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

[AZREOSpecialist]

To be fair - you have now idea what knowledge I possess or not. And the burden of proof is on you. I asked a simple question. The comments you made about trademarks - is that something you researched or read somewhere. Or did you make it up. It's ok if you made it up. In fact, I'd respect you more for admitting so. I think your thoughts are quite common.

I owned and ran a marketing firm in Seattle for a few years, and we filed several trademarks for our clients as well as ourselves. Prior use applies to patents, not trademarks. Someone can use a term all they want and advertise it all they want, but if it is not already trademarked anyone can file a trademark on a term used by someone else. You may be confusing patent rules with trademark rules.

 

[Renzatic]

Is the issue that there were app stores before Apple?

Or is it that no one else trademarked the phrase "App Store" before Apple?

Yeah...I guess you've got a point.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out and trademark "hamburger", "store", "tire", and any other word I can think of. Generic wording be damned! No one else thought trademark them!

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, and just because Palm called it an "App Store" does not invalidate Apple's ability to trademark the term. Failure to trade mark something does not invalidate someone else's ability to trademark the same or similar term down the road. The fruits go to the one who actually filed the papers.

No, again, what invalidates Apple's ability to trademark the term is the fact it is DESCRIPTIVE. Grocery Store, App Store, Shoe Store.

To Trademark a descriptive term, Apple must show that it has achieved Secondary meaning, which they have not done at this point.

We've covered this. Thousands. Of. Times.

 

[samcraig]

I owned and ran a marketing firm in Seattle for a few years, and we filed several trademarks for our clients as well as ourselves. Prior use applies to patents, not trademarks. Someone can use a term all they want and advertise it all they want, but if it is not already trademarked anyone can file a trademark on a term used by someone else. You may be confusing patent rules with trademark rules.

Where am I confusing anything? I haven't stated anything about what is trademarkable. Are you sure you're responding to the right person? I have only commented that this case isn't about the word App. Or who made it popular. Or who used it first.

P.S. - I'm glad you ran a marketing firm for a few years. Fun huh? Not that it matters - but I've been in Marketing and PR for about 22 years.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

SAGE network in 2002.

But no, the ISSUE is not about who came first or what, it's about App Store being DESCRIPTIVE.

Navlet's Nursery is also descriptive - it's a nursery owned by Navlet. But the term "Navlet's Nursery" can absolutely be trademarked. Being descriptive is not, in itself, a disqualifying factor.

----------

No, again, what invalidates Apple's ability to trademark the term is the fact it is DESCRIPTIVE. Grocery Store, App Store, Shoe Store.

To Trademark a descriptive term, Apple must show that it has achieved Secondary meaning, which they have not done at this point.

We've covered this. Thousands. Of. Times.

Doesn't matter, a forum is for open discussion. If you are so annoyed that we are discussing something that you think is a closed issue, you should leave. Change the channel. But please stop complaining about people having a conversation. You seem to be quite intolerant of others...

 

[winston1236]

Yeah... I hate every time I go to a "Gas Station" and I find out it is not Exxon... I know it says BP on the sign but the Gas Station is there - so confusing.

Lol exactly

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

I've been in Marketing and PR for about 22 years.

Congrats! Assuming you haven't dealt much with trademarks in those 22 years...

 

[Laird Knox]

Those same customers who buy a Galaxy Tab thinking it is an iPad? Or the ones buying a Galxy S2 thinking it is an iPhone?

Has that ever actually happened?

From page 1:

Just Sunday I had somebody say to me "I finally broke down and bought a Windows iPhone." When he showed it to me it was an Andriod phone. Nope, no confusion there.

As long as people are involved there will be confusion.

 

[samcraig]

Congrats! Assuming you haven't dealt much with trademarks in those 22 years...

Assume away

 

[Renzatic]

Navlet's Nursery is also descriptive - it's a nursery owned by Navlet. But the term "Navlet's Nursery" can absolutely be trademarked. Being descriptive is not, in itself, a disqualifying factor.

