Apple: Amazon's Appstore Isn't an 'App Store'

[BC2009]

Windows is a not a descriptive term when it relates to computer operating systems. What you are searching for is Windowing System. Operating systems have nothing to do with Windows, the UI element.

We can agree to disagree. I fully remember referring to the Mac OS classic as running a "Windows Operating System" -- I'm pretty sure the term "Windowing Systems" came later to distinguish from Microsoft Windows.

No it's not. A windowing system and a Window UI element is quite different from an operating system. If Apple trademarked Apps to refer to those applications you install on iOS, that would be akin to Microsoft trademarking "Operating System" as the name of their next version of Windows.

Yes, but if Apple used the term "Apps" to as the name of their "App Store" it would be equivalent to using "Windows" to describe a "Windows Operating System". The term "App Store" is more specific than "Apps", but still generic and descriptive.

None of those are descriptive and if you look carefully, most of those are probably trademarks on the respective logos.

Actually, you should look a bit more carefully. The term "logo" follows all those that are logo trademarks. Those that are trademarks on phrases omit the word "logo" (e.g.: "Smile Logo" or "Shopping Cart with Border Logo" are trademarks on logos). My favorite of those is "Procurement Web Services" and "Relational Database Services". But still there are many generic terms.

Finally, use multi-quote next time, consecutive posts are against the forum rules.

Sorry I failed to scroll down before responding -- but I do know the forum rules. If I could merge them after the fact I would have.

I am not arguing that "App Store" is not generic and descriptive. It is. Apple just made it popular. What I am arguing is that the USPTO grants these kind of trademarks all the time even to some of the guys who are challenging it. People complain of Apple trying to go after people for using "App Store" and say that "some folks don't go after others for using their trademarks". The truth of trademark law is that if you do not protect your trademark (or desired pending-trademark) then you lose it. So any failure on Amazon's part to enforce their generic descriptive trademarks could lead to them losing those trademarks.

So before we all go crying that Apple is trying trademark a generic descriptive term, let's look at the fact that their is much precedent for the same thing -- and there should not be. Maybe the madness should stop here, but I'd like to see it stop for everybody.

Finally, however this goes (granted trademark or denied trademark) it won't matter to any of us a week later.

 

[KnightWRX]

We can agree to disagree. I fully remember referring to the Mac OS classic as running a "Windows Operating System" -- I'm pretty sure the term "Windowing Systems" came later to distinguish from Microsoft Windows.

Nope, Windowing system is what the industry referred to. That you got the terminology wrong back in the days is anecdotal and irrelevent. Windows Operating System only refers to Microsoft's Windows operating system, not to any other windowing system out there, nor did they change their terminology in light of Microsoft's trademark.

Yes, but if Apple used the term "Apps" to as the name of their "App Store" it would be equivalent to using "Windows" to describe a "Windows Operating System". The term "App Store" is more specific than "Apps", but still generic and descriptive.

We're in highly speculative theoritory now since this is not happening. However, i'd say to be analogous, it would depend on enforcement. Would Apple then go after Amazon still for calling their stuff Amazon AppStore ?

Microsoft does not go after the X-Window System, nor any other operating systems vendor that offer Window based GUIs for their systems when they refer to the UI elements as windows.

So if the enforcement was as lax as Microsoft's (since their trademark is on an OS, something not a Window UI element or a windowing-system) then I'd say it would be ok as the term would not be descriptive. If they kept enforcing it the same way, I would say it wouldn't be analogous at all.

Actually, you should look a bit more carefully. The term "logo" follows all those that are logo trademarks. Those that are trademarks on phrases omit the word "logo" (e.g.: "Smile Logo" or "Shopping Cart with Border Logo" are trademarks on logos). My favorite of those is "Procurement Web Services" and "Relational Database Services". But still there are many generic terms.

Let's refer to them as typed drawings then. It's the actual drawing with the words that is trademarked, not the words themselves (standard character mark).

I am not arguing that "App Store" is not generic and descriptive. It is. Apple just made it popular.

That does not grant them anymore rights than anybody else to the phrase. And seriously, you still have failed to provide any evidence of the USPTO granting such descriptive terms before.

I was at least expecting you to come up with The Container Store...

 

[mizzytheboy]

Amazon's appstore shouldn't be called appstore because our app store is the app store.

Confusion ensues.

 

[BC2009]

That does not grant them anymore rights than anybody else to the phrase.

Agreed. The phrase is descriptive and according to the fundamental rules of a trademark should not be allowed. If the USPTO denies it, then good for them and I hope for consistent denial of descriptive phrases in the future.

And seriously, you still have failed to provide any evidence of the USPTO granting such descriptive terms before.

And seriously, I disagree -- but that's okay. Not for once did I believe that Apple deserved the trademark based on the non-descriptive unique nature of "App Store". My only beef is that some of the companies doing the complaining have gone after similarly descriptive trademarks and that is a bit hypocritical. I feel that granting "App Store" to Apple would give those other companies a taste of their own medicine.

I am of the opinion that the USPTO should use much more scrutiny on trademarks than it has done in the past. You seem to feel they have done a pretty good job and that "App Store" would be an exception to their consistently fair track record. I feel that "App Store" is right in line with many of the descriptive trademarks they have already granted. I believe that denying "App Store" would be like dipping a ladle in an already over-flowing bathtub when in fact the faucet needs to be shut off.

I doubt that either of us is going to convince the other of our positions; however, I do appreciate the debate, and I appreciate your position -- you make some really good points.

