, 2011, 05:40 PM
i dont know, there was another company that managed to trademark "windows" and "office"

Robincognito
Jun 22, 2011, 05:43 PM
This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

How is "Windows" generic? When has the word "windows" ever been used to describe an operating system?

HelveticaNeue
Jun 22, 2011, 05:45 PM
I believe that the rights to App Store should be granted to Apple, though I assumed that it wouldn't be so this is no real shock to me. Personally, I believe that if the iPhone never existed no one would be using the term app outside of the developing community. Apple popularized the term and ushered it into everyday lingo. To me Application Store would be the generic term.

But whatever, it's just a name. Let 'em have it.

neiltc13
Jun 22, 2011, 05:45 PM
i dont know, there was another company that managed to trademark "windows" and "office"

And again, people just don't get it.

App Store sells apps. It is a store for applications, therefore it is a generic term. Just like hardware store couldn't be trademarked by a company that sold hardware.

If "Windows" was the name of a business selling windows (like you put into houses) then that too would be generic. There is (and was) nothing generic about calling a piece of computer software "Windows".

Likewise, Apple owns a trademark on the words "Mac" and "Macintosh" despite these being a common terms used for a raincoat. But because Apple isn't selling raincoats, the trademark is valid.

"Office" is a trademark owned by Microsoft which it applies to a suite of software. The software itself is not an office, therefore the trademark stands.

skunk
Jun 22, 2011, 05:47 PM
Likewise, Apple owns a trademark on the words "Mac" and "Macintosh" despite these being a common terms used for a raincoat. But because Apple isn't selling raincoats, the trademark is validActually, a "Macintosh" is a kind of apple.

Megakazbek
Jun 22, 2011, 05:50 PM
Because "Word" and "Windows" have never been used to describe a word processor or an operating system. Trademarking "Appstore" is like trademarking "Grocery Store". It's absurd.
Please provide an example where "App store" was used to describe a software store before Apple.

neiltc13
Jun 22, 2011, 05:53 PM
Please provide an example where "App store" was used to describe a software store before Apple.

It doesn't have to have been used before. Both components of the trademark are generic terms, and together the term is generic. There were stores selling applications before Apple launched its "App Store" - heck, any retail store selling computer software could be described as an App Store.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 22, 2011, 05:53 PM
Come on who did not see this one coming. Apple did not really have a case and it just took someone with enough guts to force Apples hand and prove it.

Amazon did it and proved that Apple should not have the term "App Store" trademark.

Apple App Store is fine.
Oh and my personal favorite argument by Apple was saying App was short for Apple. That one does not even pass the straight face test. It showed the shear desperation if that was going to be the argument.

ictiosapiens
Jun 22, 2011, 05:58 PM
This court case is so ridiculous, that I'm sure all of apple's legal costs are coming out of their marketing budget... Hell, that's probably the case with most of the latest court cases...

erzhik
Jun 22, 2011, 05:59 PM
Did anyone except die hard apple fans think they would win?

justinfreid
Jun 22, 2011, 05:59 PM
Come on who did not see this one coming. Apple did not really have a case and it just took someone with enough guts to force Apples hand and prove it.

Amazon did it and proved that Apple should not have the term "App Store" trademark.

Apple App Store is fine.
Oh and my personal favorite argument by Apple was saying App was short for Apple. That one does not even pass the straight face test. It showed the shear desperation if that was going to be the argument.

I didn't read the complaint, but did Apple really claim that "App" was short for or somehow signified "Apple"?

And, I agree, "App Store" is too generic on its own and should require a modifier: iOS, Windows, Amazon, Android, Apple, etc.

Amazing Iceman
Jun 22, 2011, 06:04 PM
Lindows vs. Windows

supmango
Jun 22, 2011, 06:05 PM
I will be very surprised if Apple gives up this easily. Amazon and Apple will be at this for a while.

Laird Knox
Jun 22, 2011, 06:05 PM
Nothing has been decided. All the judge said is that she won't force Amazon to stop using the term while the case is decided.

This won't be over for several years.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 22, 2011, 06:06 PM
I didn't read the complaint, but did Apple really claim that "App" was short for or somehow signified "Apple"?

And, I agree, "App Store" is too generic on its own and should require a modifier: iOS, Windows, Amazon, Android, Apple, etc.

It was one of them. Sorry I do not have a link to were it was posted here but to me I though it was a comedy gold mine.
I read that and I could only think "REALLY? That is their argument"

genovelle
Jun 22, 2011, 06:11 PM
How is "Windows" generic? When has the word "windows" ever been used to describe an operating system?

It was actually used in the Mac OS wasn't it. The windows environment on the original Machintosh they copied by having access to the code to write word for the Mac. I remember a friend talking about how he could open different windows on his mac. I guess I could be wrong, but that what I remember

mdriftmeyer
Jun 22, 2011, 06:16 PM
Bring me compelling evidence and I will grant your request, Apple.

fkhan3
Jun 22, 2011, 06:17 PM
Granted, it is a pretty generic term.. but you can't really tell me that when you hear App Store you don't think of Apple first? Android has for the most part been associated with the term marketplace. Apple pretty much made the term it is today, despite the generic aspect.

Thats part of Apple's claim but the term 'App' is generic so the claim may not hold up. This will be a tough one for Apple.

paul4339
Jun 22, 2011, 06:17 PM
Apple should have obtained rights to it back in 2008.

...

They did file for the trademark in 2008, I think. And they were granted the trademark in Europe.

In the US, however, Microsoft requested a summary judgement to block the trademark acknowledging that Apple was the pioneer, but claiming the word has become too generic (it now has a 'de-facto secondary meaning').

Since then MS also filed for an EU declaration of invalidity.

wordoflife
Jun 22, 2011, 06:18 PM
Sorry Apple, but I agree with the judge here.
Plus, no one cares what you call your download centers/marketplaces/app stores ... we just care about the apps.


And quite obviously, the Amazon App Store doesn't work on our iPhones.

Doctor Q
Jun 22, 2011, 06:21 PM
Actually, a "Macintosh" is a kind of apple.
The fruit is spelled McIntosh.

Lifequest
Jun 22, 2011, 06:26 PM
I dearly hope we don't hear hear further cries of "but Word and Windows are really generic; how is it that these words were trademarked by Microsoft?"

Because "Word" and "Windows" have never been used to describe a word processor or an operating system. Trademarking "Appstore" is like trademarking "Grocery Store". It's absurd.
Agree with Microsoft should be granted those TM; and they have.

Bad comparison for the latter. I somehow see a "GrocStore" trademark-able.
Application store is generic. A shortened and conjoining of two words; AppStore isn't.
Take a moment and look at the word! appstore. "Appst" are the first 5 letters. It could be a new word in the dictionary with varying pronunciation!

appstore (AB-stoor/AP-stur). Adj.
Extreme addiction: Appstore (AP-stur) customers rush to buy the newly announced iPad 3.

itsthenewdc
Jun 22, 2011, 06:29 PM
Is this an argument that the term is so closely associated with Apple that they should own it, or is it an argument that because you think of Apple first, it's not hurting them at all to have others use it (and may actually be benefitting them)?

Well.. I think Apple has made the term it is and on that should probably hold the rights to it, but I'm also aware of how generic it is. I don't think it hurts or benefits, despite what Apple or Amazon may say..

WestonHarvey1
Jun 22, 2011, 06:34 PM
How is "Windows" generic? When has the word "windows" ever been used to describe an operating system?

Microsoft has sued or threatened to sue several companies who used the word "Windows" in a product name.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 22, 2011, 06:37 PM
I wonder what makes Apple decide when to use the i prefix and when not to. They seem to overuse it and risk diluting the brand but then do not use it when it might be good to. Why didn't they go with iApp Store?

Anyway Apple really brought the term App into the everyday lexicon. The term existed previously but only after Apple's iphone and app store did it become mainstream.

emvath
Jun 22, 2011, 06:37 PM
As much as I like Apple, they have absolutely no case here. Sorry Steve, you can't win them all. Give this up and put your energy towards something that really matters...like Ping!