Navlet's Nursery is descriptive of something specific. It's Navlet's Nursery. App Store would be descriptive of a generic concept. Much like...

"Grocery Store"

or

"Tire Warehouse"

or

"Food Cafeteria"

See, I could register Renzatic's Tire Warehouse, and get the rights to it. That doesn't mean I own the term "Tire Warehouse". You could come in and register AZERO's Tire Warehouse and not be in conflict with my trademark in any way whatsoever.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out and trademark "hamburger", "store", "tire", and any other word I can think of. Generic wording be damned! No one else thought trademark them!

If you can trademark something... why not?

 

[KnightWRX]

Navlet's Nursery is also descriptive - it's a nursery owned by Navlet. But the term "Navlet's Nursery" can absolutely be trademarked. Being descriptive is not, in itself, a disqualifying factor.

What's a Navlet ? Navlet's Nursery is not descriptive at all. Nursery is. Navlet's Nursery is specific to Navlet and his nursery, it doesn't describe all nurseries. Grocery Store, App Store, Shoe Store, they all describe all stores that sell Groceries/Apps/Shoes. That's descriptive when talking about trademark rules.

The same reason why Apple App Store or iOS App Store or iTunes App Store is not descriptive in terms of speaking of "Descriptive trademarks". Again, we're discussing trademarks, stick to rules that apply to trademarks.

Doesn't matter, a forum is for open discussion. If you are so annoyed that we are discussing something that you think is a closed issue, you should leave. Change the channel. But please stop complaining about people having a conversation. You seem to be quite intolerant of others...

No, I'm annoyed that we're discussing in circles because some people fail to read what was previously posted, debunked, with citations provided already and that forces others to go back, re-read and re-provide citations. Sometimes, for things posted like 1 or 2 pages ago in the same thread.

That is frankly annoying and a complete lack of respect.

 

[Apple Key]

Navlet's Nursery is descriptive of something specific. It's Navlet's Nursery. App Store would be descriptive of a generic concept. Much like...

"Grocery Store"

or

"Tire Warehouse"

or

"Food Cafeteria"

See, I could register Renzatic's Tire Warehouse, and get the rights to it. That doesn't mean I own the term "Tire Warehouse". You could come in and register AZERO's Tire Warehouse and not be in conflict with my trademark in any way whatsoever.

What if my last name was Food, and I had a place called Food Cafetaria?

 

[Renzatic]

If you can trademark something... why not?

If I can get away with...oh damn, son.

I WILL BUY AND SELL YOU ALL!

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Navlet's Nursery is descriptive of something specific. App Store would be descriptive of a generic idea. Much like...

"Grocery Store"

or

"Tire Warehouse"

or

"Food Cafeteria"

See, I could register Renzatic's Tire Warehouse, and get the rights to it. That doesn't mean I own the term "Tire Warehouse". You could come in and register AZERO's Tire Warehouse and not be in conflict with my trademark in any way whatsoever.

What about Groc Store? Tire Ware? Food Caf? Can those be trademarked? If the answer is yes, then App Store can be trademarked as well. App is a shortened form of "application", much like "groc" is a shortened form of "grocery", "ware" is a shortened form for "warehouse", and "caf" is a shortened form for "cafe". What, those shortened words make no sense? Of course not, because the terms have not been popularized to the point of being common use. This is exactly the same situation Apple was in when they coined the term App Store.

 

[Renzatic]

What if my last name was Food, and I had a place called Food Cafetaria?

Hmmm. We're entering into mushy grounds here.

I guess Food's Cafeteria might be valid, but Food Cafeteria might be too specific, even if it is referencing a name.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

No, I'm annoyed that we're discussing in circles because some people fail to read what was previously posted, debunked, with citations provided already and that forces others to go back, re-read and re-provide citations. Sometimes, for things posted like 1 or 2 pages ago in the same thread.

That is frankly annoying and a complete lack of respect.

Again, change the channel. You seem to want to keep coming back to pick a fight.

----------

That is frankly annoying and a complete lack of respect.

