Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple: Amazon's Appstore Isn't an 'App Store'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No... they were not granted the trademark.
It's still in the opposition phase.
No registration number has been issued.
The mark is not "officially' theirs until they get a registration number.
What a stupid joke. How is the judge not laughing about this. It's the most generic term out there. I'm all for protecting yourself against competition but this is ludicrous. Apple needs to chill and come up with a better term or don't. Nobody will care.
Even though Apple revolutionised the terms, Apple should give up on this.
I have realised, the term 'App Store' is way generic and Apple shouldn't fight for such a thing. Give it up Apple.
I have realised, the term 'App Store' is way generic and Apple shouldn't fight for such a thing. Give it up Apple.
The application was granted, however, allowing them to use a TM symbol and go after Amazon.
In any case, they have three years of prior use which renders this a little moot.
Well the trademark battle will be based in part on how commonly used the term was. It is more generic today than it was years ago. I think simply stating it existed years ago isn't enough to invalidate the trademark. Another company had a trademark on it years ago as a figure/logo rather than text/name though. Anyway I don't think that if it is shown that some small segment of the internet community used the term, that it will be defined as "common". That is my opinion anyway. So far no one has convinced me otherwise and I'm sure people who feel differently than myself will not be convinced by my opinion. I'm not trying to wage a legal battle so I really don't care if people agree or not.
Anyway it is "app store", not "app" that is the issue.
This is one of those issues that I am rather neutral on. I'm curious to see how it turns out. I can understand Apple wanting to fight for its trademark. And I can understand others declaring it is generic now but once again we see the same trend of Apple making something popular and others following. The anti-apple argument is always "well someone else did x first". But in reality apple took the chance with large scale implementation. Take tablets for instance. Sure there were tablets before but Apple dove in with full commitment and large scale production instead of testing the waters with a small run like others. Suddenly netbooks are scaled back by the competition in favor of tablets. Same with the iphone. And out of that came the true emergence of apps as all society recognizes today. Apple trademarked the app store in the process. Apps are now common on non-apple devices but we don't see any originality in the competition. No one could come up with a unique name for them? Not even the store? It is typical.
Anyway it should be interesting to see how it unfolds.
QFT!
people say can your iphones do this and yes "there's an app for that"
if Amazon and the others start selling Apple Apps it might not be as confusing but people can (and very easily) be confused thinking they can buy Apps off Amazon or others and they'll work with their iPhone/Pads/Pods.
Amazon and others are simply using the terminology that Apple has coined into Pop Culture usage and hoping people think when they buy a non-Apple product and hear they can use Apps from this App Store that they are going to get Apple's Apps experience and they wont.
If Apple coined BubbaJibba and used BubbaJibba Store and Amazon wanted to use Amazon BubbaJibba Store for their stuff if would be the like. App is an abbreviated term for Application which Amazon could EASILY use instead of App but uses App because Apple made it popular.
Whew!! Bubbajibba
Game. Set. Match in your mind perhaps.
That's hardly classified as confusion - especially since the odds in your FRIEND knowing what phone you own is pretty much a guarantee.
You just showed him the game.
The "confusion" in manufactured drama by those insisting that Apple should own a trademark on a generic term. A term SO generic- that even the CEO referred to it generically.
How's that for Game. Set. Match?
It really is their own dumb fault. It's comparable to if they had called iTunes the "mp3 store". So then they go ahead and sue anyone who tries to sell mp3's and has the audacity to pair the word "mp3" with the word "store".
For the record, I have had folders in my programs files directory called "games" "apps" since sometime around 1993.
I just thought of a business plan. I am going to start selling sneakers at a website I will name the "sneaks store". I will then sue anyone trying to sell "sneaks" and claim that it is too confusing for the consumer. Actually, perhaps I will just trademark every common abbreviation for every commonly used term, then when these big companies want to use them I will start raking in my billions.