Michael Scrip
Jun 22, 2011, 06:37 PM
At least the other companies got a little more creative with their names:

Android Market (Google)
App Catalog (Palm)
App World (Blackberry)
Ovi Store (Nokia)
Windows Phone Marketplace (Microsoft)

Come on Amazon... there was nothing else you could have used?

You took a river and a rainforest and turned it into a book store... and a verb for lighting a fire and make it an e-book reader.

You could have tried a little harder...

syan48306
Jun 22, 2011, 06:39 PM
While it is true "Appstore" is generic, but then again who's to blame apple for trying? Hell just look at what Microsoft was able to get away with.

"WINDOWS" lol.

As if that's not generic at all.

Robincognito
Jun 22, 2011, 06:39 PM
Microsoft has sued or threatened to sue several companies who used the word "Windows" in a product name.

I'm arguing that trademarking "Windows" is valid.

ChrisNM
Jun 22, 2011, 06:40 PM
Bad comparison. I somehow see a "GrocStore" trademark-able.
Application is generic. AppStore isn't.

Actually, no, GrocStore would not pass the trade mark test for a grocery store for the same reason.

Right now, it is just a denial of Apple's request for a injunction, anything could happen in court - but one of the tests for granting an injunction is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail at trial.

What the judge's initial opinion means is that Apple has an uphill battle. But hey, they have plenty of cash, so if they want to spent it on lawyers to fight this battle, have at it. Isn't America great!

reactions
Jun 22, 2011, 06:40 PM
This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

Jesus mary Joseph Christ !

U really are upset by such trivial news?

Put down the Koolaid sir because there are more important things to concern oneself in life!!!

Upset ... My god he's upset people! Perhaps I will play u a song on my violin.

Or perhaps not?

I commend amazon for standing up against golliath aka apple

ten-oak-druid
Jun 22, 2011, 06:42 PM
Apple will take this all the way to the icourt.

akm3
Jun 22, 2011, 06:43 PM
I dearly hope we don't hear hear further cries of "but Word and Windows are really generic; how is it that these words were trademarked by Microsoft?"

Because "Word" and "Windows" have never been used to describe a word processor or an operating system. Trademarking "Appstore" is like trademarking "Grocery Store". It's absurd.

Could I trademark GrocStore?

Why not?

cdembek
Jun 22, 2011, 06:47 PM
Can someone me how "windows" was trademarked? If MS was able TM "Windows" than AppStore should be locked up by apple.

unobtainium
Jun 22, 2011, 06:50 PM
Well, this is purely anecdotal but supports the judge's comments about consumers' attitudes toward the term:

If I were asking my friend with an Android phone if he had a certain "app" available in his "app store" it would feel perfectly natural. More natural than saying, "Hey, check out the Android Marketplace (TM) to see if they have this app!"

I (and he) would probably both just call it the app store -- so there ya go, generic term in everyday usage. If Apple wanted to really identify itself with the term and trademark it, they would've had to act sooner before it entered general parlance as a term for mobile app stores.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 22, 2011, 06:51 PM
I wonder what makes Apple decide when to use the i prefix and when not to. They seem to overuse it and risk diluting the brand but then do not use it when it might be good to. Why didn't they go with iApp Store?

Anyway Apple really brought the term App into the everyday lexicon. The term existed previously but only after Apple's iphone and app store did it become mainstream.

I am honestly surpised as well that they did not go with iApp Store. They could trademark that no problem.
I do not expect Apple to get the trade mark on App store and when the trademark office denies them this would quickly be dismissed.

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 22, 2011, 06:51 PM
It doesn't have to have been used before. Both components of the trademark are generic terms, and together the term is generic. There were stores selling applications before Apple launched its "App Store" - heck, any retail store selling computer software could be described as an App Store.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4002:sf1o7f.2.65

I could easily get a mark for MonkeyStore. The fact that people have been selling Monkeys for many years has nothing to do with it.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 22, 2011, 06:53 PM
"Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding"

http://shufordprints.com/spblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mcdowells.jpg

LanPhantom
Jun 22, 2011, 07:00 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

i dont know, there was another company that managed to trademark "windows" and "office"

And again, people just don't get it.

App Store sells apps. It is a store for applications, therefore it is a generic term. Just like hardware store couldn't be trademarked by a company that sold hardware.

If "Windows" was the name of a business selling windows (like you put into houses) then that too would be generic. There is (and was) nothing generic about calling a piece of computer software "Windows".

Likewise, Apple owns a trademark on the words "Mac" and "Macintosh" despite these being a common terms used for a raincoat. But because Apple isn't selling raincoats, the trademark is valid.

"Office" is a trademark owned by Microsoft which it applies to a suite of software. The software itself is not an office, therefore the trademark stands.

Makes sense

FSMBP
Jun 22, 2011, 07:09 PM
While it is true "Appstore" is generic, but then again who's to blame apple for trying? Hell just look at what Microsoft was able to get away with.

"WINDOWS" lol.

As if that's not generic at all.

Clearly, you didn't read the 1st page of comments. I don't think you understand that "windows" is not a generic term in naming Operating Systems.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 22, 2011, 07:20 PM
Apple needs to concentrate on the case against those thieves over at Samsung instead of wasting time on this.

*LTD*
Jun 22, 2011, 07:25 PM
Apple needs to concentrate on the case against those thieves over at Samsung instead of wasting time on this.

Well this does seem relatively minor compared to the bigger key battles.

halhiker
Jun 22, 2011, 07:26 PM
I don't remember hearing anything called an App Store before Apple starting call theirs by that name. There could have been but I just don't remember it.

I guess if they lose then iOS App Store will have to do.

bsolar
Jun 22, 2011, 07:29 PM
Can someone me how "windows" was trademarked? If MS was able TM "Windows" than AppStore should be locked up by apple.
It does not matter if the word is not original or very generic in some famliar context (e.g. I hope your house is full of windows), you have to consider the trademark in the context of what is actually trademarked.

"Windows" was granted as trademark for an operating system because in the Operating System's context it's distinctive of a particular Operating System.

The question is just "the term AppStore in the context of stores which sell software applications is distinctive enough? Would it cleary define Apple's software store and only that one?". Apple claims that the term clearly defines their "app store", others argue that it could be anyone's app store and it's not specific enough.

Note that it does not matter who used the terms AppStore or App first. If the term becomes too generic to clearly define Apple's applications or Apple's software store the trademark cannot be granted. Even if the terms were already trademarked if they become generic through usage the trademarks would be lost.

cirus
Jun 22, 2011, 07:39 PM
Microsoft has sued or threatened to sue several companies who used the word "Windows" in a product name.

So has McDonald's
MacJoy
McCoffee
McChina Wok Away
McMunchies
McAllan (one man hotdog stand)

Everyone sues everyone who uses their name, its nothing special.

Xenc
Jun 22, 2011, 07:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Reading this thread has been educational. Apple shouldn't be allowed to win this one.

kingtj
Jun 22, 2011, 07:45 PM
In your Microsoft Windows example, you neglect the fact that Microsoft wasn't ever really challenging the use of the term in other computer-related scenarios. (EG. Many operating systems claimed to have "Window Managers", but Microsoft wasn't foolish enough to lay claim to all use of the term "Windows" as it related to anyone using a rectangular or square shaped border to encapsulate a piece of software.)

In fact, the one case I'm aware of where Microsoft got upset about another OS using a similar name (Lindows), they wasted over 2 years litigating, only to wind up losing and having to spend $20 million to settle and buy the rights to the Lindows name, so they could get the original owners to call the product something else!

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows)

In Apple's case, they're trying to say nobody else has the right to call an online store that sells applications an "Appstore" (despite the fact that Amazon did NOT even put a space between the two words like Apple did with theirs). This really shouldn't fly with the courts, UNLESS Apple could actually show really compelling evidence that they're losing sales revenue to people who are mistakenly buying things on Amazon's site when they thought it was the "same thing" as Apple's App Store. (Not likely!)


