PDA

View Full Version : Apple Continues Sending Cease and Desist Letters Regarding 'App Store' Usage




MacRumors
Jun 23, 2011, 09:21 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/23/apple-continues-sending-cease-and-desist-letters-regarding-app-store-usage/)


Even as a judge is expressing skepticism (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/22/judge-skeptical-of-apples-appstore-trademark-claims/) over whether Apple can win its case against Amazon regarding the "App Store" trademark, Apple continues to send out cease and desist letters to other entities using the term in their businesses.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/amahi_app_store.jpg


Earlier this week, open source startup Amahi reported (http://blog.amahi.org/2011/06/21/apple-hits-amahi-with-a-cease-and-desist-wait-what/) on its blog (via The Next Web (http://thenextweb.com/apple/2011/06/21/apple-serves-small-startup-amahi-with-a-cease-and-desist-over-app-store/)) that Apple had served the company with a cease and desist letter demanding that it stop using an "App Store" section heading on its website (http://www.amahi.org/). Apple has demanded that Amahi cease using the "App Store" term on its website and to "refrain from such uses in the future."Why Amahi? Why pick on such a small target when there are so many people using the app store term? Amahi is a Open Source startup, and is not even in the mobile space. We may never know ...

We're still trying to determine what is the best course of action, however, this looks like a rather heavy handed move. Amahi being literally nothing next to Apple (sigh) we do not have the resources to fight this battle.Amahi has launched a "name the store" contest to allow its users to help create a new, non-infringing name for the company's application marketplace. For the time being, Amahi has cleverly begun using a randomized list of names such as "App Depot", "Appalog", "App Market", "Addons", "Amahi Apps", "Appmahi", and many more on the tab that previously contained the "App Store" term.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/pcappstore.jpg


But Apple has been targeting even smaller entities as well, as we just heard from the owner of pcappstore.com (http://www.pcappstore.com/), who says that Apple yesterday sent him a cease and desist email, with the official paperwork still on its way to him. In this case, Apple has gone beyond a simple cease and desist order and additionally demanded that the owner turn over the pcappstore.com domain to Apple, citing the potential for customer confusion.

The site owner notes that he has owned the domain since November 2008, after Apple debuted its App Store earlier in the year.

Apple has yet to even officially be granted the registered "App Store" trademark, having applied for it in July 2008 as the marketplace debuted. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tentatively granted Apple the trademark in January 2010 and published it for opposition, and Microsoft has been leading an effort (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/12/microsoft-objects-to-apples-app-store-trademark-application/) to have the mark denied.

Trademark registration is not required, however, although registration does convey significant benefits and privileges within the law. Even as the trademark registration process remains ongoing, Apple feels compelled to protect the mark lest it become considered a generic term deemed ineligible for protection. Microsoft, Amazon, and others are of course arguing that "App Store" is inherently a generic term.

Article Link: Apple Continues Sending Cease and Desist Letters Regarding 'App Store' Usage (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/23/apple-continues-sending-cease-and-desist-letters-regarding-app-store-usage/)



KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 09:24 AM
Apple feels compelled to protect the mark lest it become considered a generic term deemed ineligible for protection

Maybe Apple should then prevent their CEO from diluting the mark :

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.

ri0ku
Jun 23, 2011, 09:25 AM
Stupid... and lame. I am pretty sure the term is far to generic to be trademarked.

Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...

*LTD*
Jun 23, 2011, 09:27 AM
Trademark registration is not required, however, although registration does convey significant benefits and privileges within the law. Even as the trademark registration process remains ongoing, Apple feels compelled to protect the mark lest it become considered a generic term deemed ineligible for protection.

Well there's the reason. Apple is doing all it can to protect the name while the case is ongoing.

callme
Jun 23, 2011, 09:28 AM
Stupid... and lame. I am pretty sure the term is far to generic to be trademarked.

Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...

How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

dagamer34
Jun 23, 2011, 09:28 AM
Stupid... and lame. I am pretty sure the term is far to generic to be trademarked.

Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...

The trademark application even failed the first time because it was thought to be too generic. I don't see this succeeding.

dagamer34
Jun 23, 2011, 09:29 AM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

Apple did not trademark the word "App" like Microsoft trademarked the word "Windows", and even still trademarks are not copyrights in that it only applies in a very specific instance. Even in the computer realm, the word "windows" is used to refer to a rectangular area of a screen which an application presents to you for an interface, and not an operating system name. It's all about specific instances...

And as you can see in post #2, even Apple's own CEO is using it in generic terms. That's pretty much the final nail in the coffin right there.

nwcs
Jun 23, 2011, 09:32 AM
Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...I had never seen the term used until Apple used it and I've been in the biz for decades. I don't know if it's trademarkable or not but Apple certainly put the term into the vernacular and that's undeniable.

JangoFett124
Jun 23, 2011, 09:32 AM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

If Windows was a brand of windows, I would agree.

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 09:32 AM
Maybe Apple should then prevent their CEO from diluting the mark :



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

So much for that.

Maybe you should understand that verbal interpretation is much different than full fledged marketing and advertising.
Even though the words can be used against him, it isn't a serious offense to call Android's App Marketplace - Androids app store. I am pretty sure most people do.

But marketing Android's App Marketplace using Android's App Store is entirely a different thing than the one you quoted.

My post doesn't imply that Android's usage would be wrong or the Apple against Amahi is right. Just pointing out that there's much difference b/w Steve Jobs quoting 'different app stores' and companies advertising their app stores as 'X app store'.

toddybody
Jun 23, 2011, 09:33 AM
What a group of bitching lawyers.

nwcs
Jun 23, 2011, 09:34 AM
And as you can see in post #2, even Apple's own CEO is using it in generic terms. That's pretty much the final nail in the coffin right there.
Not really. No more than if the president of Xerox said Canon xeroxed something making Xerox suddenly generic. Or if the president of Coke said Pepsi is making their own Coke products rendering Coke as generic from a trademark point of view.

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 23, 2011, 09:35 AM
Apple is doing exactly what they should.

I also think the companies approach to finding a new name is very clever and pretty awesome!

I'm not sure how I feel about Apple "demanding" someone turn over a domain name. That sounds like an exaggeration to me.

RoboCop001
Jun 23, 2011, 09:36 AM
Does anyone know anyone who has been confused about app stores?

The only thing I can think of is someone who's really new to computers or smartphones and is wondering why they can't buy the same app for their iPhone from the same place as their friend's Android phone, or vice versa. "They're both 'app stores', why can't I buy it?".

But the more this person uses their phone and gets more comfortable with it, the more they'll learn. And they'll no longer be confused.

I'd be surprised if Apple wins this one.

Especially since Steve Jobs even uses the term generically, as mentioned above.

nagromme
Jun 23, 2011, 09:36 AM
A generic term that wasn’t in common use before Apple (unlike, say, the term “windows”). In fact, the term “apps” wasn’t even used much pre-iPhone.

But losing that term wouldn’t hurt Apple or the App Store that much. They do have to defend it—look at all their ads about the “App Store” (not the “iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad App Store” or the “Apple App” store or “iOS 5 App Store Which You Can Also Shop From Mac and Windows"). But if they lose, I won’t much care.

Confusion is highly possible: someone sees an Apple App Store ad, or vaguely remembers the whole slew of them in general, and then goes to the store and buys an LG phone because it advertises an app store. Remember that the world (and the consumer touch-computing market Apple created) is not full of people as tech-savvy as we tech-rumor forum-goers! But I see future confusion/dilution being more of a problem: one that builds over time (through the efforts of competitor’s marketing). Not that much present brand dilution.

gerbman
Jun 23, 2011, 09:38 AM
the name was almost never used before the iphone apps

ChazUK
Jun 23, 2011, 09:39 AM
They might as well defend it whilst there is still a chance. If they all but give up on it that may make things worse.

Stok3
Jun 23, 2011, 09:39 AM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

bbplayer5
Jun 23, 2011, 09:40 AM
the name was almost never used before the iphone apps

Which really doesnt matter at all.

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 09:40 AM
If Windows was a brand of windows, I would agree.

What do you call the rectangular boxes in which applications and documents are displayed on your screen?

Apple did not trademark the word "App" like Microsoft trademarked the word "Windows", and even still trademarks are not copyrights in that it only applies in a very specific instance. Even in the computer realm, the word "windows" is used to refer to a rectangular area of a screen which an application presents to you for an interface, and not an operating system name. It's all about specific instances...

And as you can see in post #2, even Apple's own CEO is using it in generic terms. That's pretty much the final nail in the coffin right there.

One person using "App Store" to describe another product, specifically as an analogy to compare it to their own, does not make it a "generic term."

It would be similar to him saying, "Microsoft is creating their own iPod." In other words, "Microsoft is creating their own version of iPod."

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 09:41 AM
On another note:

'App Store' is way generic.

But I think people should agree that its because of Apple, those words mean much in the present era. Not saying that the other companies, couldn't do; but just that this time, Apple did.

I myself am divided on the question whether Apple should get this trademark or not, but all in all I think, yes. Maybe they should give up so as to not dilute their reputation - but this in turn dilutes the reputation of the App Store which is well attributed to Apple's Application Download Center.

I don't know where this will end, but I'll be quite happy if they did get it.

G4DP
Jun 23, 2011, 09:41 AM
The sad thing is, they have become the exact thing they warned you about in the 1984 advert. Controlling and dictatorial.