Do you spend too much time in these forums for lack of other activities or do you just take everything personally?

 

[Dr McKay]

In the Microsoft world, "Applications" were known as, "Programs". Apple has always called its, "programs", Applications.

Apple truncated the word, applications, to, App. Then called their new, smaller (file size) applications for iPhone, Apps. Then filed for trademark status of that name, in The App Store.

Microsoft would, theoretically, call their program/s, Prog/s. And hence, The Prog Store. Doesn't sound quite that nice rolling off the tongue, but it would make sense.

Amazon couldn't come up with their own nifty name, so they just "borrowed" Apple's name for their store. Maybe Amazon should have called their store, The DroidApp Store, Drapp Store, Roid Store, The Amazon Store for Little Programs to Run on Android Platform Phones Store.

Just my early morning thoughts. No legal eagle here.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Hmmm. We're entering into mushy grounds here.

Mushy Grounds™ coffee shop anyone?

 

[samcraig]

Again, change the channel. You seem to want to keep coming back to pick a fight.

It's not unreasonable to expect those posting to read (at least) the thread they are posting in before adding their comment. Or at least drop the subject once they have been show it's been discussed before.

And yet - here you (and others) are beating a dead horse.

 

[Renzatic]

What about Groc Store? Tire Ware? Food Caf? Can those be trademarked? If the answer is yes, then App Store can be trademarked as well. App is a shortened form of "application", much like "groc" is a shortened form of "grocery", "ware" is a shortened form for "warehouse", and "caf" is a shortened form for "cafe". What, those shortened words make no sense? Of course not, because the terms have not been popularized to the point of being common use. This is exactly the same situation Apple was in when they coined the term App Store.

True, but "apps" have been common parlance in the computer industry for years and years now. Not just "applications", but yes..."apps" specifically. It wasn't as common, I'll admit. But popularizing a word among a larger group of people doesn't usually give you the rights to it.

Like Knight said, if Apple can prove secondary meaning, then I don't think anyone can argue they have a valid trademark. Thing is, they haven't done that yet, and I don't think they're attempting to do so. As of right now, it's all about how generically descriptive it is.

 

[Apple Key]

Hmmm. We're entering into mushy grounds here.

I guess Food's Cafeteria might be valid, but Food Cafeteria might be too specific, even if it is referencing a name.

I am actually curious about this. I wasn't just being silly.

I'm still thinking that the basic category is called "Software" and not "Apps", even if the term is being used for both. If I think back about it, if a store (before the iPhone came out) were selling programs (or applications), it would be called a software store. Wouldn't it?

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

It's not unreasonable to expect those posting to read (at least) the thread they are posting in before adding their comment. Or at least drop the subject once they have been show it's been discussed before.

And yet - here you (and others) are beating a dead horse.

Again, because you disagree with what I (and others) are saying. Too bad. Just posting a Treo screen shot showing "App Store" does not prove anything because trademarks are far more complex and prior use has little or nothing to do with a trademark's validity. You just don't like the fact that people disagree with you.

 

[Dr McKay]

Next somebody will try to claim ownership of ordinary words, such as windows!

Yea, imagine Microsoft trademarking the name "Microsoft Windows" for a Computer Operating System.

----------

Windows users have called their apps "programs" and its built into windows like program files..."

Mac OS X has used .app since it was launched and in a folder called applications...

Now Apple is popular... everyone wants a bit even though Apple has used app for like 13 years

Microsoft also calls .exes "Applications" and has an "AppData" folder.

 

[samcraig]

Again, because you disagree with what I (and others) are saying. Too bad. Just posting a Treo screen shot showing "App Store" does not prove anything because trademarks are far more complex and prior use has little or nothing to do with a trademark's validity. You just don't like the fact that people disagree with you.

No. That's not it at all. Someone says no one has used app store before apple. And that "needed" to be debunked TWICE. Within 1 page. That's someone not reading.

Disagree with me all you want. No issue there.

Please stop speaking (typing) for me. I'm very capable of explaining what I do and do not like.