This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

justinfreid
Jun 22, 2011, 07:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I think the "i" would be even more redundant than the one in iWeb in that case. Plus, it would have two vowel sounds in a row which is uncomfortable to pronounce.

Ted Witcher
Jun 22, 2011, 07:51 PM
When I hear App Store it could be any online app store.

Well, that's exactly the point of the lawsuit.

When I hear "App Store," I think of Apple, since they were the first ones to have such a thing.

ALUOp
Jun 22, 2011, 08:02 PM
And again, people just don't get it.

App Store sells apps. It is a store for applications, therefore it is a generic term. Just like hardware store couldn't be trademarked by a company that sold hardware.

If "Windows" was the name of a business selling windows (like you put into houses) then that too would be generic. There is (and was) nothing generic about calling a piece of computer software "Windows".

Likewise, Apple owns a trademark on the words "Mac" and "Macintosh" despite these being a common terms used for a raincoat. But because Apple isn't selling raincoats, the trademark is valid.

"Office" is a trademark owned by Microsoft which it applies to a suite of software. The software itself is not an office, therefore the trademark stands.

It doesn't have to have been used before. Both components of the trademark are generic terms, and together the term is generic. There were stores selling applications before Apple launched its "App Store" - heck, any retail store selling computer software could be described as an App Store.

"Both components of the trademark are generic terms, and together the term is generic."
Really? I think it's you that don't get it.
A trademark can be a very generic term.
Is "Staples' a generic term?
Of course; it is in every English dictionary.
And, what does Staples sell?
According to your logic, everyone can open an office supply store and calls it "Staples".
The most important thing in trademark matter is not whether the words are generic. Instead, it's whether it creates confusion for customers.
If you have used the trademark for so long that people will think of your business when they hear it, then other people should not be allowed to use the same terms for the same products.
If you don't protect your trademark and allow it to become genericized, then you'll lose the right. But using a generic term in your mark doesn't automatically mean it's invalid.

azurehi
Jun 22, 2011, 08:05 PM
"I Want it All" was taken by Queen in 1988...too bad, Apple.

.:R2theT
Jun 22, 2011, 08:09 PM
Apple might have stood some type of chance if there own employees, Steve Jobs included, hadn't used the term "app store" to refer to other companies app stores.

This seems like a bit of a waste of funds at this point. Plus, there is not a single person who owns an iPod, iPhone or iPad that would confuse Apple's "AppStore" with Amazon's "AppStore".

Plus, if 50% or more of iPhones have never been synced to a PC, then what is Apple really afraid of? These folks are really only buying apps. through their phones anyway.

Stridder44
Jun 22, 2011, 08:24 PM
Can't say I blame him. It is a bit too much. The term itself is pretty generic.

staypuffinpc
Jun 22, 2011, 08:24 PM
10 yrs. ago I was a TA who helped answer people's questions in a computer lab with 60+ computers at a large university. The lab was mostly an Apple lab, though we had a dozen or so Windows machines. Funny thing is, when we would use the words, "app" or "application," people would give us blank stares. We had to refer to them as "programs," which is what Windows calls them.

Fast-forward 10 years and suddenly everyone is saying that "app" is a totally generic term? Funny that Apple has been using it forever, but that it hasn't really been that long since it's really been "generic."

davelanger
Jun 22, 2011, 08:32 PM
Just make amazon call it the amazon appstore and there shouldnt be a problem.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 22, 2011, 08:33 PM
Just make amazon call it the amazon appstore and there shouldnt be a problem.

Umm that is what Amazon calls it.

genovelle
Jun 22, 2011, 08:37 PM
Well, this is purely anecdotal but supports the judge's comments about consumers' attitudes toward the term:

If I were asking my friend with an Android phone if he had a certain "app" available in his "app store" it would feel perfectly natural. More natural than saying, "Hey, check out the Android Marketplace (TM) to see if they have this app!"

I (and he) would probably both just call it the app store -- so there ya go, generic term in everyday usage. If Apple wanted to really identify itself with the term and trademark it, they would've had to act sooner before it entered general parlance as a term for mobile app stores.

I became common because of the millions of dollars Apple spent marketing the name of their store. Just like people tend to call mp3 players ipods another term that became common because Apple marketed the name to everyone and made it desirable.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 22, 2011, 08:38 PM
"I Want it All" was taken by Queen in 1988...too bad, Apple.

Queen was targeting the uncompromising man who takes and proclaims it is their property and not yours mentality of the world. Either understand the context of music or do us all a favor and stop associating the artist with your interpretation.

supercooled
Jun 22, 2011, 08:48 PM
Consider the salient point of where it is we're having this discussion; an Apple centric forum. If you ventured outside of the Apple mindset, I don't think Appstore has much weight other than it where you buy apps.

kdarling
Jun 22, 2011, 08:49 PM
Not again :)

The use of "app" is not being contested by Apple. The use of "application" dates back to at least the early 1960s, and I guarantee you that someone back then abbreviated it to "app" while talking to fellow developers.

As for its use later on, mobile device articles were widely using it by 2000. See below.

So forget arguments about "app". Apple wants "App Store". Personally I think Apple had a chance until their own top brass publicly used it in a generic way by talking about competing "app stores".

290763

290764

sswanky
Jun 22, 2011, 08:49 PM
So has McDonald's
MacJoy
McCoffee
McChina Wok Away
McMunchies
McAllan (one man hotdog stand)

Everyone sues everyone who uses their name, its nothing special.

What about Macintosh!? :D

iScott428
Jun 22, 2011, 08:57 PM
Anyway Apple really brought the term App into the everyday lexicon. The term existed previously but only after Apple's iphone and app store did it become mainstream.

Exactly, although Apple's example of windows is not a great one, it does apply! Before windows xp, everything looked like a window pane, gray boring nasty windows. Ms is selling virtual windows and because they coined the term they got it. It should apply exactly to apples case because as stated above no one but developers were using the term app before 2007.

Haters gonna hate. Which a lot of you seem to be doing. No one copied windows name because Apple was more creative than that and came up with their own Mac. The same should again apply. Let Amazon use Application store but the shortened version of app store is slang, there for not generic.

Apple never copies anyone, everyone copies Apple.

igazza
Jun 22, 2011, 09:10 PM
Apple never copies anyone, everyone copies Apple.

what about the notifications apple stole from android in IOS5 :p

wikus
Jun 22, 2011, 09:18 PM
I wonder what makes Apple decide when to use the i prefix and when not to. They seem to overuse it and risk diluting the brand but then do not use it when it might be good to. Why didn't they go with iApp Store?

Anyway Apple really brought the term App into the everyday lexicon. The term existed previously but only after Apple's iphone and app store did it become mainstream.

If I were steve jobs, my initial complain would be that the first two letters would be vowels. iApp doesn't sound 100% clear.

BJMRamage
Jun 22, 2011, 09:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

When I heard about the Amazon App Store I was surprised they were selling iOS apps only to find out they didn't. Strange.

Apple should enjoy using the AppStore term as they made it into pop-culture terminology.

heisetax
Jun 22, 2011, 09:30 PM
This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

When one sees the term Windows they think of the Micosoft OS Windows xx. But we are still allowed to use the term windows even as Mac Users & not be sued. The term app has been used for some time to mean applications. So far I'd go along with the judge on this one.

SteveLV702
Jun 22, 2011, 09:43 PM
Trademarking the term "App Store" is like trademarking the word "Windows" oh wait thats already been done... Microcrap got away with trademarking the generic Windows so Apple should get App Store its only fair :)


when I hear the term Windows I think of the glass box in my living room, bedrooms, etc that I open and close....

Leaping Tortois
Jun 22, 2011, 09:50 PM
I think apple's biggest issue here (given that the judge said they saw no evidence of confusion) is how they've locked down their app store, it's only available through iTunes/iPhone/iPad/etc, and people know this. I seriously doubt that when people think of app store in regards to amazon, they think iOS.

