Apple Denied Trademark for Multi-Touch

[Dbrown]

I think it sucks a bit for Apple. I browse their trademark list and it has Multi-Touch trademarked from years ago. They spend their money to trademark a name then the court just goes and says it is too generic. Why the hell would they have gotten it trademarked in the first place if it was too generic.. The court should pay Apple back their money they used to trademark that term years ago if anything.

The trademark was never granted what the hell are you talking about?

BTW can you provide a link to the term "App" that was around before Apple? Not taunting. I am serious

The word "app" is short for application. That word existed before apple. In any case why don't you look in the app store trademark thread. Lots of examples of how old the word app really is.

 

[terraphantm]

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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

A word doesn't have to be in "broad use" to be denied. That's just one possible reason to do so. What the USPTO ruled was that:

1) "Multi-touch" was a perfectly descriptive term and thus had to also be...
2) Associated with Apple due to their advertising expenditure on the word, etc.

However, Apple presented no evidence that they had used "Multi-Touch" on their boxes or stressed it in their advertising.

While I don't disagree that Apple may or may not have presented evidence that they had used "multi-touch" on their boxes or advertising, I do have to mention that Apple did, in fact, go to great lengths to promote the term "multi-touch". It was all over the iPhone web page back in 2007. I remember it have a whole page dedicated to how the tech worked on the iPhone. Steve gushed about it during the presentation.

Here's a non-perfect analogy. Dodge has an engine that they have trademarked as the "Hemi". They call it the hemi because (I think) the cylinder heads are hemispherical in shape. I don't think they have a patent on the cylinder shape or design, just a trademark on the term "hemi" as it relates to an engine.

Now, suppose I want create a new car and I made an engine with hemishperical heads. I wouldn't (and shouldn't) be allowed to call my engine a "hemi" because consumers might be lead to believe I had a Dodge engine in my car.

This is similar to Apple's assertion that multi-touch implies an Apple-quality touch screen. I could be argued that a consumer might see a Motorola phone that has a screen that's called "multi-touch" and think that Motorola used an Apple screen in it.

To me, this is the key point in the discussion. If Apple failed to properly submit the required elements to the USPTO, then shame on them.

Thing is, by itself, Hemi isn't a descriptive word for the product, nor is it obvious that it refers to hemispherical combustion chambers. It's just something some marketing guy thought sounded cool. Pretty much every DOHC motor also has hemispherical combustion chambers.

Multitouch on the other hand is an entirely descriptive term, it is the obvious term to use, hence it's considered generic.

 

[vvz]

There actually were devices that used multitouch long before 2007. Also, apple did NOT invent multitouch.

I've noticed an ongoing trend in the mac community and its that apple is responsible for all inventions and they are always the first to do something.... factually not the case.

No, dude. Apple did not invent multi-touch. You're right. BUT! He is responsible for bringing it to the world. The dude you were correcting was referring to consumer devices not having multi-touch before the iPhone.

I've noticed an ongoing trend in the mac community and its that whenever Apple succeeds with a technology that others couldn't, everyone rushes to point out that Apple did not invent the technology therefore should not be associated even with the name of it (even is Apple coined the term by which everyone knows the respective technology).

 

[LagunaSol]

I've noticed an ongoing trend in the mac community and its that whenever Apple succeeds with a technology that others couldn't, everyone rushes to point out that Apple did not invent the technology therefore should not be associated even with the name of it (even is Apple coined the term by which everyone knows the respective technology).

Not "everyone," but the typical MacRumors Detractors Brigade who can't bear to admit their own beloved companies (Dell, Microsoft, etc.) bring little more to the table than the status quo.

Notice how Microsoft is suddenly calling "Programs" (which they've used in Windows since who-knows-when, even in Windows Mobile) "Apps." But of course it has nothing to do with Apple. I mean, everyone has been calling them "Apps" forever, right?

It's amazing how things suddenly become "obvious" the moment Apple does it.

 

[vrDrew]

They should have to prove themselves out in the market, not just lock down every term and idea.

You mean, Apple needs to sell a few hundred million devices with MultiTouch capability? I think they already did that.

