For short, people refer to it as the App Store though (omitting the word Amazon).
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 and Amazon Ordered to Enter Settlement Talks Over 'App Store' Trademark Issue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For short, people refer to it as the App Store though (omitting the word Amazon).
Thing is, you'd have to prove it. People have been making apps for years and calling them as such, both for mobile and desktop applications. Apple releases the App Store on the iPhone. People use it, and eventually come around to calling all mobile applications "apps".
Previously, it was an interchangeable term. You used either/or. Now it's not. Does that give Apple the right to term simply because they (directly or indirectly) solidified the term to reference mobile applications through usage?
I don't think it does, and I could list a huge number of various grey area reasons why I think so. Instead, I'll go for the simplest...
It's because no one has the rights to Apps. It's all about flexibility of language here.
The question is not relevant, it doesn't matter who invented the term or who made it popular or whatever. The question which matters is: right now consumers identify "App Store" uniquely with Apple or they identify other stores with it too?
Let me stress again the "right now" part of the question. What was in common usage when the term was introduced, or who was responsible for it is not relevant. The evaluation needs to be made with the current consumer's perception in mind. It could be that a few years ago the term was specific to Apple, so a trademark was perfectly fine, but if now the term has become generic the trademark can be revoked.
That's not Amazon's problem if they have a name that is unique now is it.
AmazonAppStore is very different from App Store. Or Apple App Store. Just because you and others shorten it doesn't make Amazon "liable."
Apple's name was unique. It was the only actively operating application store with such a name. That is, until Amazon opened their store, and decided they wanted to try to take some marketshare away form Apple (of course, their reasoning is irrelevant).
I'm referring to it being verbally shortened.
No. Palm had an App Store.
And Amazon is not using App Store alone.
And again - it doesn't matter what YOU call the store. Amazon is only "liable" for what THEY call the store.
Apps is not, and was not just an Apple term
Infoworld May 21, 1990 -Page 5-Deskview X Lets DOS Use X Windows Apps
EVERYONE knew what it meant, which is why it was used in large circulation trade mags. (Hmmm, if I opened a newsstand, and called it "The Mag Store", could THAT be trademarked?)
Interestingly, Apple has an ad on page 4 of the same issue.
"Apps" was in widespread use as an obvious shortening of Application in the industry LONG before iOS was dreamed of. Store is simply a generic name for a place where goods and services can be ordered or purchased. Apps Store by itself should not be trademarkable.
There is a store in Schaumberg, IL called "The Container Store". I don't know if they were allowed to trademark their name. I hope not. And yes, they primarily sell containers.
Infoworld May 21, 1990 -Page 5-Deskview X Lets DOS Use X Windows Apps
EVERYONE knew what it meant, which is why it was used in large circulation trade mags. (Hmmm, if I opened a newsstand, and called it "The Mag Store", could THAT be trademarked?)
Interestingly, Apple has an ad on page 4 of the same issue.
"Apps" was in widespread use as an obvious shortening of Application in the industry LONG before iOS was dreamed of. Store is simply a generic name for a place where goods and services can be ordered or purchased. Apps Store by itself should not be trademarkable.
There is a store in Schaumberg, IL called "The Container Store". I don't know if they were allowed to trademark their name. I hope not. And yes, they primarily sell containers.
When Apple started their App Store. Palm still ACTIVELY had an App Store.
So Apple wasn't the only one with that name actively, now was it? You said WAS not IS.
Guys, why are we arguing about this? (I know, I know, its fun!! 
)
The case was thrown out. While I never heard of the term App until I started using Apple computers, that doesn't mean that their trademark is valid. They were "programs" coming from Windows. I remember going: "What the HELL is an app???! Oooooh!" when I switched to Macs in '01 (17" Powerbook G4 1Ghz...ahh, memories)
While I see what Apple was trying to do with regards to the term "App Store" (short for "application store" and/or a variation of "Apple Store"), I must agree with some posters here that, while clever, the term may have been too broad to begin with.
Personally, I side with Apple here, but that is irrelevant. The term "app" has now become ubiquitous. They will never win this.
P.D. Is Apple ever allowed to defend their trademarks without being considered evil, greedy, etc, etc? What's the point of getting a trademark, then? You're supposed to defend them.
