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

[KnightWRX]

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

----------



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

I'm not picking a fight, I'm asking you to please have the respect to read the historical data before forcing us to re-post things we've already posted.

And I'm presently changing a disk on an old RP9000 system, so I have to wait for LVM to reduce the mirror copies. So yes, you could call that "lack of other activities".

----------

Again, because you disagree with what I (and others) are saying. Too bad.

It's not about disagreement, it's about having proved the statement wrong with citations and having to do it again, and again, and again. If you have any citations to discredit already posted evidence, do so. But don't ignore outright evidence and citations already provided just to come back and remake a claim that was debunked.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

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

Absolutely. Should the name "Internet Explorer" be trademarked? That's pretty descriptive as well. The internet is a common term, and exploring the internet is a common activity by many. So how can combining those two common, descriptive terms be something that can be trademarked but The App Store cannot?

Apple should just argue that the term "App" in "The App Store" is simply a shortened form of "Apple". Perhaps that would sway a judge more than the arguments that have already been presented? LOL

 

[TMar]

I disagree the term 'appstore' is not generic at all.

It was almost never been used before apple decided to call it's programs for it's phones apps. There were many software stores online and many didn't shorten applications to apps at all! I mean come on just because it's simple doesn't mean there aren't other names, every other company has thought of something original to call their outlets with no issues.

I mean they could have called it appshop, softstore or any number of variations on a theme. Amazon are guilty of copying, now whether that is illegal is a whole different debate and that is presumably what the court wants answered. I think it's fine for amazon to call their store whatever they want but they have to admit they are copying to get customers in the door. Sadly for amazon their name is not synonymous with quality and I think apple feels they are misleading the public into believing they will get an apple like experience.

I also have to say apples app stores are still lacking after an initial revelation the usability hasn't improved and needs a massive rethink.

You're one of those people. 'I've never heard the term used so I KNOW it's not common.' It's been proven time and time again. I used the term regularly growing up which very much predates the iphone...

 

[KnightWRX]

Absolutely. Should the name "Internet Explorer" be trademarked?

No, neither of those are descriptive. Again, things we've been over already. Windows is not a bunch of panes of glass, Internet Explorer is not exploring anything.

Amazon is also not descriptive, it's not a women that lives in a primitive jungle type setting, nor is Apple a fruit that falls from a tree for both those companies.

*sigh*.

 

[whooleytoo]

Mushy Grounds™ coffee shop anyone?

Woo, great idea. How about "Moral High Grounds(tm)". It's a coffee shop where you can buy coffee grounds which give you a moral (/legal) high?

Back on topic, I would argue the fairest, most logical scenario would be:

- Amazon can't have an mobile software store called "App Store". One so-named already exists, and could lead to confusion.
- Amazon can call it "Amazon App Store", since it's clearly distinct from Apple's.
- Amazon can use the term "app store" as a description of their service, just not as a title.

 

[Renzatic]

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?

Hmm. Generally, "apps" have become a term that's ubiquitous for mobile applications, with software and programs being used more for traditional desktop/laptop applications (though there is some bleed through between the two these days).

I guess the question here would be if Apple was directly responsible for making it as such, and therefore has earned the right to the term through secondary meaning, or if it just kinda came about regardless, with the iPhone only giving it a boost into common usage.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

No, neither of those are descriptive.

They're not? The term "internet" is not descriptive of, well, the internet? It's a noun just like shoe, app, and grocery. Explorer is also not a noun that inherently describes the activity of exploring? Do you think a window shop in Arizona can call itself Windows Explorers, and if not, why not?

 

[samcraig]

Woo, great idea. How about "Moral High Grounds(tm)". It's a coffee shop where you can buy coffee grounds which give you a moral (/legal) high?

Back on topic, I would argue the fairest, most logical scenario would be:

- Amazon can't have an mobile software store called "App Store". One so-named already exists, and could lead to confusion.
- Amazon can call it "Amazon App Store", since it's clearly distinct from Apple's.
- Amazon can use the term "app store" as a description of their service, just not as a title.