There isn't "too much" trademarking and patenting going on. Obviously, some patents and trademarks are more valuable, and useful, than others. And some will very likely end up being found invalid.

But the fact that companies and individuals are taking the time to protect the intellectual property they create is a good thing. It means a) that new products, ideas, and inventions are being created and b) that there is a potentially lucrative market for them.

There are essentially two streams of thought people express in threads like this. The "free copying" philosophy, and the "respect IP" philosophy.

The "everyone ought to be able to copy anything" philosophy is often backed up with the claim that allowing this "would be good for consumers." Which is true, at least in the short term. With no cost or price for using Intellectual Property, the profit per device moves towards zero. Of course, with no profit possible - you end up with no incentive for innovation, and the product market stagnates. This, by the way, is essentially what happened with the PC business. All the profits in that industry were going to Microsoft and Intel - and as a result, PCs still have the same basic form factor they had a generation ago.

 

[voonyx]

Not "everyone," but the typical MacRumors Detractors Brigade who can't bear to admit their own beloved companies (Dell, Microsoft, etc.) bring little more to the table than the status quo.

Notice how Microsoft is suddenly calling "Programs" (which they've used in Windows since who-knows-when, even in Windows Mobile) "Apps." But of course it has nothing to do with Apple. I mean, everyone has been calling them "Apps" forever, right?

It's amazing how things suddenly become "obvious" the moment Apple does it.

Hey now, Apple doesn't innovate or revolutionize any industries. Your sorely misinformed. The iPod? People have been listening to music since the 8-track. Apple did not invent music. The iPhone? pshh, it would have happened anyway. The iPad? Come on Apple was in the right place at the right time.

Apple deserves no credit for anything they do. Rising marketshare with a year and a half old device in a market oversaturated with new devices coming out weekly? That's just brainwashed zealots...

The "trivial" and "obvious" things that Apple does is just silly, they need to come up with their own ideas

 

[Trudy]

Not on a smartphone (they were surface like devices). It wasn't invented by Apple either.

Apple's trademark application was only for mobile devices, no conflict.

 

[divinox]

Not "everyone," but the typical MacRumors Detractors Brigade who can't bear to admit their own beloved companies (Dell, Microsoft, etc.) bring little more to the table than the status quo.

Notice how Microsoft is suddenly calling "Programs" (which they've used in Windows since who-knows-when, even in Windows Mobile) "Apps." But of course it has nothing to do with Apple. I mean, everyone has been calling them "Apps" forever, right?

It's amazing how things suddenly become "obvious" the moment Apple does it.

Read the thread mentioned a few posts above yours. Applications have been explicitly used by MSFT for a decade if not more.

 

[Trudy]

There actually were devices that used multitouch long before 2007. Also, apple did NOT invent multitouch..

Used what we now call "multi-touch" or advertised it as "multi-touch"?

This isn't about patents. This is about trademark, use of the words in advertising, not about the actual technology behind it.

Another curse on those who confuse the issues and promote ignorance by lumping these different concepts under "intellectual property."

 

[divinox]

You mean, Apple needs to sell a few hundred million devices with MultiTouch capability? I think they already did that.

There isn't "too much" trademarking and patenting going on. Obviously, some patents and trademarks are more valuable, and useful, than others. And some will very likely end up being found invalid.

But the fact that companies and individuals are taking the time to protect the intellectual property they create is a good thing. It means a) that new products, ideas, and inventions are being created and b) that there is a potentially lucrative market for them.

There are essentially two streams of thought people express in threads like this. The "free copying" philosophy, and the "respect IP" philosophy.

The "everyone ought to be able to copy anything" philosophy is often backed up with the claim that allowing this "would be good for consumers." Which is true, at least in the short term. With no cost or price for using Intellectual Property, the profit per device moves towards zero. Of course, with no profit possible - you end up with no incentive for innovation, and the product market stagnates. This, by the way, is essentially what happened with the PC business. All the profits in that industry were going to Microsoft and Intel - and as a result, PCs still have the same basic form factor they had a generation ago.