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 09:43 AM
Apple did not trademark the word "App" like Microsoft trademarked the word "Windows", and even still trademarks are not copyrights in that it only applies in a very specific instance. Even in the computer realm, the word "windows" is used to refer to a rectangular area of a screen which an application presents to you for an interface, and not an operating system name. It's all about specific instances...

And as you can see in post #2, even Apple's own CEO is using it in generic terms. That's pretty much the final nail in the coffin right there.

It doesn't even matter at all.

Regular usage and company marketing are too different things. Bloggers, news portals, etc have always been referring to other app stores as 'App Stores' already. There's no difference.

Difference comes in proper application and implementation which is why we have these trademarks. Duh!

admanimal
Jun 23, 2011, 09:44 AM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

Right, because I'm sure Apple's legal team spends their nights as iOS engineers.

Capt Underpants
Jun 23, 2011, 09:45 AM
Apple should give it up. It's getting petty.

ChazUK
Jun 23, 2011, 09:45 AM
A generic term that wasn’t in common use before Apple (unlike, say, the term “windows”). In fact, the term “apps” wasn’t even used much pre-iPhone.

AFAIK, Microsoft have never sold windows, nor have they gone after anyone who manufactures or sells Windows.

If Microsoft ever did go after and try to stop windows sales companies from calling their windows "Windows" then people could complain. The "Windows is generic" argument would only make sense if Microsoft were in the glass window indistury.

d0minick
Jun 23, 2011, 09:45 AM
LOL @ people defend Apple. Just defend the other guy when they go after Apple under the same flag.

That being said, I thing trademarks are a funny thing. They are needed because no one should pretend to be Apple or MS or etc.

BUT companies wanna trademark (and patent) absolutely everything. Stifling, IMO, new stuff.


"No idea's original"

ArtOfWarfare
Jun 23, 2011, 09:46 AM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

Totally different teams working on each on totally different issues. Lawyers are sending out these cease and desist letters while the iOS team is working on iOS. Do you really think those lawyers can program for crap? (Not implying the skills are mutually exclusive, but still, they studied law in school, not computer science.)

My thoughts on this:

Apple is doing exactly what they should. If they don't aggressively stop everyone else from using the term App Store, it may in fact become a generic term and can be used as evidence in court, even though all these entities clearly appeared after the court cases began.

GeekGuys
Jun 23, 2011, 09:46 AM
Originally Posted by gerbman
the name was almost never used before the iphone apps

Not true. I have worked in IT since the early 80's and I have used, and heard, the term apps throughout this period. I used it to describe applications in the mainframe world and beyond.

Maybe they should reply, cc'nig in Steve Jobs with a simple


No.

Sent from my iPhone.

:D

Stok3
Jun 23, 2011, 09:47 AM
Right, because I'm sure Apple's legal team spends their nights as iOS engineers.

with the quality of their latest projects Im left to wonder...

Northgrove
Jun 23, 2011, 09:48 AM
"App Store" (capital A, capital S, taken together as a unit) is only popular today because Apple popularized it and transformed the mobile software landscape. I don't think Apple should be victims of their own success, with enough companies trying to ride on their popularity wave that the trademark becomes so commonly used that it's invalidated.

"app" may be generic, "store" may be generic, but that's not what's trademarked here. Apple hasn't trademarked "app" to speak of "Apple applications", but only the term "App Store" in the business of online stores.

Narrowed down like that, App Store wasn't used before the iPhone for online stores, and Apple was fairly granted the trademark in my opinion. Judges shouldn't overrule fair play for some reason like "oh, now so many have started using Apple's trademark, that we can just as well invalidate it!" Ridiculous.

This specific case with "Appstore" vs "App Store" isn't exactly what I speak of above, although it's pretty damn close. It's obvious Amazon is just dancing around the trademark, and reminds me of the Linux distro called "Lindows". That was struck down by Microsoft, forcing them to be renamed to "Linspire".

Badbaw
Jun 23, 2011, 09:49 AM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

Except an OS is considered an OS, not a 'windows', as well as a browser considered a browser, and not an 'internet explorer'. App stores are considered app stores; the term is specific.

I'm questioning Apple as of late. Some of their decisions (and products) have been, oddly misplaced. Can someone explain Ping? Is iAds ubiquitous? FCPX nugatory to pros. Things that are seemingly poor in execution.

slffl
Jun 23, 2011, 09:49 AM
I think I'll create my own app called AppAdvice since it seems to be a generic term now. I bet the OTHER AppAdvice developers won't mind.

Also I herby will begin calling all smartphones (android, windows, webos) iPhones.

Stok3
Jun 23, 2011, 09:50 AM
"App Store" (capital A, capital S, taken together as a unit) is only popular today because Apple popularized it and transformed the mobile software landscape. I don't think Apple should be victims of their own success, and others trying to ride on their popularity wave.

"app" may be generic, "store" may be generic, but that's not what's trademarked here. Apple hasn't trademarked "app" to speak of "Apple applications", but only the term "App Store" in the business of online stores.

Narrowed down like that, App Store wasn't used before the iPhone for online stores, and Apple was fairly granted the trademark in my opinion. Judges shouldn't overrule fair play for some reason like "oh, now so many have started using Apple's trademark, that we can just as well invalidate it!" Ridiculous.

exactly. isnt this why Android uses the term "Marketplace"?

Biolizard
Jun 23, 2011, 09:51 AM
It's too literal a phrase to be trademark-able IMO. If Apple can trademark App Store, then what the hell do we do when all possible phrases ending in synonyms for 'store' have been trademarked? (You just know a company will attempt to do that, lawyers need to keep busy and keep the money rolling in)

NoSoup4U
Jun 23, 2011, 09:52 AM
I had never seen the term used until Apple used it and I've been in the biz for decades. I don't know if it's trademarkable or not but Apple certainly put the term into the vernacular and that's undeniable.

I agree. I used to buy software. Some of them were called games, some utilities, some programs, some suites. I don't remember application being in common use until recently. As a double abbreviation for Apple and application, it makes sense that Apple would have pushed it. They might have waited too long to trademark it, though. We'll see.

And FWIW, the reason Apple is sending out all those cease and desist letters is just to document that they're defending the term they want as a trademark. It's about building a legal file.

DJ Dilbert
Jun 23, 2011, 09:54 AM
Not really. No more than if the president of Xerox said Canon xeroxed something making Xerox suddenly generic. Or if the president of Coke said Pepsi is making their own Coke products rendering Coke as generic from a trademark point of view.

It's similar to Adobe's biggest pet peeve; saying that you Photoshopped a document or Photoshopped a picture or whatever. Just because you turned it into a noun or verb doesn't render it generic either.

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 09:55 AM
It's too literal a phrase to be trademark-able IMO. If Apple can trademark App Store, then what the hell do we do when all possible phrases ending in synonyms for 'store' have been trademarked? (You just know a company will attempt to do that, lawyers need to keep busy and keep the money rolling in)

Go to the USPTO website and search "Marketplace." There are 400+ live trademarks for terms ending in "Marketplace."

Whether "App" on its own is generic or "Store" on its own is generic is irrelevant. Microsoft has trademarked "Windows Phone 7." Each of those terms — windows, phone, and 7 — are generic on their own. But "Windows Phone 7" is not.

JangoFett124
Jun 23, 2011, 09:56 AM
What do you call the rectangular boxes in which applications and documents are displayed on your screen?"

Seriously? Are you joking? Are you actually saying that Microsoft Windows is a brand of windows?

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 09:57 AM
What do you call the rectangular boxes in which applications and documents are displayed on your screen?

Windows, but they aren't an operating system

JabbaII
Jun 23, 2011, 09:57 AM
It's similar to Adobe's biggest pet peeve; saying that you Photoshopped a document or Photoshopped a picture or whatever. Just because you turned it into a noun or verb doesn't render it generic either.

Like you never hoovered the carpet nor xeroxed a document nor rick rolled the masses :D

Fender2112
Jun 23, 2011, 09:59 AM
How about: App Le Store

TheMacBookPro
Jun 23, 2011, 10:00 AM
If Apple seriously thinks that their customers will be confused and mistake this:

http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/9823/capturfiles.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/857/capturfiles.jpg/)

for their iOS/Mac App Store... well that's just a bit insulting now isn't it?
Just tells you what they think their customers are like. Hmph.

Poor decision to go after these little startups and nobodies. What is the 'PC App Store' going to do, steal Apple's business?

and it's not like Apple hasn't copied other companies' innovations :rolleyes:

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 10:00 AM
Seriously? Are you joking? Are you actually saying that Microsoft Windows is a brand of windows?

No. Way to read.

"Microsoft Windows" is a windowed operating system. As in, it uses a windows-based user interface. So windows is indeed a generic term in the same market as Microsoft Windows.

"App Store" is not a generic term.

supmango
Jun 23, 2011, 10:01 AM
Apple should give it up. It's getting petty.

I think it is interesting that Amazon is choosing to fight this battle. Wouldn't it be easier to just use some kind of generic name that does not openly try to compete with Apple's App Store trademark?

Clearly Apple thinks they have a competitive reason to fight back.

Apple is not going to give up after one judge renders a verdict. Not on this one anyway.