Amazon calls their store the AmazonAppStore

One word. And with Amazon on it. Further - on their website, they state "Amazon Appstore for Android"

I think it's pretty clear.

 

[576316]

Meh, I think this is fair. "Appstore" is not a real word therefore it could be considered a trademark and they should have trademark rights to it. I understand that "App Store" would be silly as it's generic, but putting the words together as one could be considered a trademark I suppose.

 

[samcraig]

They're not? The term "internet" is not descriptive of, well, the internet? It's a noun just like shoe, app, and grocery. Explorer is also not a noun that inherently describes the activity of exploring? Do you think a window shop in Arizona can call itself Windows Explorers, and if not, why not?

Well - quite frankly - someone is free to call a new browser they created internet explorer and then challenge Microsoft.

No one has. So the point is moot.

Conversely - there are companies that are challenging Apple. So there you go.

----------

Meh, I think this is fair. "Appstore" is not a real word therefore it could be considered a trademark and they should have trademark rights to it. I understand that "App Store" would be silly as it's generic, but putting the words together as one could be considered a trademark I suppose.

Apple doesn't use AppStore as one word. They use it as two

 

[Renzatic]

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

Actually, MS just has a trademark for "Windows" alone.

...though it can't be considered generic because MS isn't running a windows company.

Really, I think this is the core issue that needs to be addressed moreso than anything. Why some generic and descriptive terms are valid, and others aren't. Like why I'd be able to make a cell phone charger and call it simply "Gas Station", but an actual gas station can't trademark the term by itself for their own business.

It's all about how it's used, what it's used for, and who it's aimed at. It can get pretty nebulous.

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Hmm. Generally, "apps" have become a term that's ubiquitous for mobile applications

Yes, ubiquitous thanks to Apple and nobody else. That is one good reason why the trademark should be allowed to stand.

 

[unplugme71]

No this again..

Most of the time (personally) when I say "it's on the app store" they automatically think the store on iOS if it's something on Android I usually say the google store.

isn't it marketplace or is that windows?

 

[TMar]

Hmm. Generally, "apps" have become a term that's ubiquitous for mobile applications, with software and programs being used more for traditional desktop/laptop applications (though there is some bleed through between the two these days).

I guess the question here would be if Apple was directly responsible for making it as such, and therefore has earned the right to the term through secondary meaning, or if it just kinda came about regardless, with the iPhone only giving it a boost into common usage.

Okay. So when I want to develop a iOS app I should be looking for the ADK on Apple's site and not the SDK right? Not calling you out on it but everyone gets hung up on these terms and at the end of the day they are all interchangeable. Fruit ninja on my iphone is a piece of software, it's a program, it's an application and it's an app.

Hmm. Generally, "apps" have become a term that's ubiquitous for mobile applications, with software and programs being used more for traditional desktop/laptop applications (though there is some bleed through between the two these days).

I guess the question here would be if Apple was directly responsible for making it as such, and therefore has earned the right to the term through secondary meaning, or if it just kinda came about regardless, with the iPhone only giving it a boost into common usage.

See above^

 

[Dr McKay]

Yes, ubiquitous thanks to Apple and nobody else. That is one good reason why the trademark should be allowed to stand.

That's not how Trademark law works. Just because they took something that has existed for decades and made it more popular, doesn't mean they get to trademark it.

 

[Renzatic]

Well - quite frankly - someone is free to call a new browser they created internet explorer and then challenge Microsoft.

No one has. So the point is moot.

Same thing could apply to Safari, Chrome, or Opera. All those are generic terms. Why isn't the entire internet browsing community had their collective asses sued off yet?

...it's because Safari isn't something you'd use out in the Serengeti (besides browsing the internet). Chrome doesn't have a single bit of actual shiny chrome in it, and Opera has nothing to do with operas.