Sorry if any of my arguments didn't make sense. It's impossible to proofread my posts on this glossy screen.
For the record, I have had folders in my programs files directory called "games" "apps" since sometime around 1993.
I just thought of a business plan. I am going to start selling sneakers at a website I will name the "sneaks store". I will then sue anyone trying to sell "sneaks" and claim that it is too confusing for the consumer. Actually, perhaps I will just trademark every common abbreviation for every commonly used term, then when these big companies want to use them I will start raking in my billions.
Sorry if any of my arguments didn't make sense. It's impossible to proofread my posts on this glossy screen.
Which Matress Warehouse got my business when I bought a mattress?
Two of those logos are from the same parent company. One is a different entity entirely. It causes confusion, but one can't sue the other over the name (and win) because "Mattress Warehouse" is too generic. Both have tried to gain exclusive use of the name. Both have failed.
Anyone can use the TM mark the moment they file the application.
However they do not need any permission form the USPTO to use it.
Something like that. Apple's official legal page puts its description as "The App Store."
Mentioned Apple due to Amazon's attempt to dilute an established trademark.
The problem is, no established company used the term, until Apple made it work with the iPhone.
Perhaps Amazon should give up their 1-click trademark.
"Pre-owned" car dealership, not used.
Actually you can't use that analogy because "burgers" is one word. Let me fix if for you.
I see your point. For instance, on my iPhone I have an App Store, a revolutionary term for a revolutionary store, and on my Mac I have an App Store, more revolution. But to buy applications from my Mac for my iPhone, I have to open iTunes, go into the iTunes Store and click on App Store. That's two one-of-a-kind App Stores on the same machine. Are these two stores the same? I'm so confused. I need a TM so I know which one is the real store.
Help me Apple, you're my only hope.
1. App Store is a brand associated with Apple and iOS devices, and has been used as such in the marketplace for three years.
2. If your friend needs to know what phone you have to know what app store you mean, then then brand App Store has been diminished, and there is newfound consumer confusion.
As I said before, we can decide to think that granting them a trademark is or isn't valid (both points of view have arguments here, imo), or that the term is too generic and it's just Too Bad for Apple (as you've argued up above).
But what can't be argued is that Amazon releasing an "Appstore" helps create consumer confusion around that term. No qualifier -- needing to know what phone somebody has, qualifying with "the app store" vs. "app store" -- changes this.
Several different arguments in play around this whole thing -- the moral correctness of the system, the real world effects of usage, etc. -- and they often get conflated. All discrete issues to be argued separately, imo.
Sorry but we have gone over these countless times before and already been shown that nope you are wrong.
So going in my sig.
More on topic. MS is not the only company fighting Apple on App store being generic. You should look at Europe and see the list fighting Apple getting it trade market. I want to say you have MS, Amazon, Nokia, Google, Sony and I think a few others all objecting to it. All using the argument that app store is generic and therefor can not be trademarked. Apple is going to loss this battle and really this defense by Apple is pretty weak.
I think PocketGear.com has been using the term "app" in conjunction with "marketplace" since well before the iPhone was even released. I used to buy "apps" there for my Treo and before that my Jornada. If that's the case, maybe Apple's claim fails the test of trademark "first use".
In any case, I think this is a weak argument that is doing nothing but generating ill will in the industry. They should concede and move on to protecting their business against IP trolls like Lodsys rather than becoming one themselves.
In any case, I think this is a weak argument that is doing nothing but generating ill will in the industry. They should concede and move on to protecting their business against IP trolls like Lodsys rather than becoming one themselves.
The list is too long to post. Go visit the store and see for yourself.
http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b/ref=sa_menu_adr_app4?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011
How unfortunate that there are still poor fools in this world who might mistakenly think Apple would subscribe to a free market system of software distribution.
Maybe once the Mac App Store kills off third party distribution for Apple devices entirely they won't need to worry about anyone being confused...
