Apple and Amazon Ordered to Enter Settlement Talks Over 'App Store' Trademark Issue

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by slffl

And Amazon is a rain forest. Android is a robot with a human appearance. What's your point? You obviously don't understand trademarks.

Uh ? What is it you claim I don't understand about trademarks exactly ?

The post I was responding to was quite irrelevant to the actual trademark discussion taking place, as the trademark filed by Apple is not over Application or App and trademarks aren't a popularity contest anyhow. How you can derive anything about my knowledge of trademarks from me saying "Apple wasn't the first to use Application" is quite funny in and of itself.

----------

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Okay. Then explain it to him. Why is Apple valid? What about Pages? Or hey, Windows? Let's throw in Office for good measure?

Why are these allowed, yet App Store isn't?

kdarling pointed out the decision by the USPTO, it's what we've been saying all along, App Store is descriptive, just like Shoe Store would be :

"The mark would be immediately understood as ... transmission of software from applications stores and/or repair/updating of software applications obtained from an applications store.

"The applicant’s own website demonstrates the descriptive significance of the term APP STORE in relation to the identified services.

"Accordingly, the refusal to register the mark under Section 2(e)(1) as merely descriptive of the services is maintained and made final.

So if I don't understand trademarks, neither does the USPTO...

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

I wonder how many Amazon defenders here have a problem with the Microsoft Office brand. Probably none. If Google changed the name of its productivity suite to Google Office, MS would be all over them like flies on poo.

Actually, Google Office would probably pass. I just (admittedly pretty briefly) checked for it, and it doesn't look like MS has a trademark for "Office" by itself.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Actually, Google Office would probably pass. I just (admittedly pretty briefly) checked for it, and it doesn't look like MS has a trademark for "Office" by itself.

OpenOffice.org.
NeoOffice
LibreOffice
StarOffice

They all say "Hi!".

Microsoft seems to only hold trademarks over 2 Office logos and the Office 365 appellation, looking at their page :

http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal...rks/EN-US.aspx

But that is besides the point as Microsoft Office isn't an Office! It's a suite of productivity software, not a space rented or bought in a building where desks and conference rooms are arranged so that employees can get work done. As such, it has no relevance to the topic at hand, which is Apple trying to trademark the merely descriptive App Store and is suing Amazon over it, without having gone through the proper 5 year period to achieve Secondary meaning.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Snip

You're preaching to the choir, man. :P

...though there is one thing that flies in the face of our arguments. MS has a trademark for SQL Server, which is pretty damn descriptive. Wonder how they managed to hold on to that one.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

You're preaching to the choir, man. :P

...though there is one thing that flies in the face of our arguments. MS has a trademark for SQL Server, which is pretty damn descriptive. Wonder how they managed to hold on to that one.

Well, 2 way to look at it :

- SQL Server is not actually a server that serves SQL, it's a Relational Database Management System which uses SQL as a DDL, DML and DCL. You don't connect with a client and receive SQL with it

- SQL Server, as a descriptive trademark, same as App Store, would be allowed if Microsoft proved that it had achieved Secondary Meaning. Do people think of Microsoft SQL Server when you say "SQL Server". On that front, I'd say yes, because when talking about Oracle/MySQL/PostgreSQL, you don't think "Hey, those are all SQL Servers", you think "Look at the bunch of RDBMSes".

App Store has not achieved secondary meaning, heck I don't think Apple has even pushed that angle at all yet, which is the only way to get it granted at this point. But to do that, they'll have to win over Amazon first it seems since the USPTO has stayed their procedures and await the trial's outcome (which is completely upside down if you ask me).

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

I stand corrected.

That goes for me as well.

I had also repeated the story that the trademark was given to Jobs, before I checked on it myself.

In retrospect, it made no sense, as otherwise Amazon would be in violation. Now that we know nobody has a really firm grip on "app store", things fall into place.

One day I'm gonna learn to always take my own advice: NEVER believe anything you read in a tech headline until you or someone you trust goes and checks it for holes!

[MacDav]

Originally Posted by rjohnstone

It's still called "Appstore for Android".
Anyone thinking this will work for their iPhone needs serious help.

Yeah, "AppStore for Android" is about as innovative and original as pea soup. AppStore is not exactly inspired. It's what an 8 year old would call it. An 8 year old would sell lemonade using the title Lemonade stand. A more creative name would be maybe "The Lemon Juice Factory". I guess the the cliché "Keep it simple stupid" comes into play here with Apple's "AppStore" and Amazons "AppStore for Android". To me both names suck and are completely lacking any inspiration.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

I wonder how many Amazon defenders here have a problem with the Microsoft Office brand. Probably none. If Google changed the name of its productivity suite to Google Office, MS would be all over them like flies on poo.

Amazon could have used an ounce of creativity to come up with something different than AppStore. They chose not to. Sad.