Incidentally.... I feel the same way about software patents. I think companies complain constantly that some other company's patent is obvious and should be declared invalid when they themselves hold and attempt to enforce patents that fall into the same category -- but that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[KnightWRX]

And seriously, I disagree -- but that's okay. Not for once did I believe that Apple deserved the trademark based on the non-descriptive unique nature of "App Store". My only beef is that some of the companies doing the complaining have gone after similarly descriptive trademarks and that is a bit hypocritical. I feel that granting "App Store" to Apple would give those other companies a taste of their own medicine.

And I think you really need to get into the whole Typed Drawing vs Standard Character Mark thing

Apple is going for a standard character mark, where-as the Amazon trademarks you're talking about are Typed Drawings.

 

[BC2009]

And I think you really need to get into the whole Typed Drawing vs Standard Character Mark thing

Apple is going for a standard character mark, where-as the Amazon trademarks you're talking about are Typed Drawings.

Yes, I understand the difference. However, I think we were both basing our opinions on some assumptions on those Amazon trademarks I posted. With some of them it looks like you are correct as some of them are typed drawings whereas I assumed otherwise. Further, some of those that Amazon lists on their trademarks web page are not even in the USPTO database -- I guess that means that they are not registered.

I also think that many of those Amazon trademarks and service marks you think are "Typed Drawings" are actually "Standard Character Marks". I decided do a little research in this regard and here are some of the trademarks and service marks that Amazon pursued and/or was granted that are standard character marks that I think are a bit descriptive (some more than others):

-----
EDIT: The list below formerly contained links, but those were only valid for my active session with the TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) at the USPTO website. You can enter your own search for trademarks pursued or owned by "Amazon Technologies" to find these. Simply go to this url, and click "Search Marks" link on the page and then choose "Basic Word Mark Search".
-----

• Thing (pursued by Amazon, then abandoned after opposition was received)
• All-You-Can-Eat (pursued by Amazon, then abandoned after opposition was received)
• Seller Desktop (granted to Amazon)
• Buy Once, Read Everywhere (granted to Amazon)
• Real Name (granted to Amazon, not sure what they use this for)
• 1-Click Compare (granted to Amazon)
• 1-Click Webstore (granted to Amazon)
• Music You Should Hear (granted to Amazon)
• End User (granted to Amazon)
• Don't Restrict Me (granted to Amazon)

The fact that even pursued "Thing" and "All-You-Can-Eat" is amusing to me. Those were obvious denials, but it did not stop Amazon from trying. The fact that they were granted "End User" is appalling. Some of the others I believe fall into the same "arguable" status as "App Store" (some better and some worse).

This is why I feel that this corporate finger pointing is a joke and why I think the USPTO granting of trademarks and service marks that are generic descriptive terms is more akin to a bathtub that is overflowing with the faucet still running. Denying "App Store" is not going to stop the overflow that many companies (not just Apple) are proliferating.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yes, I understand the difference. However, I think we were both basing our opinions on some assumptions on those Amazon trademarks I posted. With some of them it looks like you are correct as some of them are typed drawings whereas I assumed otherwise. Further, some of those that Amazon lists on their trademarks web page are not even in the USPTO database -- I guess that means that they are not registered.

I also think that many of those Amazon trademarks and service marks you think are "Typed Drawings" are actually "Standard Character Marks". I decided do a little research in this regard and here are some of the trademarks and service marks that Amazon pursued and/or was granted that are standard character marks that I think are a bit descriptive (some more than others):

-----
EDIT: The list below formerly contained links, but those were only valid for my active session with the TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) at the USPTO website. You can enter your own search for trademarks pursued or owned by "Amazon Technologies" to find these. Simply go to this url, and click "Search Marks" link on the page and then choose "Basic Word Mark Search".
-----

• Thing (pursued by Amazon, then abandoned after opposition was received)
• All-You-Can-Eat (pursued by Amazon, then abandoned after opposition was received)
• Seller Desktop (granted to Amazon)
• Buy Once, Read Everywhere (granted to Amazon)
• Real Name (granted to Amazon, not sure what they use this for)
• 1-Click Compare (granted to Amazon)
• 1-Click Webstore (granted to Amazon)
• Music You Should Hear (granted to Amazon)
• End User (granted to Amazon)
• Don't Restrict Me (granted to Amazon)

The fact that even pursued "Thing" and "All-You-Can-Eat" is amusing to me. Those were obvious denials, but it did not stop Amazon from trying. The fact that they were granted "End User" is appalling. Some of the others I believe fall into the same "arguable" status as "App Store" (some better and some worse).

This is why I feel that this corporate finger pointing is a joke and why I think the USPTO granting of trademarks and service marks that are generic descriptive terms is more akin to a bathtub that is overflowing with the faucet still running. Denying "App Store" is not going to stop the overflow that many companies (not just Apple) are proliferating.

kicker is even if they were granted there is a good chance that they would never stand up in court and still thrown out as generic terms.

 

[BC2009]

kicker is even if they were granted there is a good chance that they would never stand up in court and still thrown out as generic terms.

Very true, but it does not stop the big companies from sending cease and desist letters to the little guys. I am more apt to stand up for a little company saying "hey you can't trademark that" and offering opposition to the USPTO than I am to concur with the big-time offenders because they are mad at Apple who is doing the same garbage they themselves are doing.

These court battles can be expensive and just as the court can declare a patent invalid, they can declare a trademark is invalid. But the USPTO granting either gives the one to whom it is granted the stick to go swing at the others with.

 

[caspersoong]

All I think is that Apple's case is weak but they are desperate to reduce user confusion.