This is in regards to the confusion comment, of course, but the idea of trademarking and generic terms is another matter. I personally think it's a bit of a generic term (even if apple made it popular). It's like saying car. There are different brands, (ie, Ford, Toyota, etc) but car's are the same, just like there's Apple appstore, Amazon appstore and so on.

lilo777
Jun 22, 2011, 10:00 PM
... another lost lawsuit for Apple. They are not only too litigious they are also plain stupid.

cmaier
Jun 22, 2011, 10:03 PM
... another lost lawsuit for Apple. They are not only too litigious they are also plain stupid.

Only a fool would think the point of every lawsuit is to win.

pdjudd
Jun 22, 2011, 10:13 PM
... another lost lawsuit for Apple. They are not only too litigious they are also plain stupid.

The lawsuit in question has not been won or lost by anybody - it is very much ongoing and probably will be ongoing for quite some time.

Spiritgreywolf
Jun 22, 2011, 10:39 PM
Bottom line is if you own and Android phone and you whine about the "App Store" from Apple iTunes won't load apps on your Android phone, well, then you're a frikkin idiot and should go back to using a Motorola Razr.

:D

cmaier
Jun 22, 2011, 10:41 PM
Bottom line is if you own and Android phone and you whine about the "App Store" from Apple iTunes won't load apps on your Android phone, well, then you're a frikkin idiot and should go back to using a Motorola Razr.

:D

Ah. The caveat emptor approach to consumer protection.

Hueyfreeman
Jun 22, 2011, 10:44 PM
I hope Barnes and Noble changes their name to Book Store or even better The Book Store.

lilo777
Jun 22, 2011, 11:01 PM
Only a fool would think the point of every lawsuit is to win.

Perhaps. Are you suggesting that their point is to lose every lawsuit? ;)

RalfTheDog
Jun 22, 2011, 11:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

When I heard about the Amazon App Store I was surprised they were selling iOS apps only to find out they didn't. Strange.

Apple should enjoy using the AppStore term as they made it into pop-culture terminology.

Wait, I am confused. As a consumer, when I heard about the Amazon App Store, I just assumed that Amazon was now part of Apple. When I purchase Amazon Apps, I am not getting them from Apple?

The only reason I thought about purchasing from them was Apples good name.

KingCrimson
Jun 22, 2011, 11:22 PM
I will be very surprised if Apple gives up this easily. Amazon and Apple will be at this for a while.

Apple has much deeper pockets and could buy Amazon if they wanted to.

cmaier
Jun 22, 2011, 11:25 PM
Perhaps. Are you suggesting that their point is to lose every lawsuit? ;)

Contrary to most, I take the nokia suit as a win. It's absolutely clear they gave nokia less than Nokia was asking for prior to the suit.

AidenShaw
Jun 22, 2011, 11:35 PM
Apple has much deeper pockets and could buy Amazon if they wanted to.

Fortunately, the US has agencies to control monopolies and anti-competitive behaviour.


Contrary to most, I take the nokia suit as a win. It's absolutely clear they gave nokia less than Nokia was asking for prior to the suit.

So, how many M$ was Nokia asking for, and how many M$ did they get?

*LTD*
Jun 23, 2011, 12:18 AM
... another lost lawsuit for Apple. They are not only too litigious they are also plain stupid.

About $70 billion worth of plain stupid.

Tagbert
Jun 23, 2011, 12:27 AM
Please provide an example where "App store" was used to describe a software store before Apple.

How about 2006?
http://news.cnet.com/Salesforce.com-AppStore-to-shop-for-revenue/2100-1007_3-6142811.html

MacinDoc
Jun 23, 2011, 12:59 AM
How about 2006?
http://news.cnet.com/Salesforce.com-AppStore-to-shop-for-revenue/2100-1007_3-6142811.html
Nice try, but that "AppStore" sold marketing and billing services to small software vendors. It did not sell Apps.

I can see Apple's point, in a way, in this case. I can just hear the BBuy salesperson now - "Here's a Samsung that looks just like the iPhone, has all the same built-in Apps, works just the same, and even has the AppStore, just like the iPhone. And if you buy one, you get another one for free!" Many potential iPhone buyers could be taken by such a pitch, not realizing that they are not getting the same App Store, because the phone and software look the same and the AppStore sounds the same as Apple's.

motulist
Jun 23, 2011, 01:19 AM
I have to agree with the judge's sentiment "app store" is too generic to trademark. It'd be like someone trying to trademark the name "fruit store" or "toy store." As for MS being able to trademark the name "Windows" I happen to disagree with that decision as well.

rotarydialz
Jun 23, 2011, 01:24 AM
Amazon fights like mad to protect their "one click purchase" yet now they want their own app store. Cheeky.

Smigit
Jun 23, 2011, 01:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I disagree. You have to think back to when Apple was the only App Store. It did mean Apple and another organisation using the term and trying to make it generic should not sway the judgement here.

I'm pretty sure however that Steve Jobs himself on stage has used the term to refer to other competitors stores in the past (source: http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/12/microsoft-opposes-apples-app-store-trademark-claim-says-term/). If so, that makes it hard for Apple to argue its not a generic term given they themselves have used it as such to describe the competitions products.

tgc
Jun 23, 2011, 01:59 AM
I don't know ... seems some people are pretty excitable about these kind of topics.

Is it Trademarkable? ( Is that even a word?). I don't know. I've never studied trademark/patent law.

Bottom line is that I ( and apparently everyone at work) never used the term App Store until App(le) started popularizing it. We never talked about going to Microsoft's App store to look for something, we went to their website and looked under 'software'. Same with amazon.com.

Is Amazon capitalizing from trying to use a name that Apple popularized and then used in their commercials, etc. (There's an app for that). Yes. Some people are pretty adamant they should be able to.

Legal, or illegal, it's just shows a company that's admitting they're not that original.

rmwebs
Jun 23, 2011, 02:41 AM
Good...Good.
http://www.theouthousers.com/forum/images/memegallery/albums/goodgood.gif

the8thark
Jun 23, 2011, 02:41 AM
Actually, a "Macintosh" is a kind of apple.
Actually, a "macintosh" is a kind of apple.

I fixed your typo. As you know Mac, mac and MAC are all different things. I'm not trademark expert but Mac vs mac vs MAC ie. that little difference could mean everything.

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 02:57 AM
Contrary to most, I take the nokia suit as a win. It's absolutely clear they gave nokia less than Nokia was asking for prior to the suit.

And probably more than they initially wanted to pay to Nokia

The Great Boony
Jun 23, 2011, 03:25 AM
Hi All,

Just for you member is the USA

In Europe and the rest of the world, Amazon don't have an Appstore as Apple have rights to the name 'Appstore' so Amazon can't use it...

There are plenty of forums about compaining that Amazon dont have an 'Appstore' anywhere other that the US.

Andriod users are very upset that they can't download exclusive things like Angry Birds Rio at the time of launch, of Amazons 'free app a day'

Amazon are refusing to release 'Appstores' around the world at they can't use the 'Appstore' name, they are hoping that they win the right to use 'Appstore' in the US, and use that as a springboard to contest the rights that Apple hold in Europe and RotW.

IMO Amazon have ****ed up here... They should have just named their store something else, and released it worldwide, they are going to lose a fortune from Europe whilst this is going on, and they might be late to the races and get no European market share when they do release something.

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 03:29 AM
Hi All,

Just for you member is the USA

In Europe and the rest of the world, Amazon don't have an Appstore as Apple have rights to the name 'Appstore' so Amazon can't use it...

There are plenty of forums about compaining that Amazon dont have an 'Appstore' anywhere other that the US.

Andriod users are very upset that they can't download exclusive things like Angry Birds Rio at the time of launch, of Amazons 'free app a day'

Amazon are refusing to release 'Appstores' around the world at they can't use the 'Appstore' name, they are hoping that they win the right to use 'Appstore' in the US, and use that as a springboard to contest the rights that Apple hold in Europe and RotW.

IMO Amazon have ****ed up here... They should have just named their store something else, and released it worldwide, they are going to lose a fortune from Europe whilst this is going on, and they might be late to the races and get no European market share when they do release something.