I wonder how many sweeping generalizations you can continue to make about people who just happen to not agree with you on one/some/all things

[HelveticaRoman]

Can't lawyers sit still for five minutes without needing to sue someone? Take a day of for heaven's sake.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by HelveticaRoman

Can't lawyers sit still for five minutes without needing to sue someone? Take a day of for heaven's sake.

In trademarks, Apple had no choice in suing Amazon. What is perplexing is that they would try to get the trademark in the first place, rather than using a much easier to trademark name like iOS App Store or iTunes App Store.

The Mac has the Mac App Store after all.

[HelveticaRoman]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

In trademarks, Apple had no choice in suing Amazon. What is perplexing is that they would try to get the trademark in the first place, rather than using a much easier to trademark name like iOS App Store or iTunes App Store.

The Mac has the Mac App Store after all.

Is the term "App" a trademarked property, or is it a de facto generic by now?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by HelveticaRoman

Is the term "App" a trademarked property, or is it a de facto generic by now?

App is simply an abreviation of Application.

[HelveticaRoman]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

App is simply an abreviation of Application.

So app really is just the abbreviation of application, and store is the word for a store, and a legal team think this is worth going to war for? Or is it the cunning removal of the space between the two words that constitutes their claim to ownership?

[rjohnstone]

Originally Posted by MacDav

Yeah, "AppStore for Android" is about as innovative and original as pea soup. AppStore is not exactly inspired. It's what an 8 year old would call it. An 8 year old would sell lemonade using the title Lemonade stand. A more creative name would be maybe "The Lemon Juice Factory". I guess the the cliché "Keep it simple stupid" comes into play here with Apple's "AppStore" and Amazons "AppStore for Android". To me both names suck and are completely lacking any inspiration.

I agree, neither are great names.
They are simple to remember though.
Google's decision to change Android Market to Google Play is odd, but it is more than an Android app store now, so it does make a little sense.

[akbarali.ch]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Ohhhh realllllllly now?

Image

Discussion was about the term "Appstore", a branding by a company. Just like Nokia has Ovi store, its a brand, Google has Google Play, again a brand, which is the whole point of the lawsuit and this discussion, not the website listing softwares. You can have your appstore, only, Apple doesn't like them calling Appstore, the branding popularized by Apple but that brand became so popular, so common and so fast that it just became a generic word for all. Nothing personal buddy, i'm just putting my point here.
Another similar cases, for most part of my life i would make Xerox copy of the documents, it was very late i realized the process is actually called photocopy and Xerox is Company, a brand.
Same way, here in India in the early days, nobody called Toothpaste, they asked for Colgate (a Company). i heard people even saying to the Shopkeeper, "Give me a Pepsodant colgate" Both are competing product, but Colgate just became too generic.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by akbarali.ch

Discussion was about the term "Appstore", a branding by a company. Just like Nokia has Ovi store, its a brand, Google has Google Play, again a brand, which is the whole point of the lawsuit and this discussion, not the website listing softwares. You can have your appstore, only, Apple doesn't like them calling Appstore, the branding popularized by Apple but that brand became so popular, so common and so fast that it just became a generic word for all. Nothing personal buddy, i'm just putting my point here.
Another similar cases, for most part of my life i would make Xerox copy of the documents, it was very late i realized the process is actually called photocopy and Xerox is Company, a brand.
Same way, here in India in the early days, nobody called Toothpaste, they asked for Colgate (a Company). i heard people even saying to the Shopkeeper, "Give me a Pepsodant colgate" Both are competing product, but Colgate just became too generic.

You're missing the point.

Google Play is not the same as App Store.

And ultimately - Amazon isn't even using App Store. They are using AmazonAppstore (graphically) and Appstore for Android.

Apple's main contention is customer confusion. Explain again how a customer would be confused between Apple's App Store and Amazon's?

----------

Originally Posted by rjohnstone

I agree, neither are great names.
They are simple to remember though.
Google's decision to change Android Market to Google Play is odd, but it is more than an Android app store now, so it does make a little sense.

Exactly. You play with an App, you play music, you play movies. Ok - you don't play books. But ultimately - Google Play works (for me) than just App Store.

Personally - iTunes (and I know I've said this elsewhere and gotten slammed for it) is limiting. iTunes sells so much more than music now. Yet the store AND the icon depict music only.

[I WAS the one]

must show that in trade, consumers and other potential buyers associate the mark you're trying to register to you and you only.

High school pass by, everybody used "Programs".. College pass by and still using "Programs" even my teachers and professors used "Programs" EVEN WHEN WINDOWS ME OR NT USED TO LABEL FOLDERS WITH THE WORD APPS.

Nobody used "Apps" back in the days. Be real.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by I WAS the one

High school pass by, everybody used "Programs".. College pass by and still using "Programs" even my teachers and professors used "Programs" EVEN WHEN WINDOWS ME OR NT USED TO LABEL FOLDERS WITH THE WORD APPS.

Nobody used "Apps" back in the days. Be real.

"Apps" and "applications" were lesser used term, but still common parlance. It's much the same as "software" in that regard. If Apple used "software store" instead of "app store", would Apple be allowed to trademark what's ultimately a descriptive phrase?

