Judge Skeptical of Apple's 'Appstore' Trademark Claims

[h0mi]

Isn't the term "droid" licensed from lucasarts?

 

[Dbrown]

No, you are wrong. Trademarking "Application Store" would be like trademarking "Grocery Store". To make your analogy correct, you must compare App Store to Groc Store. I think you can trademark Groc Store - it's an invented word. App is an invented word. It is NOT just the shortening of "application" like "Dr." is a shortening for doctor or drive. While the word "app" may be commonly used in technology circles, Apple is the first and only company to trademark its use as "App Store". Apple should be able to protect that special combination.

Your analogy is wrong. The correct analogy would be: app store is to application store as gas station is to gasoline station.

Your example of "groc store" is nonsensical. No one says "groc" as a quick way to say "grocery."

 

[Oletros]

Isn't the term "droid" licensed from lucasarts?

Yes, Verizon licensed it.

 

[Lennholm]

I became common because of the millions of dollars Apple spent marketing the name of their store. Just like people tend to call mp3 players ipods another term that became common because Apple marketed the name to everyone and made it desirable.

I can't recall ever hearing any one refer to their music player as an iPod that wasn't actually an iPod. People used to do that with "Walkman" though.

If I were steve jobs, my initial complain would be that the first two letters would be vowels. iApp doesn't sound 100% clear.

Apple have been using the term "iApps" for a long time to collectively referr to iLife and iWork applications.

Trademarking the term "App Store" is like trademarking the word "Windows" oh wait thats already been done... Microcrap got away with trademarking the generic Windows so Apple should get App Store its only fair


when I hear the term Windows I think of the glass box in my living room, bedrooms, etc that I open and close....

This doesn't make sense, in your last sentence you acknowledge that "Windows" is not a descriptive term for an operating system.
You don't say "Windows" is windows, you say "Windows" is an operating system
You don't say "Word" is a word, you say "Word" is a word processing application
You don't say "Numbers" is numbers, you say "Numbers" is a spreadsheet application
You DO say "App Store" is an app store, which testifies to the problem with the name.
I have always thought of the term "app store" (since I first heard it sometime back in the 90's) as a service where you can buy software. This is how the general public think of it today.
Just because Apple fans on these boards associate it closely with Apple doesn't mean the general public does.

I think the term should be reserved as a descriptive term, just as "operating system" and "web browser" isn't possible to trademark

Haters gonna hate. Which a lot of you seem to be doing. No one copied windows name because Apple was more creative than that and came up with their own Mac. The same should again apply. Let Amazon use Application store but the shortened version of app store is slang, there for not generic.

Apple never copies anyone, everyone copies Apple.

Eh, so "Windows" was uncreative? Then how do you feel about "Pages", "Numbers" or just throwing an "i" in front of "Photo", "Movie", "Work", "Phone", "DVD" etc?

 

[davelanger]

How about the original applicant for the trademark of AppStore then ?



Notice the date. AppStore or App Store is not something Apple invented. It's a descriptive phrase that is used to describe the service provided by a place that sells applications, like Grocery Store, Hardware Store, Container Store (and their trademarked logo, not name).

Anyway, Steve Jobs basically lost this lawsuit on his own in less than 2 minutes during a Earning's call earlier this year :



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

So much for that.



And Apple is a fruit. Trademarks can use generic words without any problems, it's the field they are applied to that matters. In this case, App Store's problem is that it is descriptive. It is an "App Store", a place that sells applications.

However, Apple computers is not a company that makes fruit based biological computers. Windows is not a glass pane that you put on a building or a graphical square on screen that contains other controls to create a user interface. If you want to have a descriptive mark, you usually trademark it as a logo, which while it has to be unique, doesn't stop others from using the descriptive nature of the phrase.

I am guessing you missed the Abandonment Date November 24, 2000 part.

If it was not generic back then, when apple applied for it then it should still not be generic right? This makes apples case stronger.

 

[KnightWRX]

I am guessing you missed the Abandonment Date November 24, 2000 part.

Nope, I didn't. If you followed the context of that post you're quoting, the poster I was responding to said Apple was the first to use App and Store together. I was proving him wrong with Sage's trademark application as proof.

If it was not generic back then, when apple applied for it then it should still not be generic right? This makes apples case stronger.

The fact someone else applied it then abandonned it doesn't mean it's not descriptive nor does it mean anything in the case of Apple. You're looking too deep into it. All it means is either Sage never went through the full registration process or no one opposed it during the opposition phase nor was it ever challenged in court.

Notice though how it was abandonned 2 years after filing. Apple's current filing is on its 3rd year. That should tell you something right there, Sage never got the trademark officially registered.

Again, you're looking way too deep into this, it means nothing as far as the current discussion or case goes, beyond proving wrong all the posters who like to claim Apple was first with App Store.

Welcome to the thread a few weeks late and a dollar short though.

 

[davelanger]

Nope, I didn't. If you followed the context of that post you're quoting, the poster I was responding to said Apple was the first to use App and Store together. I was proving him wrong with Sage's trademark application as proof.



The fact someone else applied it then abandonned it doesn't mean it's not descriptive nor does it mean anything in the case of Apple. You're looking too deep into it. All it means is either Sage never went through the full registration process or no one opposed it during the opposition phase nor was it ever challenged in court.

Notice though how it was abandonned 2 years after filing. Apple's current filing is on its 3rd year. That should tell you something right there, Sage never got the trademark officially registered.

Again, you're looking way too deep into this, it means nothing as far as the current discussion or case goes, beyond proving wrong all the posters who like to claim Apple was first with App Store.

Welcome to the thread a few weeks late and a dollar short though.

People are not claiming apple coined the term app store, they are saying Apple make it popular and a house hold name. And just because one company did and abandoned it, does not mean anyone even heard of that company ever using the term.

Apple is the one who made app store a big name.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

People are not claiming apple coined the term app store, they are saying Apple make it popular and a house hold name. And just because one company did and abandoned it, does not mean anyone even heard of that company ever using the term.

Apple is the one who made app store a big name.

Making it popular does not change the fact if a name is generic. Also look how you use app store in your own sentences. you used the term generically which is more proof that it can not be trademark.

Apple "App Store" is a what? Oh an app store. Hence the reason it is generic term and therefor can not be trademarked Apple could and more than likely will trademark the font they use for it but that is about it.

 

[KnightWRX]

People are not claiming apple coined the term app store

Some did and I was proving them wrong.

they are saying Apple make it popular and a house hold name.

Irrelevant to trademarks and this discussion in general and the sub-thread you are quoting from.

And just because one company did and abandoned it, does not mean anyone even heard of that company ever using the term.

Still means that Apple weren't first, like some posters claimed.

Apple is the one who made app store a big name.

Irrelevant to trademarks and this discussion in general and the sub-thread you are quoting from.

Again, please read the thread before participating. Out of context quoting only means you are completely off-topic. My post had a context and you've responded to it in an entirely different context. Of course what I said doesn't fit in your context, it doesn't make you right nor does it make my post wrong.