Yes, and they can't release in Europe MP3 store and Video on demand store because they don't have the trademark.

Smigit
Jun 23, 2011, 04:06 AM
Hi All,

Just for you member is the USA

In Europe and the rest of the world, Amazon don't have an Appstore as Apple have rights to the name 'Appstore' so Amazon can't use it...Thats not it at all...if you go by who has the rights to the trademark Apple owns it in the US currently too, thus the reason for this article and the ongoing legal battle

The reason Amazon doesn't have it world wide is likely because they just haven't made arrangements in those countries yet; and I doubt Apple has any impact on it what so ever. Many many US based companies take time to release services outside of their home country. Microsoft not releasing the Zune store globally years ago wasn't because Apple had iTunes elsewhere but rather other arrangements needing to be made.

You also can't order a lot of products from Amazon in Australia yet because they simply do business different across the border.

jowie
Jun 23, 2011, 04:09 AM
Actually, a "Macintosh" is a kind of apple.
Actually a "McIntosh" is a kind of apple, whereas a "Macintosh" is a kind of Apple.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 04:23 AM
Nice try, but that "AppStore" sold marketing and billing services to small software vendors. It did not sell Apps.

How about the original applicant for the trademark of AppStore then ?

Word Mark APPSTORE
Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: providing computer software application hosting services by means of a global computer information network, where such services allow multiple users to rent software applications developed by applicant or third parties
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75542841
Filing Date August 26, 1998
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition February 29, 2000
Owner (APPLICANT) SAGE NETWORKS, INC. CORPORATION BY ASSIGNMENT DELAWARE 215 FIRST STREET CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS 02142
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record John P. Courtney
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date November 24, 2000

Notice the date. AppStore or App Store is not something Apple invented. It's a descriptive phrase that is used to describe the service provided by a place that sells applications, like Grocery Store, Hardware Store, Container Store (and their trademarked logo, not name).

Anyway, Steve Jobs basically lost this lawsuit on his own in less than 2 minutes during a Earning's call earlier this year :

In that call, Jobs said, "In addition to Google's own app marketplace, Amazon, Verizon and Vodafone have all announced that they are creating their own app stores for Android. So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid."

http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-steve-jobs-referred-to-app-stores-2011-4#ixzz1Q5bVy2ny

So much for that.

Actually a "McIntosh" is a kind of apple, whereas a "Macintosh" is a kind of Apple.

And Apple is a fruit. Trademarks can use generic words without any problems, it's the field they are applied to that matters. In this case, App Store's problem is that it is descriptive. It is an "App Store", a place that sells applications.

However, Apple computers is not a company that makes fruit based biological computers. Windows is not a glass pane that you put on a building or a graphical square on screen that contains other controls to create a user interface. If you want to have a descriptive mark, you usually trademark it as a logo, which while it has to be unique, doesn't stop others from using the descriptive nature of the phrase.

bsolar
Jun 23, 2011, 04:25 AM
If you have used the trademark for so long that people will think of your business when they hear it, then other people should not be allowed to use the same terms for the same products.
If you don't protect your trademark and allow it to become genericized, then you'll lose the right. But using a generic term in your mark doesn't automatically mean it's invalid.
This is correct, but using a generic term makes much easier for people to associate your trademark to the generic business you are trying to protect instead of your specific business. If people when using the trademark stop thinking about your business and start thinking in general your trademark is gone.

Let's say Apple was granted the trademark "App Store" a long time ago. If nowadays when you talk about "App Store" you still think only about Apple's the trademark stands. If you think in general about a kind of software applications store, the trademark does not stand anymore.

smali
Jun 23, 2011, 04:34 AM
Trademarking the term "App Store" is like trademarking the word "Windows" oh wait thats already been done... Microcrap got away with trademarking the generic Windows so Apple should get App Store its only fair :)


when I hear the term Windows I think of the glass box in my living room, bedrooms, etc that I open and close....

****ing learn to read or dont comment!

Jerome Morrow
Jun 23, 2011, 04:45 AM
Apple has the right to at least try.

Smigit
Jun 23, 2011, 05:50 AM
Anyway, Steve Jobs basically lost this lawsuit on his own in less than 2 minutes during a Earning's call earlier this year Yep, they'll have a hard time arguing its not a generic term when the company itself uses it as such

And Apple is a fruit. Trademarks can use generic words without any problems, it's the field they are applied to that matters. In this case, App Store's problem is that it is descriptive. It is an "App Store", a place that sells applications.Well said

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 06:02 AM
Nice try, but that "AppStore" sold marketing and billing services to small software vendors. It did not sell Apps.

I can see Apple's point, in a way, in this case. I can just hear the BBuy salesperson now - "Here's a Samsung that looks just like the iPhone, has all the same built-in Apps, works just the same, and even has the AppStore, just like the iPhone. And if you buy one, you get another one for free!" Many potential iPhone buyers could be taken by such a pitch, not realizing that they are not getting the same App Store, because the phone and software look the same and the AppStore sounds the same as Apple's.

That is exactly what has been happening. My parents in US are on Verizon and are now running an iPhone but previously they were convinced to buy other phones which were very similar to the iPhone and had all its features.
And that too at cheaper prices overall.

Good...Good.
Image (http://www.theouthousers.com/forum/images/memegallery/albums/goodgood.gif)

Bwahahaha!

goosnarrggh
Jun 23, 2011, 06:41 AM
Actually, a "Macintosh" is a kind of apple.

No, Macintosh has never been a variety of fruit-bearing tree, nor the name of a fruit borne by such a tree.

You're thinking of "McIntosh". That is a variety of apple.

Sorry, others beat me to the punch.

logandzwon
Jun 23, 2011, 07:00 AM
How about the original applicant for the trademark of AppStore then ?

Your example wasn't a store. It rented software over the internet. The App Store isn't a store either. It's closer to a brokerage then a store. It doesn't buy anything, it doesn't sell anything, it doesn't have a physical presence, it doesn't carry merchandise. It's does hosting, advertising, and payment processing. The App Store can't even set it's own pricing on anything, because again, it is not the actual entity selling anything.


Anyway, Steve Jobs basically lost this lawsuit on his own in less than 2 minutes during a Earning's call earlier this year

This argument really doesn't hold any water. There was (is?) no generic name for what these places are. He was talking to a group used to the Apple ecosystem whom would all be expected to know what App Store is, and would know the other vendors had similar for their offerings, but not actually what they were called. Like, someone on this board was to say, "The competition's iDisk is ..." It is clear he is talking about Dropbox, Unbuntu One, and the like.



Edit; That said, I agree with not baring Amazon's use while the case is decided. However, I do ultimately think the case should resolve in Apple's favor, and at that point Amazon should have to change the name.

I also think Apple should rename it anyway, and push for generalized use of App Store. It doesn't fit in with their naming convention. App Store vs Mac App Store. Then Apple can market how they invented the whole idea of "App Stores."

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 07:11 AM
Your example wasn't a store. It rented software over the internet. The App Store isn't a store either. It's closer to a brokerage then a store. It doesn't buy anything, it doesn't sell anything, it doesn't have a physical presence, it doesn't carry merchandise. It's does hosting, advertising, and payment processing. The App Store can't even set it's own pricing on anything, because again, it is not the actual entity selling anything.

Sure it's a store. A store is a place where money is exchanged for goods and services. It doesn't have to be a brick and mortor establishement. My example is fine.

It's also a previous use of the words App Store together, which many posters here claim is not something to have been done before Apple did it. :D Now they can bow their heads down in shame.


This argument really doesn't hold any water. There was (is?) no generic name for what these places are. He was talking to a group used to the Apple ecosystem whom would all be expected to know what App Store is, and would know the other vendors had similar for their offerings, but not actually what they were called.

You spin me right round... You know how that song goes ? :D

Sure there is a generic name for what these places are : Application Stores. A place to buy applications. App Stores for short. Hence his use of "other's app stores".

The argument holds a lot of water. Amazon's lawyers even filed it in their briefs to the court on this very issue. But then again, maybe you're a better lawyer than Amazon's lawyers... or are you even a lawyer to begin with ?