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 10:02 AM
How about: App Le Store

I didn't know this but apple has both:

AppLeStore.com [Applestore.com :P] and
AppStore.com

domains and being used for a while now.

Guess they have a strong case. :|

mariov
Jun 23, 2011, 10:05 AM
We had apps in the 90´s. Palm apps. Then pocket pc apps. We had app stores (pocketgear, handandgo...)

"App Store" is GENERIC. I hate when people thinks that apple invented mobile apps. They sure did a lot to make them popular, but we had apps and apps stores years before the iphone.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 10:09 AM
"App Store" is not a generic term.

Steve Jobs thinks otherwise.

nwcs
Jun 23, 2011, 10:10 AM
We had apps in the 90´s. Palm apps. Then pocket pc apps. We had app stores (pocketgear, handandgo...)

"App Store" is GENERIC. I hate when people thinks that apple invented mobile apps. They sure did a lot to make them popular, but we had apps and apps stores years before the iphone.

But there were no marketplaces called "App Store"s that you would get apps for PDAs back in the day. That's the key point here. Certainly there have been app stores forever but none were CALLED "App Store."

bushido
Jun 23, 2011, 10:10 AM
its pretty generic to me, every smartphone even my 7 year old symbian phone had apps and if u sell apps in a store its obvs a app store O.o

gorgeousninja
Jun 23, 2011, 10:10 AM
Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...

Yes that is the required standard reply for anyone that doesn't want Apple to win....
it's not true, but facts aren't things some people take much notice of.

There was no 'app store' before Apple termed the idea, but Amazon et al are banking on the fact that if enough competitors use the term it will be deemed 'generic' hence why Apple are going after anyone using that label..

.if they didn't they are tacitly admitting that it has become generic.

It really isn't that hard, it's basic business, try and hold on to what makes you the market leader.
The fact that some judge, who really ought to know better, is letting Amazon steal the idea doesn't make it any less of a case of blatant copying.
It was lazy and devious of them and they should be forced to desist.

JangoFett124
Jun 23, 2011, 10:11 AM
No. Way to read.

"Microsoft Windows" is a windowed operating system. As in, it uses a windows-based user interface. So windows is indeed a generic term in the same market as Microsoft Windows.

"App Store" is not a generic term.

Microsoft Windows is an operating system that happens to have user interface elements called windows. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to say Windows is a generic term when talking about operating systems.

App Store is a store for apps (common abbreviation of applications). That is way, way more generic use of a term.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 10:13 AM
it's not true, but facts aren't things some people take much notice of.

There was no 'app store' before Apple termed the idea

Yes, there was :

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

But let's not let the facts get in the way of your Apple defense. ;)

admanimal
Jun 23, 2011, 10:14 AM
If Apple seriously thinks that their customers will be confused and mistake this:

Image (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/857/capturfiles.jpg/)

for their iOS/Mac App Store... well that's just a bit insulting now isn't it?
Just tells you what they think their customers are like. Hmph.

Poor decision to go after these little startups and nobodies. What is the 'PC App Store' going to do, steal Apple's business?

and it's not like Apple hasn't copied other companies' innovations :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter how petty it appears. If Apple wants to seriously defend what they believe is their trademark, they have to prevent people from using it. It's just how the system works. It has nothing to do with whether they seriously believe that people will confuse things or not. You can argue over whether Apple should be able to trademark "App Store" but given that is what they want to do, this is how they have to approach it.

Mr. Gates
Jun 23, 2011, 10:14 AM
I remember when the term was coined...

In Fact !

There's FOOTAGE !



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyEEP2mKogg&feature=related

BJMRamage
Jun 23, 2011, 10:14 AM
I can easily see confusion here.

When I heard of Amazon's App Store I thought they began selling iPhone Apps and thought odd Apple was cool with this….they don't sell them.

Likewise, I can see a consumer who is not a super techy go into a store and here this "x" brand phone has an appstore you can buy apps on and think, my "friend/son/daughter/brother/sister/etc" loves their iPhone, this phone looks good enough and I can share that same experience.

Amazon is purposely hoping to build on that confusion.

bushido
Jun 23, 2011, 10:17 AM
they say "now on the APPLE app store" on tv commercials here tho, so it's not rly just their own is it

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 10:19 AM
Yes, there was :



But let's not let the facts get in the way of your Apple defense. ;)

Oh yes! But that trademark was abandoned in the year 2000 A.D.
And that was 11 years back.

I don't see how that company made good use of the trademark and popularized 'App Store' for their services.

Nobody is saying that Apple invented the app store or coined the term 'App Store'. They made it worthwhile so other companies could get butt-hurt and start renaming their app stores on the same name.

Still, you would post the same thing in another thread without even following up with the posts. Good work.

gkarris
Jun 23, 2011, 10:21 AM
Next up:

The Food Industry...

Use of the word "Apple"... :eek:

Thomas2006
Jun 23, 2011, 10:22 AM
Apple did not trademark the word "App" like Microsoft trademarked the word "Windows", and even still trademarks are not copyrights in that it only applies in a very specific instance. Even in the computer realm, the word "windows" is used to refer to a rectangular area of a screen which an application presents to you for an interface, and not an operating system name. It's all about specific instances...

And as you can see in post #2, even Apple's own CEO is using it in generic terms. That's pretty much the final nail in the coffin right there.
What is Steve's fixation with Apple being the only business to use "App Store" to indicate where apps are located? I do not recall there being a problem when everyone used "Downloads" to indicate where their apps are located. I do not own an iOS device so correct me if I am wrong, but you can only access Apple's App Store through iTunes (notebooks/desktops) and a button on iOS devices (iPhone, iPod touch, iPad).

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 10:24 AM
Nobody is saying that Apple invented the app store or coined the term 'App Store'.

Yes, some people is saying exactly this

Yes that is the required standard reply for anyone that doesn't want Apple to win....
it's not true, but facts aren't things some people take much notice of.

There was no 'app store' before Apple termed the idea

logandzwon
Jun 23, 2011, 10:25 AM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

Please do not have lawyer code.

aperry
Jun 23, 2011, 10:25 AM
I can easily see confusion here.

When I heard of Amazon's App Store I thought they began selling iPhone Apps and thought odd Apple was cool with this….they don't sell them.

Likewise, I can see a consumer who is not a super techy go into a store and here this "x" brand phone has an appstore you can buy apps on and think, my "friend/son/daughter/brother/sister/etc" loves their iPhone, this phone looks good enough and I can share that same experience.

Amazon is purposely hoping to build on that confusion.

If it's so easy for you to see the confusion, then I wonder why Apple's trove of lawyers is having such a hard time demonstrating it to the judge.

I think this is ridiculous. I should not be able to trademark the name "Fruit Store" for my store that sells fruit. And no, "Windows" is a failed analogy for all of the reasons already stated in this thread.

BeePotato
Jun 23, 2011, 10:26 AM
Instead of launching a contest, why don’t those people at Amahi just use the real generic term: "application store"?

Duke15
Jun 23, 2011, 10:28 AM
This is just apple being a bully, they've got the money to back up lawyers and make these rediculous actions. Does apple really think we are that dumb and ignorant that we would mistake these for apple's "app store". Shows who the ignorant one really is.Its amazing that this can even be brought to court in the first place.

25ghosts
Jun 23, 2011, 10:29 AM
Had Jobs lived a hundred years ago, his name would be been Stalin !

Duke15
Jun 23, 2011, 10:30 AM
Instead of launching a contest, why don’t those people at Amahi just use the real generic term: "application store"?

I think that would be good, but probably not catchy enough, plus apple would probably try and get them for that as well

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 10:31 AM
Yes, there was :

But let's not let the facts get in the way of your Apple defense. ;)

Thanks for proving Apple's case: "App Store" clearly CAN be trademarked, since you just quoted a trademark filing from the USPTO. The mark was abandoned, and now Apple has claimed it because they are actually using it.

scottparker999
Jun 23, 2011, 10:34 AM
the name was almost never used before the iphone apps

Steve Jobs has used the word 'apps' for a very long time. Check out some old keynotes from WWDCs.

Intarweb
Jun 23, 2011, 10:35 AM
Apple will lose this.

Macmel
Jun 23, 2011, 10:37 AM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

They would be generic if they were referring to actual windows of an actual explorer. As they are not, they can be trademarked as non-descriptive names. App store is exactly the description of what they try to trademark. It is like you start building cars and call them CAR instead of Ford and pretend that nobody else call a thing with 4 wheels that is used for transportation a car.

sero
Jun 23, 2011, 10:37 AM
complete douchebaggery.

chadley_chad
Jun 23, 2011, 10:39 AM
Sadly, Apple has become the new Microsoft (for those of us old enough to remember why that is!)

Careful Apple, Rome wasn't built in a day; but it sure fell fast enough!!!!

:apple::mad:

tCruzin4lyfe
Jun 23, 2011, 10:39 AM
GET'EM Apple!!! Like said, when you think of "App Store" you think of apple, iPhone, iTunes, iPad. When I see other companies using "app store" I automatically think of apple. Now of course I know the difference but still, it definitely crosses my mind. And to the person who said sarcastically Apple should try to trademark "download"... STUPID! not even going to break that down.

tigres
Jun 23, 2011, 10:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

My answer.

No.

Sent from my PC

benpatient
Jun 23, 2011, 10:41 AM
Right, because I'm sure Apple's legal team spends their nights as iOS engineers.