No, they wouldn't. It'd be much the same situation as they're in now. It doesn't matter how often or how little it was used in the past. Word usage changes over time. Apps, applications, programs, and software have been terms bandied about since practically the dawn of the computer age.

Apple didn't invent the word, rather they popularized it so "apps" eventually replaced "programs" as the go-to blanket word for computer code. You can give them credit for that, but it still doesn't allow them to claim ownership of "App Store".

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

App Store has not achieved secondary meaning, heck I don't think Apple has even pushed that angle at all yet, which is the only way to get it granted at this point.

Actually, "secondary meaning" (aka "acquired distinctiveness") is how they got the mark approved for publication in the first place. From my previous post:

• 2008 Jul - Apple applies for trademark
• 2009 Mar - USPTO denies trademark, stating: "REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE".
• 2009 Sep - Apple switches tactics and amends application, now claiming Acquired Distinctiveness.
• 2009 Dec - use approved pending opposition
• 2010 Jul - Microsoft files opposition

Apologies if it was confusing.

But to do that, they'll have to win over Amazon first it seems since the USPTO has stayed their procedures and await the trial's outcome (which is completely upside down if you ask me).

Plus, Microsoft is the one who gave opposition at the USPTO. They agreed with Apple to wait for the Amazon trial to be over. We don't know if Microsoft will continue to press their case if Amazon loses, or just adjust their arguments.

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by melendezest

I do recall Apple doing something similar with the term iPhone and iOS.

These names aren't descriptive and are valid trademarks, but in this instance the problem Apple faced was that both of these were in use by Cisco.

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_022107b.html

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by I WAS the one

Even if you want to start yelling "Apple wasn't the first using APPS!!!" Argument. Apple was the one that make popular that word.

What rubbish. The term "app" had been in popular use for well over a decade prior to Apple using it.

Eg: "The definition of "killer app" came up during Bill Gates's questioning in the United States v. Microsoft antitrust suit. Bill Gates had written an email in which he described Internet Explorer as a killer app. In the questioning, he said that the term meant "a popular application".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application

That was in 1998 and was already a well known phrase prior to that.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the "Warez" scene of the 90's would also be familiar with the common use of both "appz" and "apps" as well.

This OSNews article traces the term "app" to the early 80's:

http://www.osnews.com/story/24882/Th...the_Programmer

I've been using Macs and Apple products since 1992. I believe the word we used was "Programs".

Well then either you weren't paying attention, you have a selective memory or the term was just more in use with the MS/Intel crowd.

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by slffl

And Amazon is a rain forest.

The rainforest did not file with the USPTO for protection of it's name (to my knowledge anyway).

Android is a robot with a human appearance. What's your point? You obviously don't understand trademarks.

Between Google's use of the term Android and Nexus, they did end up with legal issues with the estate of Philip K. Dick with regards to his book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which was later adapted into the movie Bladerunner).

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Okay. Then explain it to him. Why is Apple valid? What about Pages? Or hey, Windows? Let's throw in Office for good measure?

Why are these allowed, yet App Store isn't?

Until you figure this out, you have absolutely no room to claim someone doesn't understand trademarks.

1. It wasn't "Apple", it was "Apple Computer" and even this resulted in a decades long legal battle with "Apple Records" (The Beatles music label). This dispute is also why it took so long for the Beatles to end up on iTunes.

2. It's "Microsoft Windows" and "Microsoft Office".

[1=1?]

Revolutionary!

No really. Someone should start a suing company that just trade marks "store", "place", "site", "phone" and "service" and just make billions off of suing and force the stupid competition to stop being so uncreative!

[I WAS the one]

you have a selective memory or the term was just more in use with the MS/Intel crowd.

Apple made the word popular. Understand the word popular didnt means that all geeks use it on their social circles... Popular as the really cool thing everyone wants because is something you can do with your cool Phone. Really Popular. Not geek popular.

Apple make that word popular. Not Bill Gates, not Xerox or whatever you can find in wikipedia to backup your comment. Apps is something you now hear in a dance club conversation after the word "cool" when someone is showing what the new phone can do with the pictures.

Grow up. Be real. Apple was the one who shows the real world what an App was.

----------

Originally Posted by Renzatic

"Apps" and "applications" were lesser used term, but still common parlance. It's much the same as "software" in that regard. If Apple used "software store" instead of "app store", would Apple be allowed to trademark what's ultimately a descriptive phrase?

No, they wouldn't. It'd be much the same situation as they're in now. It doesn't matter how often or how little it was used in the past. Word usage changes over time. Apps, applications, programs, and software have been terms bandied about since practically the dawn of the computer age.

Apple didn't invent the word, rather they popularized it so "apps" eventually replaced "programs" as the go-to blanket word for computer code. You can give them credit for that, but it still doesn't allow them to claim ownership of "App Store".

Apple didn't invent the word, rather they popularized it so "apps" eventually replaced "programs" as the go-to blanket word for computer code

Thanks. You said it best than I did.