Like, someone on this board was to say, "The competition's iDisk is ..." It is clear he is talking about Dropbox, Unbuntu One, and the like.

But then he would say "The competition's online storage solutions". That's what iDisk is. Just like the App Store is ... well... An app store. Now if Apple were trying to trademark "Online Storage Solution" to apply it to iDisk, you'd spin this how exactly ? ;)

Again, App Store is a descriptive mark. Hence why it's still not granted to Apple and is being contested.

Themaeds
Jun 23, 2011, 07:15 AM
Well, this is purely anecdotal but supports the judge's comments about consumers' attitudes toward the term:

If I were asking my friend with an Android phone if he had a certain "app" available in his "app store" it would feel perfectly natural. More natural than saying, "Hey, check out the Android Marketplace (TM) to see if they have this app!"

I (and he) would probably both just call it the app store -- so there ya go, generic term in everyday usage. If Apple wanted to really identify itself with the term and trademark it, they would've had to act sooner before it entered general parlance as a term for mobile app stores.


Actually I am an Android user and whenever Im notifying someone of an App, or being notified of one we say that It's available in the Market.

logandzwon
Jun 23, 2011, 07:34 AM
Sure it's a store. A store is a place where money is exchanged for goods and services. It doesn't have to be a brick and mortor establishement. My example is fine.


Do you buy/rent your house/apartment/condo at a housing store?
Is eBay a store?

We might just have different ideas of what a store is, in which case your logic, and the rest of your post makes sense to me. However, I'm accustom to a store being something that buys and sell merchandise. To be a store you have to take the risk of purchasing goods and being able to sell them at a profit.

My local grocery store stocks up on eggs they can try to sell them for any amount. Less then paid for them, or more then they are worth, it's up to the grocer. Where as, if I try to sell my house through a realtor, she has no say in how much I ask or what I will accept. If the grocer sells his eggs at twice market value, or at a loss, or they go bad, the farmer still got paid the same amount. If my house sells for more then market value, or sells for much less then I paid for it, the realtor gets paid a commission based on the sale price. If my house burns the ground in the mean time, she does not take a loss. If my house doesn't sell, she gets nothing. There is no risk of loss for the realtor, where as the store takes all the risk.

steadysignal
Jun 23, 2011, 07:40 AM
This is absolutely worth fighting for. App Store should rightly belong to Apple in the context they use it. It's as valuable to them as the generic term Windows is to Microsoft. So I'm outraged by this news.

it seems your "outrage" is not being received well on this forum at least.

is there some reason you carry this level of concern with you? are you a shareholder?

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 07:42 AM
Do you buy/rent your house/apartment/condo at a housing store?


So wait... because you buy/rent things at other places than a store, a store is not a place where money is exchanged for goods and services ?

I don't quite follow your logic here. You're claiming that because a Rectangle isn't a square, then obviously a square isn't a rectangle... :confused:

Is eBay a store?

Depends, eBay themselves don't really sell anything. They offer brokerage services for auctions. They are a auction house. Are they different eBay stores stores though ? Of course they are. They aren't operated by eBay though.

We might just have different ideas of what a store is, in which case your logic, and the rest of your post makes sense to me. However, I'm accustom to a store being something that buys and sell merchandise. To be a store you have to take the risk of purchasing goods and being able to sell them at a profit.

You limit your vision of what a store is. A store can have very different models of stocking up on goods. And essentially, if you go right down to it, the App Store does "buy" goods and "stock" them. They just pay the "distributor" after a sale has occurred instead of before.

You limit your definition of a store to a retail store. What you're describing is retailing.

kenypowa
Jun 23, 2011, 07:48 AM
Apple has the right to at least try.

And Apple fanboys has the right defend the company regardless how silly or trivial the actual lawsuit is. You can easily tell who these fanboys are in this thread.

iScott428
Jun 23, 2011, 07:52 AM
what about the notifications apple stole from android in IOS5 :p

Thanks you for citing something that has not made it's full public release...

Jerome Morrow
Jun 23, 2011, 08:23 AM
And Apple fanboys has the right defend the company regardless how silly or trivial the actual lawsuit is.

That is correct.

deggs37
Jun 23, 2011, 08:27 AM
granted, it is a pretty generic term.. But you can't really tell me that when you hear app store you don't think of apple first? Android has for the most part been associated with the term marketplace. Apple pretty much made the term it is today, despite the generic aspect.

face palm

logandzwon
Jun 23, 2011, 09:11 AM
So wait... because you buy/rent things at other places than a store, a store is not a place where money is exchanged for goods and services ?

I don't quite follow your logic here. You're claiming that because a Rectangle isn't a square, then obviously a square isn't a rectangle... :confused:



Depends, eBay themselves don't really sell anything. They offer brokerage services for auctions. They are a auction house. Are they different eBay stores stores though ? Of course they are. They aren't operated by eBay though.



You limit your vision of what a store is. A store can have very different models of stocking up on goods. And essentially, if you go right down to it, the App Store does "buy" goods and "stock" them. They just pay the "distributor" after a sale has occurred instead of before.

You limit your definition of a store to a retail store. What you're describing is retailing.


So, then, we define "store" differently. The real question would be, what does the court define as a store? If the court sees "store" as your describing, then I agree with everything you wrote.

However, I do not think the definition of "store" is as cut and dry as you say.
Websters defines store as : "a business establishment where usually diversified goods are kept for retail sale" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/store?show=1&t=1308836888 )
Webster's defines broker as ; "one who acts as an intermediary as an agent who negotiates contracts of purchase and sale " ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broker )

Also, what is being sold in the App Store is Software licenses. Are those "goods?" Different states, and even different courts with-in the same state have differing opinions as to if software licenses are "goods" or not. The UK has decided software licenses are NOT goods, although that doesn't directly matter for a US case.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States )
( http://www.slaw.ca/2011/05/12/software-licence-not-subject-to-sale-of-goods-act-says-uk-court/ )

Also, back in the day Barnes and Noble sued Amazon for saying they were "The world's largest bookstore." They said that Amazon wasn't a bookstore, it was a book broker. The case ultimately settled out of court.

This suggests that B&N defines "store" vs "broker" as different things similar to my view, while Amazon sees them like you do. It also suggest that either B&N or Amazon, (maybe both) felt their definition was not strong enough to actually define in open court.

In my opinion the App Store acts as a brokerage and not as a store. I respect that in your opinion it does act as a store. I'd like to hear more about what opinion the court in question would be likely to have.

ivladster
Jun 23, 2011, 09:25 AM
Actually some general public is really stupid and will buy Apps on Amazon and try to install them on iPhones.

slffl
Jun 23, 2011, 09:27 AM
Wow that is a joke. If app store is generic then so is droid.

cmaier
Jun 23, 2011, 09:37 AM
Wow that is a joke. If app store is generic then so is droid.

Right. Because a store that sells apps is an "app store," and a pocketable device for making phone calls, running apps, and surfing the web is a "droid."

In fact, I always keep my droid in my pocket. I know most people call such devices "smartphones" or "phones," but they're just ignorant.

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 09:43 AM
Actually some general public is really stupid and will buy Apps on Amazon and try to install them on iPhones.

You can't buy them without an Android device

AZREOSpecialist
Jun 23, 2011, 10:00 AM
I dearly hope we don't hear hear further cries of "but Word and Windows are really generic; how is it that these words were trademarked by Microsoft?"

Because "Word" and "Windows" have never been used to describe a word processor or an operating system. Trademarking "Appstore" is like trademarking "Grocery Store". It's absurd.

No, you are wrong. Trademarking "Application Store" would be like trademarking "Grocery Store". To make your analogy correct, you must compare App Store to Groc Store. I think you can trademark Groc Store - it's an invented word. App is an invented word. It is NOT just the shortening of "application" like "Dr." is a shortening for doctor or drive. While the word "app" may be commonly used in technology circles, Apple is the first and only company to trademark its use as "App Store". Apple should be able to protect that special combination.

