Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Continues Sending Cease and Desist Letters Regarding 'App Store' Usage

rorschach said:
Thanks for proving Apple's case: "App Store" clearly CAN be trademarked, since you just quoted a trademark filing from the USPTO. The mark was abandoned, and now Apple has claimed it because they are actually using it.
Click to expand...

Notice the abandonment date. This trademark never was granted.

I didn't prove anything for Apple and "App Store" cannot be clearly trademarked. It is in the opposition phase and it has received opposition. A court will decide if it can or can't be trademark. Previous filings that might or might not have gotten past this opposition phase do not lend any more credibility to Apple's claims.
 
Last edited:
I actually hope that the Apple legal team gets their asses handed to them in these ridiculous cases. As some else already said in this thread, Apple looks more and more like the 1984 "bad guy" every single day.
 
swagi said:
Yep - I always download my Software from the developer's webpage and happily ignore the "Available on App Store"-button. Just wonder how big the cut for PayPal is - well, at least it's not 30%...
Click to expand...

I guess you don't care about things like one click reinstalls on a new computer and having update notifications in one spot...
 
rorschach said:
Steve Jobs did not use it as a generic term. He used it in the same sense as, "Microsoft is creating their own iPod." If Apple's lawyers can't answer that stupidly simple question, Apple needs new lawyers.
Click to expand...

Steve Jobs did use it in a descriptive manner. "Their own app stores". It's not the same at all, since if he were to say "Microsoft is creating their own iPod", he'd risk genericizing the mark and losing it. He'd say "Microsoft is creating their own portable music player" or "Microsoft is creating their own MP3 player".

He'd use the descriptive term for the device. Just like he used the descriptive term for the competition's app stores.

He in fact did hurt his own case, since Amazon turned around and filed this very occurence of Steve Jobs saying the competition had "App stores" in their court briefs.
 
ri0ku said:
Hang on a sec? I do not care if Apple "wins" it or not... their not a football club or a country I am not on a side of a team that should be "Winning" something....

I like Apple products and I buy them thats it.. doesnt mean I should support everything they do.

When I used to be heavily involved in symbian made apps around the ngage era (yes the N-gage) we used to write what we called APPS for said devices...

We called them apps... not necessarily an APP store.. because when you give away things for free to a community thats not a store. We did actually call them apps though...

Its to generic

The word store is generic... you cant trademark that, the world application is to generic you cant trademark that. The none word "App" is a shortened version of a none trademarkable too generic term.

Thus... the duo "App Store" is to generic.
Click to expand...

"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?
 
I like Apple products but i *hate* when someone behaves as a god on the earth and owns everything! Curse on you, Apple!
 
Does Apple really think we are all THAT stupid, and will confuse PC App Store with the Mac App Store, or the App Store for iOS? I doubt it. App Store is too generic. And so is Safari, Macintosh, Apple, Windows, you get it. Apple is a fruit. Macintosh is a kind of Apple. They existed before Apple Inc. Windows... well my grandfather's house was build before Microsoft, and it has Windows.
 
rorschach said:
"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?
Click to expand...

No but the term app is used widely by many companies who provide a service that is similar to the ios App Store. The word "App" or none word rather has been used before ios was even announced. Like I mentioned, symbian writers used this term to title their programs.
 
KnightWRX said:
Steve Jobs did use it in a descriptive manner. "Their own app stores". It's not the same at all, since if he were to say "Microsoft is creating their own iPod", he'd risk genericizing the mark and losing it. He'd say "Microsoft is creating their own portable music player" or "Microsoft is creating their own MP3 player".

He'd use the descriptive term for the device. Just like he used the descriptive term for the competition's app stores.

He in fact did hurt his own case, since Amazon turned around and filed this very occurence of Steve Jobs saying the competition had "App stores" in their court briefs.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. He would not make the "iPod" mark generic by saying that. In that case he would be saying "their own version of iPod." It is the same here with "App Store."

Amazon can put anything they want in their filings; that does not make their claims correct.
 