 

[samcraig]

Yes, ubiquitous thanks to Apple and nobody else. That is one good reason why the trademark should be allowed to stand.

The trademark isn't for just the word apps. And around we go....

 

[Apple Key]

Hmm. Generally, "apps" have become a term that's ubiquitous for mobile applications, with software and programs being used more for traditional desktop/laptop applications (though there is some bleed through between the two these days).

I guess the question here would be if Apple was directly responsible for making it as such, and therefore has earned the right to the term through secondary meaning, or if it just kinda came about regardless, with the iPhone only giving it a boost into common usage.

I would argue that Apple has done that. But I don't know if it can be successfully proven.

 

[KnightWRX]

They're not? The term "internet" is not descriptive of, well, the internet? It's a noun just like shoe, app, and grocery. Explorer is also not a noun that inherently describes the activity of exploring? Do you think a window shop in Arizona can call itself Windows Explorers, and if not, why not?

It's not about particular words in the trademark, it's if the whole trademark is descriptive.

- App Store - A store that sells apps.
- Internet Explorer - Not an explorer of the Internet.

First one is descriptive, second one isn't. We've covered this sooooooo many times.... why.... again....

 

[jephrey]

a gas distributor opens a chain of stores

They have an additive to their gas so it only works with their branded vehicles.

*It's in the US where the term petrol has been used but not commonly - the other places call it gas, but this store has historically used the term petrol over gas.

They name the outlets "petro-store". Maybe there were even a few places that used the term petro-store in the past but they came and went. Of course there are even gas stations around that use the term petrol all the time.

So with an analogy like this, should they be able to TM "petro-store"?

Personally, I think it's valid to want to TM your store name even if it's fairly common or had been used in the past, you didn't invent it or coin it but when you came to market with it, you were the only real player with the name. At the same time, I think you just have to accept that if the TM office doesn't approve it then others will use it.

 

[Apple Key]

Believe me, no one would want the trademark for Internet Explorer anyways.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, ubiquitous thanks to Apple and nobody else. That is one good reason why the trademark should be allowed to stand.

Except again for all the articles, screenshots and every else we've unearthed that predates Apple use of it for their own Apps on their own mobile platform. The term does not come from Apple....

And no, being the first one to use it (even if Apple were) is not a good reason why the trademark should be allowed to stand at all. There is only 1 reason it in the trademark rules, and that is if your Descriptive Trademark has achieved Secondary Meaning.

 

[Apple Key]

a gas distributor opens a chain of stores

They have an additive to their gas so it only works with their branded vehicles.

*It's in the US where the term petrol has been used but not commonly - the other places call it gas, but this store has historically used the term petrol over gas.

They name the outlets "petro-store". Maybe there were even a few places that used the term petro-store in the past but they came and went. Of course there are even gas stations around that use the term petrol all the time.

So with an analogy like this, should they be able to TM "petro-store"?

Personally, I think it's valid to want to TM your store name even if it's fairly common or had been used in the past, you didn't invent it or coin it but when you came to market with it, you were the only real player with the name. At the same time, I think you just have to accept that if the TM office doesn't approve it then others will use it.

That is a good example. But what if they called it Pet-Store?

 

[lolkthxbai]

Most of the time (about 90% of the time), people don't get the difference. After having worked at Staples for about 2 years now, I've always had to explain the difference between the ios AppStore and the Amazon AppStore. People think its the same thing and believe they can get the same apps from iOS on the Amazon Kindle Fire. It's actually really annoying and I'm glad google named their marketplace differently. I hope this gets resolved in Apple's favor. I'm tired of explaining myself.

 

[whooleytoo]

Amazon calls their store the AmazonAppStore

One word. And with Amazon on it. Further - on their website, they state "Amazon Appstore for Android"

I think it's pretty clear.

I agree. If the Amazon is included there seem to be little scope for confusion on the part of the consumer or complaint on the part of Apple.