The other side of this is that Apple invented the app store idea. Why is it that Google and Amazon, and any number of other companies, should be able to legally use something that Apple invented? How many app stores were there before Apple unveiled theirs? None. Now there are all these copycats who are trying to bounce off Apple's success. I don't think so.

The other thing you guys don't realize... Apple already owns the trademark. They were granted a trademark on this already, and Amazon/others are in violation of that trademark.

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 10:03 AM
How many app stores were there before Apple unveiled theirs? None. Now there are all these copycats who are trying to bounce off Apple's success. I don't think so.


Handango, PocketGear, etc weren't app stores? What they were selling?

AZREOSpecialist
Jun 23, 2011, 10:08 AM
This is correct, but using a generic term makes much easier for people to associate your trademark to the generic business you are trying to protect instead of your specific business. If people when using the trademark stop thinking about your business and start thinking in general your trademark is gone.

Let's say Apple was granted the trademark "App Store" a long time ago. If nowadays when you talk about "App Store" you still think only about Apple's the trademark stands. If you think in general about a kind of software applications store, the trademark does not stand anymore.

So if what you are saying is true, when a company invents a new trademarked name and others immediately copy it, the trademark holder will lose simply because they have not had sufficient time to build brand equity. That's not how trademark suits are decided.

andrew086
Jun 23, 2011, 10:08 AM
Thanks you for citing something that has not made it's full public release...

That is some hardcore fanboyism right there.

AZREOSpecialist
Jun 23, 2011, 10:09 AM
Handango, PocketGear, etc weren't app stores? What they were selling?

How many of them called their stores "App Stores"? Selling applications in a store is different than calling your store The App Store. Get it?

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 10:16 AM
How many app stores were there before Apple unveiled theirs? None.

How many of them called their stores "App Stores"? Selling applications in a store is different than calling your store The App Store. Get it?

You said they weren't app stores. Tehy were.

And there was at least one called App Store long ago, in 1.998, and another in 2.008

Get it?

terrymr
Jun 23, 2011, 10:39 AM
How is "Windows" generic? When has the word "windows" ever been used to describe an operating system?

Windows wasn't an operating system back when it was registered either. It was a windowing system running on top of DOS.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 23, 2011, 10:47 AM
How many of them called their stores "App Stores"? Selling applications in a store is different than calling your store The App Store. Get it?

Have you though maybe they figured it was generic and so they wanted a name that would be able to be identified by them.

Apple should of gone with iApp Store. No one would of question that name. Or Apple App Store or iTunes App Store. I am willing to bet Apple will end up one or the other or even both by the time it is all said and done they they screwed up by not going with iApp Store from day one.

msheredy
Jun 23, 2011, 11:09 AM
If Apple registered the name they have every right to protect it.

cmaier
Jun 23, 2011, 11:32 AM
The other side of this is that Apple invented the app store idea.

Weird. I seem to have been able to buy apps for my Treo and samsung Palm-based phones for many many years before iphone was invented.


The other thing you guys don't realize... Apple already owns the trademark. They were granted a trademark on this already, and Amazon/others are in violation of that trademark.

Yes, we realize that. Doesn't mean it's a valid trademark. The court will decide.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 11:54 AM
Yes, we realize that. Doesn't mean it's a valid trademark. The court will decide.

Actually, the mark has no registration number so it hasn't been granted yet. It is in its opposition phase. Come on, a lawyer should know the difference. ;)

cmaier
Jun 23, 2011, 12:06 PM
Actually, the mark has no registration number so it hasn't been granted yet. It is in its opposition phase. Come on, a lawyer should know the difference. ;)

If we're going to get hypertechnical, they already have the trademark. The USPTO only results in federally registered trademarks. A trademark need not be registered with the USPTO, and trademarks are traditionally a state law issue. In short, a trademark is obtained simply by using it in commerce on a good or service. (Sort of like how you get a copyright just by fixing a creative work in a tangible medium). Of course USPTO registration does bring many advantages....

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 12:27 PM
If we're going to get hypertechnical, they already have the trademark. The USPTO only results in federally registered trademarks. A trademark need not be registered with the USPTO, and trademarks are traditionally a state law issue. In short, a trademark is obtained simply by using it in commerce on a good or service. (Sort of like how you get a copyright just by fixing a creative work in a tangible medium). Of course USPTO registration does bring many advantages....

Yeah, I know, I even brought up this very same argument in the iCloud Communications thread when others pointed out that they hadn't registered their mark, thus should lose it. ;)

It's also quite understandable why Apple is defending the mark right now, as opposed to waiting to get a registration, because exactly as you state, the registration is optional.

What I don't get is why they are so adamant on "App Store". It used to be called "iTunes App Store", why do they want something so descriptive ? Why is their CEO using the mark generically in earning calls ?

h0mi
Jun 23, 2011, 12:33 PM
I always thought "app store" was the name of the application Apple used on iphones/etc. to connect to the store within itunes that sold apps. I never saw the connection of "App store" to apple in the way that apple is trying to trademark- that is the name of this store to buy apps is "App store" not itunes.

I could possibly see decrying naming your application "app store" as that's less generic than "photos" or "camera".

deellow
Jun 23, 2011, 12:44 PM
Someone may have said this in earlier posts, but I think they would be better suited to call the thing the iOS App Store seeing how they call their SL store the Mac App Store. Apple wants continuity among their products, well this helps achieve that goal in my book. But what the hell do i know?

cmaier
Jun 23, 2011, 12:48 PM
Yeah, I know, I even brought up this very same argument in the iCloud Communications thread when others pointed out that they hadn't registered their mark, thus should lose it. ;)

It's also quite understandable why Apple is defending the mark right now, as opposed to waiting to get a registration, because exactly as you state, the registration is optional.

What I don't get is why they are so adamant on "App Store". It used to be called "iTunes App Store", why do they want something so descriptive ? Why is their CEO using the mark generically in earning calls ?

I think they really don't care. If they can enforce the trademark they will, otherwise they'll move on. I think the Apple press pays a lot more attention to this than anyone at Apple.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 12:52 PM
I think they really don't care. If they can enforce the trademark they will, otherwise they'll move on. I think the Apple press pays a lot more attention to this than anyone at Apple.

Maybe you're right. Especially seeing how the execs don't really seem to care about it and casually use "app store" the way they do.

Maybe Apple Legal just has time on their hands and they think this is good for a few laughs at least instead of twiddling their thumbs.

ranReloaded
Jun 23, 2011, 12:54 PM
what about the notifications apple stole from android in IOS5 :p

Well, that's the least they could do in return :D

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 23, 2011, 03:39 PM
I'd be more pleased if she ruled that Steve Jobs had to wear Scarlet lettering on his turtlenecks that said, "I'm a total ass" for the next 5 years. I'd probably settle for a big fancy scarlet A with two little 's' after it :D

I think the farming coalitions should get together and sue Apple for infringing the fruit market by calling themselves Apple. I keep trying to order Apple cider off the Apple web site and can't seem to find it. ;)

andreiru
Jun 23, 2011, 04:04 PM
Granted, it is a pretty generic term.. but you can't really tell me that when you hear App Store you don't think of Apple first? Android has for the most part been associated with the term marketplace. Apple pretty much made the term it is today, despite the generic aspect.

Agreed, that term is associated with Apple in my book.

andreiru
Jun 23, 2011, 04:13 PM
Agreed, that term is associated with Apple in my book.

Although, perhaps, it doesn't necessarily mean they can copyright it... They're pioneers with many devices and features though by the looks of things.

Smigit
Jun 23, 2011, 06:08 PM
Agreed, that term is associated with Apple in my book.

Possibly, but thats only because the market is a new one. Apples App Store is only a few years old and Google entered the market later, Amazon later still and Microsofts own investment in this sort of service has only ramped up in recent times.

Of course one of the first names to sprint to mind is Apple, they're the one thats marketed it most and Amazon who is fighting this case only arrived months ago. That doesn't make it any less of a generic term. People should keep in mind the smart phone market is still relatively immature, while it's been around a while it's in recent years its experienced this momentum. If it seems like other companies only recently just started copying ideas from one another, its probably because the original ideas weren't implemented that long ago either.


