Coca-Cola trademarked OK in reference to its failed soda, despite the fact OK had been used as a word 90 kagillion times a day for many years if not millenia. Doesn't get more generic than OK?
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 Sues Amazon Over 'App Store' Trademark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are they registered trademarks ? You do know that you aren't obligated to trademark your store right ? The fact that there are many kind of point that they aren't or aren't enforced (which means they ultimately won't be able to enforce them).
If Apple loses the App Store trademark, it doesn't mean they have to stop calling their store "App Store".
What asset?
Apple hasn't been granted the trademark, so it's a bit presumptuous of them to file any lawsuit at this point in time.
You should try putting BB, Microsoft, or Android in front of it.
You should also look at MS brief on why they are calling the App store generic.
Media calls all the respect application stores Android's app store and talked about it genetically as such.
Marketplace is Android app store
Window phone 7 store is called Microsoft app store
The most damaging thing at all is the keynott were Steve Jobs called the other store app stores Apple kind of killed its own case right then and there failing to try to prevent the term from becoming generic. Google takes great strides to prevent the term google becoming generic and make a point to try to prevent it. Apple failed at that and failed to try to educated the public. Apple used the term generically itself multiple times that really hurts any claim Apple has on the trademark.
Yes really, and since it was your own argument, you're the one that was splitting hairs, not the people who pointed out how wrong you were in your assumption that iOS apps used the .APP extension when they don't.
The key concepts are use in commerce, and the entire mark, "App Store", not the individual words used separately or in other combinations. Also, application ≠ app for purposes of the mark.
NoNothing -
I wrote this earlier in this thread. I think the point is - there's no competition (really) going on with different entities using app store. If Home Depot called themselves hardware store - people could get confused and walk into the wrong store and spend money there for items that Home Depot sells. Home Depot would lose revenue for something they have branded.
However - in the App world - iOS devices can't run anything but apps sold by Apple through their store and Android (for example) can't run anything sold by Apple in their store.
So there's no business being lost. There's no real competition. And there's no loss of revenue by anyone building the brand "app store" because, pardon the pun - the items sold are apples and oranges.
This hold for App Store. This is not true for books, music and videos, naturally as those do compete...
I wrote this earlier in this thread. I think the point is - there's no competition (really) going on with different entities using app store. If Home Depot called themselves hardware store - people could get confused and walk into the wrong store and spend money there for items that Home Depot sells. Home Depot would lose revenue for something they have branded.
However - in the App world - iOS devices can't run anything but apps sold by Apple through their store and Android (for example) can't run anything sold by Apple in their store.
So there's no business being lost. There's no real competition. And there's no loss of revenue by anyone building the brand "app store" because, pardon the pun - the items sold are apples and oranges.
This hold for App Store. This is not true for books, music and videos, naturally as those do compete...
They only licensed iPhone after Cisco sued them. For iOS, it seems they actually bothered to ask.
What was that about facts ?
And that is not what I'm arguing. Again, some people on page 1 pointed out that Apple basically invented the term "app". Not "App Store", plain old "app". My posts simply aim to debunk this point for those people, not to argue the larger trademark dispute here.
I'd like you and others to keep this in mind and follow sub-threads if you want to respond to my posts.
Last edited:
They only licensed iPhone after Cisco sued them. For iOS, it seems they actually bothered to ask.
What was that about facts ?
The marks were licensed; those ARE the facts. Whether or not litigation was was filed prior to the license (which happens all the time to increase leverage) matters not in the least.
Who's the revisionist here?
Apple "FILED" in 2008.
They have not been granted anything.
The TM is still in the opposition phase.
As for the term. there are prior TM filing's dating back to 2000 and 2006.
Both have long since been abandoned, but the term existed prior to Apple's usage. So again... who had the idea first? Not Apple.
Apple is a marketing giant. They could make a product called iSh*t on a stick and their marketing dept will make it sound like it's the second coming.
And unlike patents, first to file does not exist in the trademark world. Who ever actually used it first in commerce. The term App store has been used before Apple used it. May not have been as popular, but that is not relevant here.