They are spending tens of millions of dollars on lawyers. That money could go to hire developers and engineers to make their products better. Every dollar they spend on legal attacks against competitors is another dollar they don't have to spend on bug squashing. They clearly need more people in the bug squashing department, huh?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 23, 2011, 10:43 AM
Thanks for proving Apple's case: "App Store" clearly CAN be trademarked, since you just quoted a trademark filing from the USPTO. The mark was abandoned, and now Apple has claimed it because they are actually using it.

So 11 years ago it could be trade mark. It means nothing today. It being Abandon does not help Apples case either.

I also would not be surprised if they all start using the same defense. Point to the ruling Amazon got so they can keep using their name and then say they want to wait and see on if the Trademark will be denied. You have some big players saying Apple should not get it.

Also the lawyers are going to have to answer the question on "How is App Store not generic when your OWN CEO used it as a generic terms in a public keynott?"

All Apple is doing is hurting it image and showing that it is becoming worse than MS ever was.

Padraig
Jun 23, 2011, 10:43 AM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

Not at all. I kinda find it baffling that anyone can seriously make the arguement that they are!

You'd have a case if the products were called MS Operating System or MS Web Browser

JS77
Jun 23, 2011, 10:47 AM
"App Store" (capital A, capital S, taken together as a unit) is only popular today because Apple popularized it and transformed the mobile software landscape. I don't think Apple should be victims of their own success, with enough companies trying to ride on their popularity wave that the trademark becomes so commonly used that it's invalidated.

"app" may be generic, "store" may be generic, but that's not what's trademarked here. Apple hasn't trademarked "app" to speak of "Apple applications", but only the term "App Store" in the business of online stores.

Narrowed down like that, App Store wasn't used before the iPhone for online stores, and Apple was fairly granted the trademark in my opinion. Judges shouldn't overrule fair play for some reason like "oh, now so many have started using Apple's trademark, that we can just as well invalidate it!" Ridiculous.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

/end discussion

It's obvious Amazon is just dancing around the trademark, and reminds me of the Linux distro called "Lindows". That was struck down by Microsoft, forcing them to be renamed to "Linspire".

Microsoft tried to strike them down. In the end they just dropped coin:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/microsoft-to-buy-lindowscom-domains-for-20-million

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 10:54 AM
So 11 years ago it could be trade mark. It means nothing today. It being Abandon does not help Apples case either.

I also would not be surprised if they all start using the same defense. Point to the ruling Amazon got so they can keep using their name and then say they want to wait and see on if the Trademark will be denied. You have some big players saying Apple should not get it.

Also the lawyers are going to have to answer the question on "How is App Store not generic when your OWN CEO used it as a generic terms in a public keynott?"

All Apple is doing is hurting it image and showing that it is becoming worse than MS ever was.

It does mean something today. The fact that a few companies have started calling their mobile stores "App Stores" — or creating new stores and calling them that — after Apple named theirs such does not make the term generic. Handango and Pocketgear were probably the two most popular mobile stores long before the iPhone and the App Store were released, and they never called themselves "app stores."

Steve Jobs did not use it as a generic term. He used it in the same sense as, "Microsoft is creating their own iPod." If Apple's lawyers can't answer that stupidly simple question, Apple needs new lawyers.

tCruzin4lyfe
Jun 23, 2011, 10:55 AM
So 11 years ago it could be trade mark. It means nothing today. It being Abandon does not help Apples case either.

I also would not be surprised if they all start using the same defense. Point to the ruling Amazon got so they can keep using their name and then say they want to wait and see on if the Trademark will be denied. You have some big players saying Apple should not get it.

Also the lawyers are going to have to answer the question on "How is App Store not generic when your OWN CEO used it as a generic terms in a public keynott?"

All Apple is doing is hurting it image and showing that it is becoming worse than MS ever was.

Apple isn't hurting their image, your so silly, LMAO! only a handful of people think this. Ones who know atleast a tiny bit about business know what's going on, also most people don't care about what apple is doing behind the scenes with this kind of stuff as long as they keep making great products every year. This kind of stuff doesn't even pertain to us. Stop taking it so personal, nobody has to love Steve or apple, my grandmother has an iPad and doesnt know who Steve Jobs is, she just LOVES her device. That's what matters, Jesus tap dancing Christ.

bit density
Jun 23, 2011, 10:57 AM
They are spending tens of millions of dollars on lawyers. That money could go to hire developers and engineers to make their products better. Every dollar they spend on legal attacks against competitors is another dollar they don't have to spend on bug squashing. They clearly need more people in the bug squashing department, huh?

While I am a big supporter of the fungibility of money. It is simply true, based on the experience of the industry, that computer engineering has rapidly diminishing rates of return.

A dollar spent on lawyers is probably way more valuable than a dollar spent on "bug squashers".

Apple does and continues to find the best and brightest engineers that it can. But bugs will always slip through, and the bugs that are there, are not the cause of lack of dollars spent on engineers.

LastLine
Jun 23, 2011, 10:59 AM
It's amazing really.


People go after Loadsys when they pick on the little devs for their patent.

People support Apple when they go after small startups for using their trademark.




Just saying...

dewilded
Jun 23, 2011, 10:59 AM
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the companies named "The Money Store" and "The Car Store" may have set a precedent on this topic.

paul4339
Jun 23, 2011, 11:00 AM
It doesn't matter how petty it appears. If Apple wants to seriously defend what they believe is their trademark, they have to prevent people from using it. It's just how the system works. It has nothing to do with whether they seriously believe that people will confuse things or not. You can argue over whether Apple should be able to trademark "App Store" but given that is what they want to do, this is how they have to approach it.


Agree. Apple has obtained the trademark in the EU, and tentative approval in the US (pending the outcome of the MS objection).



(Fair or unfair, wouldn't they be just kicking themselves if someone else applied and won the trademark?)



They have to protect it in the meanwhile, it's just business.

bit density
Jun 23, 2011, 11:00 AM
Next up:

The Food Industry...

Use of the word "Apple"... :eek:

Close... Music Industry...

Use of the word "Apple"

Or have you not been following the Beatles-Itunes-Apple Records controversy.

smali
Jun 23, 2011, 11:03 AM
Apple now officially bigger ***** than MS

deggs37
Jun 23, 2011, 11:04 AM
I love when people reference the "Windows" trademark being so generic. It reminds me of the chemicals in the pool that turn the water purple when someone pees. You instantly know who the idiots are.

smali
Jun 23, 2011, 11:04 AM
It's amazing really.


People go after Loadsys when they pick on the little devs for their patent.

People support Apple when they go after small startups for using their trademark.




Just saying...

People love to ride Steve's knob that's why....

dBeats
Jun 23, 2011, 11:08 AM
Booooo, bad Apple. :mad::apple::mad:

Just another proof that underdogs should only be supported while they are underdogs. Google and Apple are no different than MicroSloth now (minus the sweaty pits monkey boy)

How many people remember "killerapp.com". (BTW Don't go to that site anymore it's a phishing scam) That was like 10 ten years ago.

Quite frankly the whole thing is kind of stupid. Applications are what computers run. Having an Appstore is just a place where you can buy software to run on your computer. There's positively nothing specific about it. Just that we don't have enough time to use 4 syllable words anymore.

PJMAN2952
Jun 23, 2011, 11:09 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Ya. I hope Apple looses this case.

ri0ku
Jun 23, 2011, 11:10 AM
Yes that is the required standard reply for anyone that doesn't want Apple to win....
it's not true, but facts aren't things some people take much notice of.

There was no 'app store' before Apple termed the idea, but Amazon et al are banking on the fact that if enough competitors use the term it will be deemed 'generic' hence why Apple are going after anyone using that label..

.if they didn't they are tacitly admitting that it has become generic.

It really isn't that hard, it's basic business, try and hold on to what makes you the market leader.
The fact that some judge, who really ought to know better, is letting Amazon steal the idea doesn't make it any less of a case of blatant copying.
It was lazy and devious of them and they should be forced to desist.


Hang on a sec? I do not care if Apple "wins" it or not... their not a football club or a country I am not on a side of a team that should be "Winning" something....

I like Apple products and I buy them thats it.. doesnt mean I should support everything they do.

When I used to be heavily involved in symbian made apps around the ngage era (yes the N-gage) we used to write what we called APPS for said devices...

We called them apps... not necessarily an APP store.. because when you give away things for free to a community thats not a store. We did actually call them apps though...

Its to generic

The word store is generic... you cant trademark that, the world application is to generic you cant trademark that. The none word "App" is a shortened version of a none trademarkable too generic term.

Thus... the duo "App Store" is to generic.

dethmaShine
Jun 23, 2011, 11:11 AM
Thanks for proving Apple's case: "App Store" clearly CAN be trademarked, since you just quoted a trademark filing from the USPTO. The mark was abandoned, and now Apple has claimed it because they are actually using it.

Owned or Pwned?

gkarris
Jun 23, 2011, 11:15 AM
Close... Music Industry...

Use of the word "Apple"

Or have you not been following the Beatles-Itunes-Apple Records controversy.

Yes, I have - they've reached a settlement - hence now also the Beatles in iTunes....

but, since they're now on the whole "use of generic words lawsuit"... :eek:

mariov
Jun 23, 2011, 11:28 AM
But there were no marketplaces called "App Store"s that you would get apps for PDAs back in the day. That's the key point here. Certainly there have been app stores forever but none were CALLED "App Store."