Wow. Lots of opinions about a piece that opens with a total misunderstanding of what is happening in court. A few of you are lawyers, and you make some sense. The rest of you have no idea what you're talking about, so why spew?

A judge's predictions in the context of a motion have no bearing on the results after a full trial. None. As a trial attorney, I can tell you that nearly every successful trial result got to that stage in the proceedings only because the prevailing party lost preliminary motions that would have obviated the need for a full trial. The burdens of proof and evidentiary standards are much different in those two stages, so a judge's statements about a motion are irrelevant to the bigger picture. It's like predicting the outcome of a basketball game based on who wins the tipoff.

As for the need to protect trademarks, and the methods of proving trademarks, the law requires lawyers to do things that lay people just don't get. Sorry, that's the system. It's highly technical, and all your speculation about what the term "generic" even means in this legal context is not worth the pixels you waste. Yes, the word "App" was in use in the 70's and 80's when I studied computer science, but that's irrelevant. Apple's "There's an App for that" campaign brought brand messaging and meaning to everyone's living rooms, but there's more to it than that. As for "likelihood for confusion," don't confuse the legal definition with the confusion you display in your spewings here. Just saying most of you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your portrayal of Apple as draconian in this context is absurd. Every major company goes through the same steps to create and protect their marks--you just don't read about it. Every corporate legal department does this daily. Turn on your TV or pick up a magazine. Some companies actually own the exclusive right to use specific colors in certain contexts. That's the system, and there are reasons for it.

Someone said lawyers study law, and not computer science. Most intellectual property lawyers study engineering or science as undergrads, and then law in law school. Many have masters degrees or PhD.'s in technical fields in addition to their JD. I would not be surprised if the majority of Apple's IP lawyers also have degrees in computer science.

I don't have an opinion on whether Apple should win; I don't care. But, I do understand why they are doing this. I just wish the clueless masses here would spend more time listening and learning, rather than opining.
 
rorschach said:
You're wrong. He would not make the "iPod" mark generic by saying that. In that case he would be saying "their own version of iPod." It is the same here with "App Store."
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong and that is precisely what genericizing a mark is. Look it up. I know it hurts knowing your "side" is "losing", but that is the problem when you take sides. Remain objective and realise these are just big corporations and they don't care who you root for, and you'll be better off.

I personally don't care which way it goes. I'm of the opinion that Apple should not be granted the mark, but if they are, I won't lose sleep over it nor cry about it going to bed at night.

rorschach said:
Amazon can put anything they want in their filings; that does not make their claims correct.
Click to expand...

Nor does it make's Apple's claims correct just because they filed them. However, Amazon putting it in their filings shows that their lawyers (you know, the guys who understand these manners) do think it is relevant to the case and it can help them. You know, exactly what I've been claiming.

Now Apple needs to respond to this blunder by their CEO, generating more work for their legal department. If he hadn't said that, they wouldn't have had this extra obstacle to deal with.
 
Amahi Cycling Through Different Names on Home Page

Interesting...

If you reload the Amahi home page you'll get a different name for their "App Store" each time.

My favorite so far is "Apps Tore".
 
KnightWRX said:
I'm not wrong and that is precisely what genericizing a mark is. Look it up. I know it hurts knowing your "side" is "losing", but that is the problem when you take sides. Remain objective and realise these are just big corporations and they don't care who you root for, and you'll be better off.
Click to expand...

So, having the opinion that Apple is correct is "taking sides," but thinking Apple is wrong is "being objective." Got it.

I personally don't care which way it goes. I'm of the opinion that Apple should not be granted the mark, but if they are, I won't lose sleep over it nor cry about it going to bed at night.

Well. I'm of the opinion that Apple should be granted the mark, but if they aren't, I won't lose sleep over it nor cry about it going to bed at night

Nor does it make's Apple's claims correct just because they filed them. However, Amazon putting it in their filings shows that their lawyers (you know, the guys who understand these manners) do think it is relevant to the case and it can help them. You know, exactly what I've been claiming.
Click to expand...