I mean, what's wrong with calling your store the App Warehouse, App-mazon, App World, or ANY other variant than those 2 words together that someone already has a trademark for? I really don't understand why , with all the possible and clever combinations available, Amazon HAD to go with "app" and "store".
EDIT: Palm had it first. So the above applies to Apple as well.
)The case was thrown out. While I never heard of the term App until I started using Apple computers, that doesn't mean that their trademark is valid. They were "programs" coming from Windows. I remember going: "What the HELL is an app???! Oooooh!" when I switched to Macs in '01 (17" Powerbook G4 1Ghz...ahh, memories)
While I see what Apple was trying to do with regards to the term "App Store" (short for "application store" and/or a variation of "Apple Store"), I must agree with some posters here that, while clever, the term may have been too broad to begin with.
Personally, I side with Apple here, but that is irrelevant. The term "app" has now become ubiquitous. They will never win this.
P.D. Is Apple ever allowed to defend their trademarks without being considered evil, greedy, etc, etc? What's the point of getting a trademark, then? You're supposed to defend them.
I mean, what's wrong with calling your store the App Warehouse, App-mazon, App World, or ANY other variant than those 2 words together that someone already has a trademark for? I really don't understand why , with all the possible and clever combinations available, Amazon HAD to go with "app" and "store".
EDIT: Palm had it first. So the above applies to Apple as well.
Last edited:
Wether the name is generic or not, or wether it causes consumer confusion or not, you cant argue that it was pretty cheap of Amazon to use the same name for their store as Apple. Amazon is a massive company with lots of money to invest in this, so theres really no excuse to not come up with their own, unique, name like Google did with the Google Play Store.
Attachments
Apple's name being "unique" does not make it less descriptive and thus does not prevent Apple having to follow trademark rules in order to get it granted. Then there's the issue of Palm's use of the App Store icon on their devices (use of the term App Store), SAGE network's 2002 trademark for the term Appstore.
And finally, the fact that there's no way for Amazon to take marketshare from Apple has Apple's App Store sells applications only for its devices and Amazon's only for Android devices, both which are not overlapping platforms. A fact that was recognized by the judge when it threw out that portion of Apple's claims against Amazon :
Judge Tosses Apples False Advertising Claims Against Amazon Android Appstore
Consumer perception is only one part of it. I think the rights to term apps itself is the key to understanding this whole situation. Look at it like this...
Apps is just a commonly abbreviated word for applications. Or programs. Or software. All of these are interchangeable with one another. Apps, applications, programs, software. Apple tends to use applications more, Windows programs, but all OSes have references to both in and of themselves. They're descriptive words no one owns a trademark for.
In other words, apps alone is a free for all term. No one has a trademark for it. Anyone can use it.
So basically, what Apple has done is taken a free term, slapped store at the end, and called it their own. If they started the Program Store, would they own the rights to it? The Software Store? They're just descriptive. Of course you're going to buy software in the software store. Or programs. Or apps. Why should any one entity own a descriptive term that's directly related to their field of business? It'd be like Windows trademarking "Operating System Control Panel"
You could argue that Apple has universally used apps more, but it still won't matter. Because Apple doesn't own the trademark for "apps".
And that's what it all comes down to. Unless Apple can prove that consumers equate the App Store directly to them, and it confuses them whenever they see it elsewhere, then they don't have a claim to the term.
----------
...yeah. I can agree with that. It's not like App Store is the ONLY combination of words that can be used for a store that sells apps.
Exactly. Which is why I said earlier in this thread that if there was ever going to be a valid battle - it would be if Amazon and Google found themselves using the same name. Because then, at least, you'd be talking about real financial damages resulting.
The term "app" has been in use for over 30 years in reference to applications. For example, Electric Pencil was a killer app that helped boost the Altair 8800. Visicalc was similarly important to the Apple II, and Lotus 1-2-3 was what boosted the original IBM PC. It's documented all over the place.
App is generic. Store is generic. App store is generic.
App is generic. Store is generic. App store is generic.