I´ll go now and register "hardware store". Certainly there have been hardware stores forever but none were CALLED "Hardware Store."

bsolar
Jun 23, 2011, 11:32 AM
Not really. No more than if the president of Xerox said Canon xeroxed something making Xerox suddenly generic. Or if the president of Coke said Pepsi is making their own Coke products rendering Coke as generic from a trademark point of view.
Actually Xerox did risk losing it's trademark in the past, as did many other companies with their trademarks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox for photocopiers, Plexiglas for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex for facial tissues, Band-Aid for adhesive bandages, and others. A trademark owner takes a risk in engaging in such a corrective campaign because the campaign may serve as an admission that the trademark is generic. So, the owner must irreversibly commit to continuing the campaign until relatively sure the trademark has achieved primary meaning as a trademark rather than as a common name of the product or service.

Apple is trying to fight a similar battle but in my opinion in their case the chosen trademark name is too generic to begin with being basically a short form of "Application Store".

davelanger
Jun 23, 2011, 11:33 AM
Not really. No more than if the president of Xerox said Canon xeroxed something making Xerox suddenly generic. Or if the president of Coke said Pepsi is making their own Coke products rendering Coke as generic from a trademark point of view.


Or Johnson and Johnson saying another companys bandaids.....
that does not make the term bandaids generic,that is their name for adhesive strips.

Laird Knox
Jun 23, 2011, 11:33 AM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

OMG I needed a laugh today. Thank you!

RubbishBBspeed
Jun 23, 2011, 11:33 AM
This is one of those times I wish Apple would wake up and not act so silly. It's also behaviour like this that makes me hunt out developers own websites to see if there is a means to purchasing an application or to use it's generic term since the days of the commodore 64 an 'App' in order to avoid paying Apples 30% store fee. I would happily purchase through the apple applications store including there markup if they'd just start to behave themselves.

Profit before product is only going to last so long, It's a slippery slope and there's no coming back from a slide down it.

swagi
Jun 23, 2011, 11:42 AM
This is one of those times I wish Apple would wake up and not act so silly. It's also behaviour like this that makes me hunt out developers own websites to see if there is a means to purchasing an application or to use it's generic term since the days of the commodore 64 an 'App' in order to avoid paying Apples 30% store fee. I would happily purchase through the apple applications store including there markup if they'd just start to behave themselves.

Profit before product is only going to last so long, It's a slippery slope and there's no coming back from a slide down it.

Yep - I always download my Software from the developer's webpage and happily ignore the "Available on App Store"-button. Just wonder how big the cut for PayPal is - well, at least it's not 30%...

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 11:45 AM
Thanks for proving Apple's case: "App Store" clearly CAN be trademarked, since you just quoted a trademark filing from the USPTO. The mark was abandoned, and now Apple has claimed it because they are actually using it.

Notice the abandonment date. This trademark never was granted.

I didn't prove anything for Apple and "App Store" cannot be clearly trademarked. It is in the opposition phase and it has received opposition. A court will decide if it can or can't be trademark. Previous filings that might or might not have gotten past this opposition phase do not lend any more credibility to Apple's claims.

MarximusMG
Jun 23, 2011, 11:45 AM
I actually hope that the Apple legal team gets their asses handed to them in these ridiculous cases. As some else already said in this thread, Apple looks more and more like the 1984 "bad guy" every single day.

spazzcat
Jun 23, 2011, 11:47 AM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

Because we all know lawyers are writing the code for iOS...:cool:

spazzcat
Jun 23, 2011, 11:50 AM
Yep - I always download my Software from the developer's webpage and happily ignore the "Available on App Store"-button. Just wonder how big the cut for PayPal is - well, at least it's not 30%...

I guess you don't care about things like one click reinstalls on a new computer and having update notifications in one spot...

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 11:51 AM
Steve Jobs did not use it as a generic term. He used it in the same sense as, "Microsoft is creating their own iPod." If Apple's lawyers can't answer that stupidly simple question, Apple needs new lawyers.

Steve Jobs did use it in a descriptive manner. "Their own app stores". It's not the same at all, since if he were to say "Microsoft is creating their own iPod", he'd risk genericizing the mark and losing it. He'd say "Microsoft is creating their own portable music player" or "Microsoft is creating their own MP3 player".

He'd use the descriptive term for the device. Just like he used the descriptive term for the competition's app stores.

He in fact did hurt his own case, since Amazon turned around and filed this very occurence of Steve Jobs saying the competition had "App stores" in their court briefs.

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 11:56 AM
Hang on a sec? I do not care if Apple "wins" it or not... their not a football club or a country I am not on a side of a team that should be "Winning" something....

I like Apple products and I buy them thats it.. doesnt mean I should support everything they do.

When I used to be heavily involved in symbian made apps around the ngage era (yes the N-gage) we used to write what we called APPS for said devices...

We called them apps... not necessarily an APP store.. because when you give away things for free to a community thats not a store. We did actually call them apps though...

Its to generic

The word store is generic... you cant trademark that, the world application is to generic you cant trademark that. The none word "App" is a shortened version of a none trademarkable too generic term.

Thus... the duo "App Store" is to generic.

"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?

usptact
Jun 23, 2011, 11:57 AM
I like Apple products but i *hate* when someone behaves as a god on the earth and owns everything! Curse on you, Apple!

ouimetnick
Jun 23, 2011, 11:58 AM
Does Apple really think we are all THAT stupid, and will confuse PC App Store with the Mac App Store, or the App Store for iOS? I doubt it. App Store is too generic. And so is Safari, Macintosh, Apple, Windows, you get it. Apple is a fruit. Macintosh is a kind of Apple. They existed before Apple Inc. Windows... well my grandfather's house was build before Microsoft, and it has Windows.

ri0ku
Jun 23, 2011, 11:58 AM
"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?

No but the term app is used widely by many companies who provide a service that is similar to the ios App Store. The word "App" or none word rather has been used before ios was even announced. Like I mentioned, symbian writers used this term to title their programs.

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 12:00 PM
Steve Jobs did use it in a descriptive manner. "Their own app stores". It's not the same at all, since if he were to say "Microsoft is creating their own iPod", he'd risk genericizing the mark and losing it. He'd say "Microsoft is creating their own portable music player" or "Microsoft is creating their own MP3 player".

He'd use the descriptive term for the device. Just like he used the descriptive term for the competition's app stores.

He in fact did hurt his own case, since Amazon turned around and filed this very occurence of Steve Jobs saying the competition had "App stores" in their court briefs.

You're wrong. He would not make the "iPod" mark generic by saying that. In that case he would be saying "their own version of iPod." It is the same here with "App Store."

Amazon can put anything they want in their filings; that does not make their claims correct.

Jbaffoh
Jun 23, 2011, 12:04 PM
Wow. Lots of opinions about a piece that opens with a total misunderstanding of what is happening in court. A few of you are lawyers, and you make some sense. The rest of you have no idea what you're talking about, so why spew?

A judge's predictions in the context of a motion have no bearing on the results after a full trial. None. As a trial attorney, I can tell you that nearly every successful trial result got to that stage in the proceedings only because the prevailing party lost preliminary motions that would have obviated the need for a full trial. The burdens of proof and evidentiary standards are much different in those two stages, so a judge's statements about a motion are irrelevant to the bigger picture. It's like predicting the outcome of a basketball game based on who wins the tipoff.

As for the need to protect trademarks, and the methods of proving trademarks, the law requires lawyers to do things that lay people just don't get. Sorry, that's the system. It's highly technical, and all your speculation about what the term "generic" even means in this legal context is not worth the pixels you waste. Yes, the word "App" was in use in the 70's and 80's when I studied computer science, but that's irrelevant. Apple's "There's an App for that" campaign brought brand messaging and meaning to everyone's living rooms, but there's more to it than that. As for "likelihood for confusion," don't confuse the legal definition with the confusion you display in your spewings here. Just saying most of you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your portrayal of Apple as draconian in this context is absurd. Every major company goes through the same steps to create and protect their marks--you just don't read about it. Every corporate legal department does this daily. Turn on your TV or pick up a magazine. Some companies actually own the exclusive right to use specific colors in certain contexts. That's the system, and there are reasons for it.

Someone said lawyers study law, and not computer science. Most intellectual property lawyers study engineering or science as undergrads, and then law in law school. Many have masters degrees or PhD.'s in technical fields in addition to their JD. I would not be surprised if the majority of Apple's IP lawyers also have degrees in computer science.

I don't have an opinion on whether Apple should win; I don't care. But, I do understand why they are doing this. I just wish the clueless masses here would spend more time listening and learning, rather than opining.

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 12:04 PM
Amazon can put anything they want in their filings; that does not make their claims correct.

Well, justice will decide if they're right or wrong.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 12:06 PM
You're wrong. He would not make the "iPod" mark generic by saying that. In that case he would be saying "their own version of iPod." It is the same here with "App Store."

I'm not wrong and that is precisely what genericizing a mark is. Look it up. I know it hurts knowing your "side" is "losing", but that is the problem when you take sides. Remain objective and realise these are just big corporations and they don't care who you root for, and you'll be better off.

I personally don't care which way it goes. I'm of the opinion that Apple should not be granted the mark, but if they are, I won't lose sleep over it nor cry about it going to bed at night.