Yes, they think it is relevant. That does not mean it is. Nor does it mean Apple's case will be hurt just because they put something in their filing.

Now Apple needs to respond to this blunder by their CEO, generating more work for their legal department. If he hadn't said that, they wouldn't have had this extra obstacle to deal with.
Click to expand...

It's not a blunder, and it's stupidly simple to respond to. If any of Apple's lawyers has half a brain, they will do so easily and it won't take much time.
Click to expand...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I recall everyone calling them programs and then applications.

Not till the iPhone came out did we all start saying app.
 
rorschach said:
"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?
Click to expand...

If "Circuit City" was instead called "Electronics Store", it would indeed be generic.
 
callme said:
How generic are:

Windows or Internet Explorer?

Perhaps they should be removed from MS at the same time?
Click to expand...

There's a reason you're at -15 upranks.

Imma explain it as simple as I can, if a store named "Windows" sold actual windows then it would be too generic. Understand now?

Apple is being a jerk.
 
rorschach said:
So, having the opinion that Apple is correct is "taking sides," but thinking Apple is wrong is "being objective." Got it.
Click to expand...

No, being objective is citing facts and backing them up with evidence, quotes, etc.. Like I've been doing.

Just saying "You're wrong" because it otherwise hurts your opinion that the facts don't support it without even proving those facts wrong is "taking sides". Learn the difference between objective and subjective discussion. If my facts are wrong, prove them so. Otherwise, you're just pissed because the facts don't support your subjective opinion.

Seanozz said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I recall everyone calling them programs and then applications.

Not till the iPhone came out did we all start saying app.
Click to expand...

Who's this we ? Because you can't mean me as I've been calling them apps (or "applic" in the French short form) since the 80s.
 
KnightWRX said:
No, being objective is citing facts and backing them up with evidence, quotes, etc.. Like I've been doing.

Just saying "You're wrong" because it otherwise hurts your opinion that the facts don't support it without even proving those facts wrong is "taking sides". Learn the difference between objective and subjective discussion. If my facts are wrong, prove them so. Otherwise, you're just pissed because the facts don't support your subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

You cited a quote and then wildly misinterpreted it to fit with a conclusion you had already reached. That's not being objective.

And I did not "just" say "You're wrong." I followed that statement up with the reason you were wrong. He was saying that these other companies were making their own versions of the App Store. That is not using the term generically. And even if he had used it generically, it still would not invalidate the trademark. A single person using the term one time cannot do that.
 
rorschach said:
You cited a quote and then wildly misinterpreted it to fit with a conclusion you had already reached. That's not being objective.
Click to expand...

Please prove them so then. You can't, since the courts haven't yet dealt with the motions where this "quote" is made to be relevant.

rorschach said:
And I did not "just" say "You're wrong." I followed that statement up with the reason you were wrong. He was saying that these other companies were making their own versions of the App Store. That is not using the term generically.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. No matter how much you don't want it to be, it is. Everyone blunders once in a while.

rorschach said:
And even if he had used it generically, it still would not invalidate the trademark. A single person using the term one time cannot do that.
Click to expand...

It can hurt a lot if you're presently trying to get that trademark registered and it is meeting opposition though, especially if you're the guy filing for the trademark in the first place and then proving the opposition's case for them. ;)
 
rorschach said:
"App" may be generic, and "store" may be generic, but Apple's trademark is not for either word on its own. The trademark is for the combination of the words into a mark.

Do you think "Circuit City" was generic because "circuit" and "city" are, on their own, generic?
Click to expand...

With this kind of argumentation I can release the next version of OSX and call it "Windows" because Windows is a generic term - used for the holes in my wall; and for rectangular shapes on my computer screen.
BUT: if Mircrosoft let that go and did not make you stop using Windows (using lawyers); they would accept that fact that you are using their trademark - essentially giving up their trademark. Like it or not - this is how the current laws are:
You loose a trademark if you don't defend it. This is important from a legal point of view; now if some little guy is told to change some web-page, this is just bad luck-nothing personal or "bad"; I would do just the same to protect a substantial investment in a new product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back