Wow that is a joke. If app store is generic then so is droid.
Jeeze this is as bad as the "Windows" cases. In terms of mobile phones no, droid is not a generic term...you wouldn't use it to describe any other device on the market. It's a name and a name only just as Windows is the name of an Operating system and has no place in describing any other OS (which is different to the term window used within the context within the operating system to describe a pane with icons on it, something other vendors can do).

An App Store, as being argued here, is generic because you would use the term to describe any store that sells applications as an App Store. As before, even Apple themselves have used the term to describe competing stores.

h0mi
Jun 24, 2011, 07:23 PM
Isn't the term "droid" licensed from lucasarts?

Dbrown
Jun 24, 2011, 07:50 PM
No, you are wrong. Trademarking "Application Store" would be like trademarking "Grocery Store". To make your analogy correct, you must compare App Store to Groc Store. I think you can trademark Groc Store - it's an invented word. App is an invented word. It is NOT just the shortening of "application" like "Dr." is a shortening for doctor or drive. While the word "app" may be commonly used in technology circles, Apple is the first and only company to trademark its use as "App Store". Apple should be able to protect that special combination.


Your analogy is wrong. The correct analogy would be: app store is to application store as gas station is to gasoline station.

Your example of "groc store" is nonsensical. No one says "groc" as a quick way to say "grocery."

Oletros
Jun 25, 2011, 01:15 AM
Isn't the term "droid" licensed from lucasarts?

Yes, Verizon licensed it.

Lennholm
Jun 26, 2011, 08:12 AM
I became common because of the millions of dollars Apple spent marketing the name of their store. Just like people tend to call mp3 players ipods another term that became common because Apple marketed the name to everyone and made it desirable.

I can't recall ever hearing any one refer to their music player as an iPod that wasn't actually an iPod. People used to do that with "Walkman" though.

If I were steve jobs, my initial complain would be that the first two letters would be vowels. iApp doesn't sound 100% clear.

Apple have been using the term "iApps" for a long time to collectively referr to iLife and iWork applications.

Trademarking the term "App Store" is like trademarking the word "Windows" oh wait thats already been done... Microcrap got away with trademarking the generic Windows so Apple should get App Store its only fair :)


when I hear the term Windows I think of the glass box in my living room, bedrooms, etc that I open and close....

This doesn't make sense, in your last sentence you acknowledge that "Windows" is not a descriptive term for an operating system.
You don't say "Windows" is windows, you say "Windows" is an operating system
You don't say "Word" is a word, you say "Word" is a word processing application
You don't say "Numbers" is numbers, you say "Numbers" is a spreadsheet application
You DO say "App Store" is an app store, which testifies to the problem with the name.
I have always thought of the term "app store" (since I first heard it sometime back in the 90's) as a service where you can buy software. This is how the general public think of it today.
Just because Apple fans on these boards associate it closely with Apple doesn't mean the general public does.

I think the term should be reserved as a descriptive term, just as "operating system" and "web browser" isn't possible to trademark

Haters gonna hate. Which a lot of you seem to be doing. No one copied windows name because Apple was more creative than that and came up with their own Mac. The same should again apply. Let Amazon use Application store but the shortened version of app store is slang, there for not generic.

Apple never copies anyone, everyone copies Apple.

Eh, so "Windows" was uncreative? Then how do you feel about "Pages", "Numbers" or just throwing an "i" in front of "Photo", "Movie", "Work", "Phone", "DVD" etc?

davelanger
Jun 26, 2011, 09:29 AM
How about the original applicant for the trademark of AppStore then ?



Notice the date. AppStore or App Store is not something Apple invented. It's a descriptive phrase that is used to describe the service provided by a place that sells applications, like Grocery Store, Hardware Store, Container Store (and their trademarked logo, not name).

Anyway, Steve Jobs basically lost this lawsuit on his own in less than 2 minutes during a Earning's call earlier this year :



http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-steve-jobs-referred-to-app-stores-2011-4#ixzz1Q5bVy2ny

So much for that.



And Apple is a fruit. Trademarks can use generic words without any problems, it's the field they are applied to that matters. In this case, App Store's problem is that it is descriptive. It is an "App Store", a place that sells applications.

However, Apple computers is not a company that makes fruit based biological computers. Windows is not a glass pane that you put on a building or a graphical square on screen that contains other controls to create a user interface. If you want to have a descriptive mark, you usually trademark it as a logo, which while it has to be unique, doesn't stop others from using the descriptive nature of the phrase.

I am guessing you missed the Abandonment Date November 24, 2000 part.

If it was not generic back then, when apple applied for it then it should still not be generic right? This makes apples case stronger.

KnightWRX
Jun 26, 2011, 09:41 AM
I am guessing you missed the Abandonment Date November 24, 2000 part.

Nope, I didn't. If you followed the context of that post you're quoting, the poster I was responding to said Apple was the first to use App and Store together. I was proving him wrong with Sage's trademark application as proof.

If it was not generic back then, when apple applied for it then it should still not be generic right? This makes apples case stronger.

The fact someone else applied it then abandonned it doesn't mean it's not descriptive nor does it mean anything in the case of Apple. You're looking too deep into it. All it means is either Sage never went through the full registration process or no one opposed it during the opposition phase nor was it ever challenged in court.

Notice though how it was abandonned 2 years after filing. Apple's current filing is on its 3rd year. That should tell you something right there, Sage never got the trademark officially registered.

Again, you're looking way too deep into this, it means nothing as far as the current discussion or case goes, beyond proving wrong all the posters who like to claim Apple was first with App Store.

Welcome to the thread a few weeks late and a dollar short though.

davelanger
Jun 26, 2011, 12:56 PM
Nope, I didn't. If you followed the context of that post you're quoting, the poster I was responding to said Apple was the first to use App and Store together. I was proving him wrong with Sage's trademark application as proof.



The fact someone else applied it then abandonned it doesn't mean it's not descriptive nor does it mean anything in the case of Apple. You're looking too deep into it. All it means is either Sage never went through the full registration process or no one opposed it during the opposition phase nor was it ever challenged in court.

Notice though how it was abandonned 2 years after filing. Apple's current filing is on its 3rd year. That should tell you something right there, Sage never got the trademark officially registered.

Again, you're looking way too deep into this, it means nothing as far as the current discussion or case goes, beyond proving wrong all the posters who like to claim Apple was first with App Store.

Welcome to the thread a few weeks late and a dollar short though.

People are not claiming apple coined the term app store, they are saying Apple make it popular and a house hold name. And just because one company did and abandoned it, does not mean anyone even heard of that company ever using the term.

Apple is the one who made app store a big name.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 26, 2011, 01:26 PM
People are not claiming apple coined the term app store, they are saying Apple make it popular and a house hold name. And just because one company did and abandoned it, does not mean anyone even heard of that company ever using the term.

Apple is the one who made app store a big name.

Making it popular does not change the fact if a name is generic. Also look how you use app store in your own sentences. you used the term generically which is more proof that it can not be trademark.

Apple "App Store" is a what? Oh an app store. Hence the reason it is generic term and therefor can not be trademarked Apple could and more than likely will trademark the font they use for it but that is about it.

KnightWRX
Jun 26, 2011, 01:45 PM
People are not claiming apple coined the term app store

Some did and I was proving them wrong.

they are saying Apple make it popular and a house hold name.

Irrelevant to trademarks and this discussion in general and the sub-thread you are quoting from.

And just because one company did and abandoned it, does not mean anyone even heard of that company ever using the term.

Still means that Apple weren't first, like some posters claimed.

Apple is the one who made app store a big name.

Irrelevant to trademarks and this discussion in general and the sub-thread you are quoting from.

Again, please read the thread before participating. Out of context quoting only means you are completely off-topic. My post had a context and you've responded to it in an entirely different context. Of course what I said doesn't fit in your context, it doesn't make you right nor does it make my post wrong.