Uhm, please name one form-factor that Apple has that you cant find in the pc-market. I honestly cant think of one. Also, dont make this about "Apple did Y first", as that holds no relevance for your above statement.

----------

Used what we now call "multi-touch" or advertised it as "multi-touch"?

This isn't about patents. This is about trademark, use of the words in advertising, not about the actual technology behind it.

Another curse on those who confuse the issues and promote ignorance by lumping these different concepts under "intellectual property."

multi-touch has always been multi-touch, or at least since the 80's.

 

[Oletros]

Not "everyone," but the typical MacRumors Detractors Brigade who can't bear to admit their own beloved companies (Dell, Microsoft, etc.) bring little more to the table than the status quo.

Notice how Microsoft is suddenly calling "Programs" (which they've used in Windows since who-knows-when, even in Windows Mobile) "Apps." But of course it has nothing to do with Apple. I mean, everyone has been calling them "Apps" forever, right?

It's amazing how things suddenly become "obvious" the moment Apple does it.

Microsoft has used Applications even on MS/DOS user manuals in the eighties

 

[Trudy]

Read the thread mentioned a few posts above yours. Applications have been explicitly used by MSFT for a decade if not more.

I have used Microsoft products since the 80s. I have heard program, application, executable, COM file. But I don't remember the term "app" being common. I definitely never heard of an "App Store."

In any case, you don't have to be the first to use a term to get a trademark. This isn't patents. All you have to do is be the one to make the term prominent for the specific type of product or service you are selling.

You need to ask the question: "Does the term right now, in the public's eye, lead them to believe the product is from the applying vendor?" I would answer yes, back when the "App Store" trademark was applied for in July 2008. Even Wikipedia directed the search for "app store" straight to the iOS App Store article until this year, when a disambiguation page was created. It may not have become ambiguous if Apple had been able to defend the "App Store" trademark prior to that.

 

[Oletros]

Used what we now call "multi-touch" or advertised it as "multi-touch"?

Yes, used what we now call multi-touch and called multi-touch

 

[voonyx]

Yes, used what we now call multi-touch and called multi-touch

The question is did any refer to it as multi-touch before Apple. I don't know the answer, but just pointing out that you misunderstood the question.

 

[Oletros]

The question is did any refer to it as multi-touch before Apple.

Yes, "multi-touch"" has been used way before 2.007

 

[LagunaSol]

The iPad? Come on Apple was in the right place at the right time.

No kidding, I had an Etch-A-Sketch like 30 years ago. Apple isn't really doing anything new here.

 

[voonyx]

Yes, "multi-touch"" has been used way before 2.007

Ok cool thanks

----------

No kidding, I had an Etch-A-Sketch like 30 years ago. Apple isn't really doing anything new here.

Yeah seriously. The idiots at Apple really need to stop using old technology and just repackaging it. I mean, there were hundreds of companies on the cusp of doing what Apple did, but Apple simply beat them to the punch...haha

 

[adamtore]

Apple OWNED the technology! Apple spent years in R&D. Competitors copied the technology. Apple should at least keep the name for themselves. How dare they deny Apple's request!

You´re kidding right? You have to be.

You cant trademark "TV" can you?
Can Bell trademark "telephone"?
Can Volvo trademark "seatbealt"?

So no. Ofcorse you cant buy tech and trademark the name!!!! Its retarded to even try.

 

[Trudy]

multi-touch has always been multi-touch, or at least since the 80's.

That's irrelevant. The question is whether the term (not the technology) has been used in commerce on mobile devices, or if the term has been used by the public enough throughout the times on mobile devices to render it generic.

Personally, I never heard the term until after the iPhone, and I'm a tech-head.

 

[divinox]

I have used Microsoft products since the 80s. I have heard program, application, executable, COM file. But I don't remember the term "app" being common. I definitely never heard of an "App Store."

In any case, you don't have to be the first to use a term to get a trademark. This isn't patents. All you have to do is be the one to make the term prominent for the specific type of product or service you are selling.

You need to ask the question: "Does the term right now, in the public's eye, lead them to believe the product is from the applying vendor?" I would answer yes, back when the "App Store" trademark was applied for in July 2008. Even Wikipedia directed the search for "app store" straight to the iOS App Store article until this year, when a disambiguation page was created. It may not have become ambiguous if Apple had been able to defend the "App Store" trademark prior to that.