Amazon can put anything they want in their filings; that does not make their claims correct.

Nor does it make's Apple's claims correct just because they filed them. However, Amazon putting it in their filings shows that their lawyers (you know, the guys who understand these manners) do think it is relevant to the case and it can help them. You know, exactly what I've been claiming.

Now Apple needs to respond to this blunder by their CEO, generating more work for their legal department. If he hadn't said that, they wouldn't have had this extra obstacle to deal with.

cbseven
Jun 23, 2011, 12:10 PM
Interesting...

If you reload the Amahi home page (http://www.amahi.org/) you'll get a different name for their "App Store" each time.

My favorite so far is "Apps Tore".

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 12:13 PM
I'm not wrong and that is precisely what genericizing a mark is. Look it up. I know it hurts knowing your "side" is "losing", but that is the problem when you take sides. Remain objective and realise these are just big corporations and they don't care who you root for, and you'll be better off.

So, having the opinion that Apple is correct is "taking sides," but thinking Apple is wrong is "being objective." Got it.

I personally don't care which way it goes. I'm of the opinion that Apple should not be granted the mark, but if they are, I won't lose sleep over it nor cry about it going to bed at night.

Well. I'm of the opinion that Apple should be granted the mark, but if they aren't, I won't lose sleep over it nor cry about it going to bed at night

[quote]Nor does it make's Apple's claims correct just because they filed them. However, Amazon putting it in their filings shows that their lawyers (you know, the guys who understand these manners) do think it is relevant to the case and it can help them. You know, exactly what I've been claiming.

Yes, they think it is relevant. That does not mean it is. Nor does it mean Apple's case will be hurt just because they put something in their filing.

Now Apple needs to respond to this blunder by their CEO, generating more work for their legal department. If he hadn't said that, they wouldn't have had this extra obstacle to deal with.

It's not a blunder, and it's stupidly simple to respond to. If any of Apple's lawyers has half a brain, they will do so easily and it won't take much time.

Seanozz
Jun 23, 2011, 12:15 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) Mobile/8J2)

I recall everyone calling them programs and then applications.

Not till the iPhone came out did we all start saying app.

JangoFett124
Jun 23, 2011, 12:17 PM
"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?

If "Circuit City" was instead called "Electronics Store", it would indeed be generic.

Andronicus
Jun 23, 2011, 12:19 PM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

There's a reason you're at -15 upranks.

Imma explain it as simple as I can, if a store named "Windows" sold actual windows then it would be too generic. Understand now?

Apple is being a jerk.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 12:20 PM
So, having the opinion that Apple is correct is "taking sides," but thinking Apple is wrong is "being objective." Got it.

No, being objective is citing facts and backing them up with evidence, quotes, etc.. Like I've been doing.

Just saying "You're wrong" because it otherwise hurts your opinion that the facts don't support it without even proving those facts wrong is "taking sides". Learn the difference between objective and subjective discussion. If my facts are wrong, prove them so. Otherwise, you're just pissed because the facts don't support your subjective opinion.

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) Mobile/8J2)

I recall everyone calling them programs and then applications.

Not till the iPhone came out did we all start saying app.

Who's this we ? Because you can't mean me as I've been calling them apps (or "applic" in the French short form) since the 80s.

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 12:22 PM
If "Circuit City" was instead called "Electronics Store", it would indeed be generic.

Just like "The Container Store" is generic. (It's not.)

hexor
Jun 23, 2011, 12:23 PM
What's wrong with using PC App Market?

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 12:29 PM
Just like "The Container Store" is generic. (It's not.)

The Container Store have multiple Typed Drawing marks, Apple is going for a Standard Character Mark. ;)

rorschach
Jun 23, 2011, 12:30 PM
No, being objective is citing facts and backing them up with evidence, quotes, etc.. Like I've been doing.

Just saying "You're wrong" because it otherwise hurts your opinion that the facts don't support it without even proving those facts wrong is "taking sides". Learn the difference between objective and subjective discussion. If my facts are wrong, prove them so. Otherwise, you're just pissed because the facts don't support your subjective opinion.

You cited a quote and then wildly misinterpreted it to fit with a conclusion you had already reached. That's not being objective.

And I did not "just" say "You're wrong." I followed that statement up with the reason you were wrong. He was saying that these other companies were making their own versions of the App Store. That is not using the term generically. And even if he had used it generically, it still would not invalidate the trademark. A single person using the term one time cannot do that.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 12:34 PM
You cited a quote and then wildly misinterpreted it to fit with a conclusion you had already reached. That's not being objective.

Please prove them so then. You can't, since the courts haven't yet dealt with the motions where this "quote" is made to be relevant.

And I did not "just" say "You're wrong." I followed that statement up with the reason you were wrong. He was saying that these other companies were making their own versions of the App Store. That is not using the term generically.

Yes it is. No matter how much you don't want it to be, it is. Everyone blunders once in a while.

And even if he had used it generically, it still would not invalidate the trademark. A single person using the term one time cannot do that.

It can hurt a lot if you're presently trying to get that trademark registered and it is meeting opposition though, especially if you're the guy filing for the trademark in the first place and then proving the opposition's case for them. ;)

bergert
Jun 23, 2011, 12:34 PM
"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?

With this kind of argumentation I can release the next version of OSX and call it "Windows" because Windows is a generic term - used for the holes in my wall; and for rectangular shapes on my computer screen.
BUT: if Mircrosoft let that go and did not make you stop using Windows (using lawyers); they would accept that fact that you are using their trademark - essentially giving up their trademark. Like it or not - this is how the current laws are:
You loose a trademark if you don't defend it. This is important from a legal point of view; now if some little guy is told to change some web-page, this is just bad luck-nothing personal or "bad"; I would do just the same to protect a substantial investment in a new product.

bsolar
Jun 23, 2011, 12:36 PM
It's not a blunder, and it's stupidly simple to respond to. If any of Apple's lawyers has half a brain, they will do so easily and it won't take much time.

Come on, it's a huge blunder. He used the term he would like to see trademarked in a generic way to describe other companies's Application Stores, I can't imagine a better gift to whoever wants to see the term not trademarked.

It doesn't mean Apple will automatically lose, obviously. Their lawyers will try to offer their interpretations and downplay that sentence, but those on the other side have one more bullet to use as ammunition, and a pretty convincing one at that. Not all lawyers with half a brain work for Apple.

Vegasman
Jun 23, 2011, 12:55 PM
Steve Jobs did not use it as a generic term. He used it in the same sense as, "Microsoft is creating their own iPod." If Apple's lawyers can't answer that stupidly simple question, Apple needs new lawyers.

He also used it in the context of "My app store" is bigger then "Your app store" which implies the existance of more than one app store.

BC2009
Jun 23, 2011, 12:55 PM
I for one am hoping for a decision by the USPTO on this sooner rather than later so we can all just move on.

Clearly Apple is filing the lawsuits so nobody can point at examples of them failing to defend their unregistered trademark.

I just feel all the evidence anybody is going to need on this is already apparent, so the USPTO should make a decision to issue the registration for the trademark or deny it. Let this all be done already.

Either "App Store" is something Apple commercialized and built a brand around and therefore deserves trademark protection OR "App Store" is a descriptive generic term that describes any store that sells software applications. It seems that with each objection and counter filed with the USPTO we have to wait for some allotted time to elapse for a response before the USPTO can move on and make a decision. This has gone on long enough.

Cloudsurfer
Jun 23, 2011, 12:57 PM
I agree with Apple. On OSX, applications have been called apps for years, while other computer users simply referred to them as 'programs'. Heck, even the file extension for applications on a Mac is .app. So App Store was a logical step, and now people want to ride on that success by suddenly calling their programs apps? Please.

Apple worked hard to get on top and deserves the right to use App Store exclusively.

KnightWRX
Jun 23, 2011, 01:00 PM
I agree with Apple. On OSX, applications have been called apps for years, while other computer users simply referred to them as 'programs'. Heck, even the file extension for applications on a Mac is .app. So App Store was a logical step, and now people want to ride on that success by suddenly calling their programs apps? Please.

Apple worked hard to get on top and deserves the right to use App Store exclusively.

This is wrong, has been proven wrong so many times in these threads it's not even funny and just shows how much you're either not following this stuff at all or just trying to stir the pot, and it has no relevance to this case as no one is discussing a trademark for "Apps" or "Applications".

Do we again need to dig up all the old publications with "Applications" referring to computer software from the 80s, 70s and older ?

Application is not an Apple specific term, never was.

kiljoy616
Jun 23, 2011, 01:02 PM
We need a new section that is for "who is suing who" considering how much of it there is over everything under the sun.:rolleyes:

mixel
Jun 23, 2011, 01:06 PM
Apple won't and shouldn't get the mark... Can't blame them for trying though.

I've called folders "apps" folders since I was primarily an Amiga user.. And the "programs" within i've always thought of and referred to as apps. Just look up apps on google and its so generic that sticking store on the end shouldn't be trademarkable. it's like trying to trademark "cake shop" as a name for a cake shop.

The term "killer app" has been common since god knows when.. People have been calling applications apps forever.. Apple can't just come along and take it in any context, and a judge would be crazy to rule otherwise.

unlinked
Jun 23, 2011, 01:20 PM
I agree with Apple. On OSX, applications have been called apps for years, while other computer users simply referred to them as 'programs'. Heck, even the file extension for applications on a Mac is .app.