I do hope you're being sarcastic.
the Container Store has 5 trademarks :
6 75476151 2470015 THE CONTAINER STORE TSDR LIVE
7 74196476 1713572 THE CONTAINER STORE TSDR LIVE
8 74604750 1940914 THE CONTAINER STORE TSDR LIVE
9 74511018 1911969 THE CONTAINER STORE TSDR LIVE
10 73209963 1164143 THE CONTAINER STORE TSDR LIVE
Of those, 3 are for "TYPED DRAWING", 1 for "DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS" and 1 for "WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS IN STYLIZED FORM"
Apple is trying to register a "STANDARD CHARACTER MARK"
5 77525433 APP STORE TSDR LIVE
Whether you believe it or not, there is customer confusion between the two stores. That is the way that Amazon can (and does) take marketshare away form Apple.
People like to compare things item by item. Here is an example that could occur before someone purchases a device (deciding between Amazon and Apple).
Camera to take photos? Check, they both have it.
Calendar? Check, they both have it.
App Store? Check, they both have it.
Whereas if one had an App Store, and the other one had a Marketplace or Program Store, direct comparison would not be easily drawn for the consumer.
----------
I know they have it copyrighted. That's why I said I hoped that they were being sarcastic. And posted a screenshot of their copyright on their website.
As a matter of law, there is no confusion. Again, a Judge has already ruled on these claims, you cannot change his rulling. Amazon cannot take marketshare away from Apple, unless you have a very easy way to explain to me how to get apps from the Amazon appstore for my iPhone 5 ?
Read the linked AllThingsD article. It's over. Done. Cooked. No Confusion.
I think you just argued yourself wrong.
The way your average customer probably sees it is that they have two devices. One's a Kindle, a well known brand name, and the other's an iPad, another well known brand name. Both of them have...
A camera.
A calender.
And an app store.
It's very, very doubtful someone will look at that and think "ooh, does this App Store play iPad apps"? Probably not. To them, it's likely to be another matching feature. Both of them get apps through their own little app stores.
...and considering the Kindle app store is labeled, rather appropriately, as the Amazon Appstore, there's likely to be even less confusion.
Hum... there was nothing about copyrights in my post nor is this about copyrights. I don't know why you're bringing copyrights into this, we're talking about Trademarks.
Different IP, different rules, different topic. Leave copyrights out of this.
Why Amazon's "Appstore" causes confusion with iPhone users?
I don't get it. Is it because Apple will lose business if iPhone users buy Android app from Amazon?
Can Android app run on iOS ?
I think you just argued yourself wrong.
Forget it, a judge ruled there was no confusion and rejected Apple's claims. Apple Key then comes in and says there is confusion...
Let's see... a Judge... who reviewed all the evidence from both parties, knows trademark law in and out, what constitutes confusion or not, or Apple Key, some forum poster that seems to not understand IP protection schemes well and keeps repeating the same stuff we've debunked...
Who to believe I wonder.
----------
Why Amazon's "Appstore" causes confusion with iPhone users?
Is it because Apple will lose business if iPhone users buy Android app from Amazon?
Can Android app run on iOS ?
It doesn't. Apple claimed it did, and the Judge rejected it.
I think you just argued yourself wrong.
The way your average customer probably sees it is that they have two devices. One's a Kindle, a well known brand name, and the other's an iPad, another well known brand name. Both of them have...
A camera.
A calender.
And an app store.
It's very, very doubtful someone will look at that and think "ooh, does this App Store play iPad apps"? Probably not. To them, it's likely to be another matching feature. Both of them get apps through their own little app stores.
...and considering the Kindle app store is labeled, rather appropriately, as the Amazon Appstore, there's likely to be even less confusion.
To me, the confusion comes in when people hear about an app for the app store and think it is available on the app store which they are using. When in fact, it is sometimes only offered on the competing app store.
This may be the most ridiculous post so far. This also seems to be one dumb judge. Hopefully this kind of incompetence isn't the future of America.
There is a long rich tradition in trademark law. Maybe some people could at least start with wikipedia. At the heart of trademark law are concepts of originality and and non-functionally.
If Apple called it FooFooFun, its a stupid name but a great trademark. But by calling a store that sells applications an App Store, it shows a total lack of skill, judgement and foresight on the part of Apple. They are one the wrong side of this by a mile. Ironically, this judge does not seem to either know or care about the case at this time, so here we are reading silly thoughts on this nonsense.