Easier if you would just read through the thread. Apps is short for application, and this too has been used quite widely before 2007 - e.g. in software dev. tools where you can create "app" projects of various sorts.

The answer to the question is: no. people associate apps with apps, not Apple apps. people associate multi-touch with multi-touch, not Apple multi-touch.

Cheers.

 

[Trudy]

Yes, "multi-touch"" has been used way before 2.007

Examples would be helpful. And remember, Apple limited the application to mobile devices.

 

[kdarling]

This is similar to Apple's assertion that multi-touch implies an Apple-quality touch screen. I could be argued that a consumer might see a Motorola phone that has a screen that's called "multi-touch" and think that Motorola used an Apple screen in it.

The USPTO disagreed with that idea, for what I think is a valid reason:

..., although “multi-touch” is used to identify the type of interface featured on applicant’s goods, it also used to describe similar features on similar goods.

Thus, consumers of handheld devices, include phones, would not view the applied-for mark as a source indicator but rather as a term used to describe the interface on such goods. - USPTO

If Apple failed to properly submit the required elements to the USPTO, then shame on them.

Bigtime shame. It was a very weak effort. Basically, Apple spent all their documentation efforts bragging about their sales instead of presenting evidence to back up their trademark claims.

The USPTO dumped all over Apple for not presenting evidence to back up its claims. Apple claimed advertising it, but presented almost no ads. They also failed to present manuals, any docs on ad spending, any TV commercials, etc.

Apple mostly relied on their own claim that the phrase was instantly associated with only their device, yet the PTO found tons of examples of magazines using "multi-touch" to describe the feature in other devices.

Anyone who wants to discuss this topic in depth should read the full USPTO decision. Here it is from the PTO itself along with a timeline.

 

[LagunaSol]

Read the thread mentioned a few posts above yours. Applications have been explicitly used by MSFT for a decade if not more.

Microsoft has used Applications even on MS/DOS user manuals in the eighties

Which is why when I click on the Start button in Windows it says "Programs" and not "Applications." (Granted, Microsoft has been confused for years about what to call them. It's Programs in the Start menu, yet the error message says "This application has failed to respond." Typical Microsoft inconsistency.)

I'm not saying Apple coined the term "app." It's just funny to see that Microsoft is suddenly moving to the "app" nomenclature (see Windows 8 previews) instead of their traditional "programs," but of course it has nothing to do with Apple and the success of their App Store, right?

 

[divinox]

Examples would be helpful. And remember, Apple limited the application to mobile devices.

The equivalent of limiting the application of a steering-wheel tm to roadbound vehicles.

p.s. thread is full of examples...

 

[Trudy]

The answer to the question is: no. people associate apps with apps, not Apple apps. people associate multi-touch with multi-touch, not Apple multi-touch. Cheers.

Apple didn't try to trademark "app" but "App Store," a term I never heard in relation to the following until Apple unveiled theirs.

Retail store services featuring computer software provided via the internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; Retail store services featuring computer software for use on handheld mobile digital electronic devices and other consumer electronics.

Electronic transmission of data via the internet, global computer networks, wireless networks and electronic communication networks; Providing access to global computer networks, wireless networks and electronic communications networks for transmission or receipt of data.

Maintenance, repair and updating of computer software; Providing a website featuring technical information relating to computer software provided; Providing computer software consulting services; technical support services, namely, troubleshooting in the nature of diagnosing and repairing computer software problems; computer services, namely, providing search engines for obtaining data via electronic communications networks; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable computer software to enable users to program, organize and access audio, video, text, multimedia content and third-party computer software programs; Internet services, namely, creating indexes of information, sites, and other resources available on global computer networks for others; Searching and retrieving information, sites, and other resources available on global computer networks and other electronic communication networks for others.

I never heard of "multi-touch" on a mobile device until the iPhone. Did you? Maybe got a link to an old advertisement or article lying around?

It's quite possible I admit. But I just haven't seen the evidence.