.

The only problem with this claim is that it is not true. People repeating it doesn't make it so. Neither does the fact it may be true in their experience.

noripwr
Jun 23, 2011, 02:06 PM
while you guys are debating whether or not the term is too generic, I'm wondering to myself what the hell a PC app store is. Since when did the generic PC or should I say Windows machine start having apps? I'm looking at explorer and I still see my programs placed under the 'Program Files' directory.

I'm just saying. Sounds silly for a PC dominant industry to use the 'program' term for so many years only to suddenly start rebranding them as apps because of the word's usage today.

paul4339
Jun 23, 2011, 02:15 PM
Notice the abandonment date. This trademark never was granted.



Correct, but Sage, did get Approval and they just didn't file the statement of use and it was abandoned.

Salesforce.com also got rejected initially, but changed their wording and the application got approved as well (Apple objected).

unlinked
Jun 23, 2011, 02:18 PM
while you guys are debating whether or not the term is too generic, I'm wondering to myself what the hell a PC app store is. Since when did the generic PC or should I say Windows machine start having apps? I'm looking at explorer and I still see my programs placed under the 'Program Files' directory.

I'm just saying. Sounds silly for a PC dominant industry to use the 'program' term for so many years only to suddenly start rebranding them as apps because of the word's usage today.


Since you are already in explorer look at the type column and let us know what the type is for exe and dll files.

Azathoth
Jun 23, 2011, 02:19 PM
I think it is interesting that Amazon is choosing to fight this battle. Wouldn't it be easier to just use some kind of generic name that does not openly try to compete with Apple's App Store trademark?

Clearly Apple thinks they have a competitive reason to fight back.

Apple is not going to give up after one judge renders a verdict. Not on this one anyway.

Or perhaps Apple is feeling rather threatened by Amazon, who is a huge force in retail and now encroaching on some of Apple's turf (music downloads).

Moreover, unlike Google, Amazon seems to know how to stay focussed and execute a cohesive strategy.

gnasher729
Jun 23, 2011, 03:03 PM
instead of wasting their time on this Apple needs to fix the iOS issues in 4.3.3

So how do you think Apple's lawyers would help with that? Sue the bugs?

lemoncrsh
Jun 23, 2011, 03:04 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)

We had apps in the 90´s. Palm apps. Then pocket pc apps. We had app stores (pocketgear, handandgo...)

"App Store" is GENERIC. I hate when people thinks that apple invented mobile apps. They sure did a lot to make them popular, but we had apps and apps stores years before the iphone.

The difference is that they didn't call it Pocketgear App Store

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 03:15 PM
The difference is that they didn't call it Pocketgear App Store

And?

mdriftmeyer
Jun 23, 2011, 03:29 PM
The more companies attempt to leverage App Store the stronger Apple's case becomes.

314631
Jun 23, 2011, 03:33 PM
Apple should have used iApp Store. Nobody can dispute Apple has the right to put a small i in front of anything and claim ownership of the word.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 23, 2011, 03:37 PM
The more companies attempt to leverage App Store the stronger Apple's case becomes.

Sorry it is the other way around. The more company that try to use it the WEAKER Apple case becomes.

Even if Apple is granted the trademark they still have the court case with Amazon to go threw. If Apple is denied the trademark or losses the case with Amazon it will not have a trademark on App Store. Amazon only needs to make sure Apple loses one of them.

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 03:39 PM
The more companies attempt to leverage App Store the stronger Apple's case becomes.

Which companies are leveraging Apple and why it makes stronger the case?

76ShovelHead
Jun 23, 2011, 03:42 PM
Out of all the comments I've read from all the threads about Apple's copy right I have yet to see someone make this point.. So here goes.

I can understand Apple's frustration with their App Store dilemma. So many people on here are saying just forget about it, and while it may be the right thing to do Apple has yet to step up and be the "bigger company." But regardless, I find it annoying too that once Apple releases something everyone has to copy it! Google Chrome has a Web Store, Amazon HAD a marketplace (Did they not?) and so does Windows. And out of all the names they could've went with, Like Google's "Web Store", Amazon has to drop their originality to jump on the bandwagon so they can call themselves the "Amazon appstore." If you had someone copying you (Or in this case, companies copying you) wouldn't that just tick you off?

I'm not rooting for apple, or amazon, I'm just telling it how it is.

Taank
Jun 23, 2011, 03:45 PM
the name was almost never used before the iphone apps

I have had folders in my Program Files directory called "Audio" "Video" "Games" and "Apps" since somewhere around 1992. (if not earlier, I'm trying not to exaggerate though)

But, I'm just one person. I would think that something I saw must have inspired me to name that folder Apps... but hey...maybe not. Maybe I actually invented the word!

The way some people around here defend Apple, nomatter what, amazes me.

hfletcher
Jun 23, 2011, 03:48 PM
I think regardless of whether or not Apple should be allowed to trademark "App Store", they shouldn't be going after small, un-important companies and domain names. There are bigger players they should be going after, who have the resources for a legal battle.
Basically, what I'm saying is: Apple, pick on someone your own size!

[Also, I 100% disagree with the TM App store - it's pretty generic, in my opinion]

Radoo
Jun 23, 2011, 03:49 PM
Apple whining again... It'd better feed some poor people with the money spent on lawyers with stupid thngs... Or give them iPods (to those people, not lawyers) :D

benthewraith
Jun 23, 2011, 04:01 PM
A generic term that wasn’t in common use before Apple (unlike, say, the term “windows”). In fact, the term “apps” wasn’t even used much pre-iPhone.

But losing that term wouldn’t hurt Apple or the App Store that much. They do have to defend it—look at all their ads about the “App Store” (not the “iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad App Store” or the “Apple App” store or “iOS 5 App Store Which You Can Also Shop From Mac and Windows"). But if they lose, I won’t much care.

Confusion is highly possible: someone sees an Apple App Store ad, or vaguely remembers the whole slew of them in general, and then goes to the store and buys an LG phone because it advertises an app store. Remember that the world (and the consumer touch-computing market Apple created) is not full of people as tech-savvy as we tech-rumor forum-goers! But I see future confusion/dilution being more of a problem: one that builds over time (through the efforts of competitor’s marketing). Not that much present brand dilution.

You mean the one where Apple says people who don't have iPhones don't have access to the App Store, the only place to buy apps?

Michael Scrip
Jun 23, 2011, 04:32 PM
Here's my take on it:

Whether or not Apple gets the actual trademark... they chose to call their app store the "App Store"

They opened that store in 2008... and there have been many other stores since then:

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

None of those use the words "app" and "store" in their names. Why? Did they want to differentiate themselves from Apple's offerings? Was it more of a gentlemen's agreement? I don't know.

My question is... would Google have a problem if we were talking the "Amazon Market" instead? Especially if it sold Android apps?

There is already an "Amazon Marketplace" but it doesn't sell apps. So I guess Microsoft couldn't complain.

Trademark law aside... Apple got there first, so to speak.

But... I totally understand the "generic term" argument... and I don't look for Apple to win this one. But come on... all those other companies found a creative name to call their store.

What's funny is that we're talking about the company who completely changed the words "amazon" and "kindle" in our lexicon. I would have expected a better name than "appstore"

Oletros
Jun 23, 2011, 04:45 PM
My question is... would Google have a problem if we were talking the "Amazon Market" instead? Especially if it sold Android apps?

If Google has a problem with this name is their problem.

blipper
Jun 23, 2011, 04:46 PM
The sad thing is, they have become the exact thing they warned you about in the 1984 advert. Controlling and dictatorial.

They were back then too --- that was the irony -- if not to say chutzpah --- of that ad. I like their products, though.

AaronEdwards
Jun 23, 2011, 04:55 PM
It's not a blunder, and it's stupidly simple to respond to. If any of Apple's lawyers has half a brain, they will do so easily and it won't take much time.

If it's, as you say, stupidly simple to reply to, then why don't you let us all know how they should respond?

It's stupidly simple, it only requires half a brain, and it won't take much time.
I'm sure you can manage to do that.

gnasher729
Jun 23, 2011, 05:19 PM
I have had folders in my Program Files directory called "Audio" "Video" "Games" and "Apps" since somewhere around 1992. (if not earlier, I'm trying not to exaggerate though)

Well, when Apple tries to trademark the word "App" or "Apps", we'll call you. But Apple doesn't do that. They are trademarking "App Store". Now if you can show me any use of the term "App Store" before Apple used it...

Zealous
Jun 23, 2011, 05:33 PM
Stupid... and lame. I am pretty sure the term is far to generic to be trademarked.

Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...

You know... I can't think of any... Maybe...

I think that this company just name their store "ApStore" lose the p.. then maybe in smaller type as sort of a sub name something along the lines of "piss on you, Apple. We do what we want!"

Heilage
Jun 23, 2011, 05:36 PM
App Store sounds to me like a generic term. All these fights between the corporations seem kinda petty, don't they?

pkson
Jun 23, 2011, 05:49 PM
I agree. I used to buy software. Some of them were called games, some utilities, some programs, some suites. I don't remember application being in common use until recently. As a double abbreviation for Apple and application, it makes sense that Apple would have pushed it. They might have waited too long to trademark it, though. We'll see.

And FWIW, the reason Apple is sending out all those cease and desist letters is just to document that they're defending the term they want as a trademark. It's about building a legal file.

I agree.

Yes, I know the term "app" has been around longer than the iPhone.
But you have to admit, the phrase "There's an app for that" was pretty darn popular, and that started the whole "app" boom. Everything is called an app nowadays.

bsolar
Jun 23, 2011, 05:51 PM
Well, when Apple tries to trademark the word "App" or "Apps", we'll call you. But Apple doesn't do that. They are trademarking "App Store". Now if you can show me any use of the term "App Store" before Apple used it...

It does not matter at all, even if Apple did invent the term App Store. If now the term is used generically to define that kind of thing, the trademark cannot be granted or would be lost if already granted.

Some examples which might help people getting the point:

"Windows" can be used generically to define any Operating System? No, "Windows" in the field of Operating Systems clearly describes Microsoft's particular OS. Trademark makes sense.

"Thermos can be used generically to define any vacuum flask? Once it did. With time the trademark lost it's distinctive value and became a generic term to call any brand of vacuum flask. The trademark was lost (at least in the U.S.).

"App Store" can be used generically to define any Application Store? Or defines clearly only Apple's Application Store? Depending on how you answer to this you consider it a term worthy of trademark protection, or not.

Taank
Jun 23, 2011, 06:01 PM
Well, when Apple tries to trademark the word "App" or "Apps", we'll call you. But Apple doesn't do that. They are trademarking "App Store". Now if you can show me any use of the term "App Store" before Apple used it...

As you should have seen from my quote. I was responding to the remarkably high number (double digits at least) of people who are posting these incredible ridiculous posts claiming that the word App has only been around for the past couple years, and that Apple started it. Plain silly.

They are the same people that go around complaining that everyone is "copying" Apple's innovations. I'm not saying they aren't. But that is how things progress. At some point, one company made a pretty good mouse. From that point on, mice, for the most part, look the same. We don't really call them all "copycats" of the original. Someone got it right, and from that point on that is what a mouse is going to look like. Until someone makes a better one. Does anyone and all follow what I am saying? If you get something right, from a design standpoint, your lead is going to be followed. It doesn't always equal a lawsuit. From suing a company because their rectangular, remarkably simple looking phone looks similar to your rectangular, simple looking phone.... to now trying to tell companies to stop using the words App and Store anywhere near one another.

Apple is out of control. I think I jumped on the bandwagon too late. They are Microsoft now.

winston1236
Jun 23, 2011, 06:04 PM
Stupid... and lame. I am pretty sure the term is far to generic to be trademarked.

Plus I am pretty sure people have used it before Apple...

but "office" wasnt?

Taank
Jun 23, 2011, 06:17 PM
but "office" wasnt?

Good lord. They gave their suite of programs a name. A comparison would be if Microsoft named "Word" "Microsoft's Word Processor" instead. Then, if Apple made "Apple's Word Processor" and Microsoft then sued them because they say they own the term "Word Processor" ... now you have a comparison. And you begin to see why this phrase is too generic. More examples?

Ray's Coffee Shop
Monk's Coffee Shop
John's Coffee Shop
Sue's Coffee Shop

Ray's Diner
Cindy's Diner
The Best Diner

These places do not sue each other because they think they own the "Coffee Shop" or the "Diner" part.

Apple App Store
Amazon Appstore

Do we understand why the majority seem to feel it's too generic yet? Is anything getting through?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 23, 2011, 06:22 PM
Here's my take on it:

Whether or not Apple gets the actual trademark... they chose to call their app store the "App Store"

They opened that store in 2008... and there have been many other stores since then:

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

None of those use the words "app" and "store" in their names. Why? Did they want to differentiate themselves from Apple's offerings? Was it more of a gentlemen's agreement? I don't know.

My question is... would Google have a problem if we were talking the "Amazon Market" instead? Especially if it sold Android apps?

There is already an "Amazon Marketplace" but it doesn't sell apps. So I guess Microsoft couldn't complain.

Trademark law aside... Apple got there first, so to speak.

But... I totally understand the "generic term" argument... and I don't look for Apple to win this one. But come on... all those other companies found a creative name to call their store.

What's funny is that we're talking about the company who completely changed the words "amazon" and "kindle" in our lexicon. I would have expected a better name than "appstore"

Well Marketplace for WP7 is a carry over from the 360 marketplace. They just keep naming system in place they already had.
It is pretty clear MS though Apple trying to trademark App Store was crap even though they are not using it.
I think MS wants to use it to describe WP Marketplace as an App Store with out fear of Apple suing them for using it as a description of what it is. WP Marketplace is an app store.

Add to it they wanted to seperate themselves from Apple and have their own App store.
Amazon on the other had I see they are looking longer term and will have multiple platforms when it is all said and done. I fully expect them to support Blackberry and Palm in the future. So they wanted a more generic name to cover all their bases in the future. Amazon appstore. It names tells you exactly what it is.
An app store run by Amazon. No real confusision there.

Fast Shadow
Jun 23, 2011, 06:33 PM
Steve Jobs thinks otherwise.

Steve Jobs sanity has become more and more questionable over the past year.

NakedPaulToast
Jun 23, 2011, 07:10 PM
Microsoft can trademark Windows, for the same reason Apple can trademark Snow Leopard.

Now, this the time where many of you will come back with, but Windows contains windows.

OK, then. Microsoft can trademark Windows, for the same reason Apple can trademark Numbers.

Vegasman
Jun 23, 2011, 08:46 PM
Here's my take on it:

My question is... would Google have a problem if we were talking the "Amazon Market" instead? Especially if it sold Android apps?

There is already an "Amazon Marketplace" but it doesn't sell apps. So I guess Microsoft couldn't complain.

Trademark law aside... Apple got there first, so to speak.


It's not that Microsoft or Google or any of these other players want to rename their existing store. They simply want to refer to it as an app store.

"Microsoft Marketplace is an *app store* where you can find the games you enjoy!"
"Wal Mart the *grocery store* with the lowest prices in town"

As soon as *grocery store* is trademarked, Wal Mart can no longer say this. And that would be stupid.

And as soon as *app store* is trademarked, Microsoft can no longer say what it wanted to say also.

And that would be equally stupid.

James Bond
Jun 23, 2011, 09:22 PM
The sad thing is, they have become the exact thing they warned you about in the 1984 advert. Controlling and dictatorial.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M2MolnyZJ4

CodeBreaker
Jun 24, 2011, 12:58 AM
Dear :apple:,
STOP BITCHING

Oletros
Jun 24, 2011, 06:01 AM
Now if you can show me any use of the term "App Store" before Apple used it...

On this same thread there is at least TWO examples of other companies using App Store or AppStore way before Apple.

huntercr
Jun 24, 2011, 06:11 AM
Apple should give it up. It's getting petty.

They can't until they win/lose their fight with Amazon. Apple simply must defend this vigorously or they'll be accused of it in court in the Amazon suit. "If app store is so important to you, then why are you only suing Amazon?' The opposing counsel will say..

I guarantee that after the Amazon suit is settled ( even if Apple wins ) none of these little guys will get pursued.

This is not such a simple fight as people think... its far more complex than that. Amazon is a triple threat to Apple. Far more than Google is.
Amazon has massive online acceptance... they have a successful device, they have a music infrastructure, and a electronic media infrastructure, not to mention they had "cloud" infrastructure far before anyone called it "the cloud". They have sales data, they have personal connections to their users.

People always think Google is Apple's biggest threat. Not in my opinion. So what if android succeeds. Google doesn't make any money in it and their model doesn't even allow them to make money in it in the future.

Anyway... Apple is doing everything they can to throw cogs into Amazon's works to make sure Apple keeps the lead they have. I don't see this as anythign other than being shrewd.

DiamondMac
Jun 24, 2011, 01:13 PM
I guarantee that after the Amazon suit is settled ( even if Apple wins ) none of these little guys will get pursued.

How much do you want to bet on this?

KnightWRX
Jun 24, 2011, 01:52 PM
I guarantee that after the Amazon suit is settled ( even if Apple wins ) none of these little guys will get pursued.

Actually, let's say Apple wins against Microsoft in the trademark registration opposition and then successfully wins against Amazon, they would have no choice but to pursue these little guys in order not to lose their newly acquired trademark.

So what you say is unfortunately the whole opposite of reality.

Lennholm
Jun 25, 2011, 08:53 AM
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?

It has more to do with that it's a descriptive term rather than it being generic. As far as I know MS has never tried to prevent Apple or any one else from referring to the rectangular areas that is applications as "windows". Furthermore, the name is actually "Microsoft Windows", if Apple would call it "Apple App Store" it would be perfectly fine. Microsoft could've called their OS "Microsoft Operating System" but everyone can see that simply "Operating System" wouldn't work and shouldn't be able to be trademarked.

You may have a point about Internet Explorer, it could be seen as a generic and descriptive term, but since consensus is that this sort of application is referred to as "internet browser" or "web browser" it really isn't.

And to those that try to claim that no one used the term "app" before Apple created their app store; trying to rewrite history is not ok.

baddj
Aug 4, 2011, 07:49 AM
Well the words App Store are been used as a general word now. see this web page

http://servage.com/

"TotalCloud's Enterprise App Store enables a whole new level of performance and flexibility for your business"