There is also another pending trademark that contains the words "App Store" in it that is pending the outcome of Apple's filing.
Last edited:
It does in the context of the sub-thread you were trying to interject in. Go re-read what I was replying to. A lot of people accusing "Amazon" of not being original or not asking permission, yet not bothering to mention Apple didn't even come up with their own marks and initially didn't bother to ask either.
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy. So yes, those ARE facts to, and they matter much more in this context.
Someone else said it best : This litigation against Amazon can't even be tried at this point anyhow. Apple has to go through Microsoft's opposition to their mark before they can even litigate this. This one is going to be stayed while the Microsoft opposition goes to trial and I don't know what this could do to a possible injunction.
When you're the one who's wrong, YES, you need to do the work.
These links are all expired searches, so I went and manually did one myself.
In any case, I did not see one reference to a trademark on "shoe store". Sadly, what is lost on you is that you don't get that there is a huge legal difference between trademarking "The Shoe Store" and "shoe store". "shoestore.com" isn't even in the same ballpark. We would not be having this discussion if Apple had trademarked "The App Store" or "Apple App Store" or "iOS App Store" or "iTunes App Store" or "appstore.com".
And if you really bothered to search, you'd find a dead 1998, yes, filed in 1998, trademark for AppStore, for getting 3rd party software applications over the Internet. Oops to all you posters over the past few months who said the term never existed before Apple.
I've heard Bill Gates use the term in an interview from 2005, and its also a term that computer guys have been using since the 80s or 70s. Life does not revolve around apple.
Trademarks do not need to be registered - the use of TM in connection with a mark puts everybody on notice that you intend to defend your use of that mark. You can't get statutory damages without a registered mark but you can still obtain an injunction against another's use of it.
(IANAL)
For those on mobile devices, APPSTORE trademark search:
Sage Networks filed in 1998, published 2/2000, abandoned 11/2000.
"providing computer software application hosting services by means of a global computer information network, where such services allow multiple users to rent software applications developed by applicant or third parties"
Apple filed 2008, published 2010.
"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."
As others said, the shore store one was for a logo. I was failing hard on that post.
Other interesting trademarks (all of which are currently live)
"App Store" Serial Number 77525433
"APP" Serial Number 85146390
"DGS P.O.P. STORE" 85005334
"BLACKSTORE" 85031258
"SNAPSTORE" 85012269
"SAFE STOR" 85258328
"PEACE STORE" 85148753
"LIFETIME STORE" 85186590
"STORESEVEN" 85164258
"MY STORE" 85241459
"NO. 6 STORE" 20050822
"499 STORE" 85185383
Also, of interesting note, the 5 entries for "MADE IN AMERICA STORE"
No one ever used "app store" phrase to describe software internet shop before Apple. Apple invented that name, and it's their right to protect it no matter how popular and widespread it has become. If a trademarked product became very commonly used, it doesn't give other companies any right to copy it and call it with the same name.
You're wrong. It's been proven several times in this thread - most recently by kdarling.
Again... even an injunction would be premature as the term existed prior to Apple's usage. They have no grounds for an injunction.
So the ONLY grounds they could file for is TM infringement and that would require a legitimate registration of the mark first.
Serial numbers are only proof of filing.
The TM is not final without a valid registration number.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, how about this one:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:hhi2qj.6.434
Word Mark LIQUOR STORE
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Night clubs. FIRST USE: 20040900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041000
IC 043. US 100 101. G & S: Restaurant and bar services. FIRST USE: 20040900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041000
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78504610
Filing Date October 22, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 27, 2005
Registration Number 3069415
Registration Date March 14, 2006
Owner (REGISTRANT) Concept Restaurants, Inc. CORPORATION MASSACHUSETTS 6801 Hollywood Boulevard Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 90028
Attorney of Record Andrew N. Spivak
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:hhi2qj.6.434
Word Mark LIQUOR STORE
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Night clubs. FIRST USE: 20040900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041000
IC 043. US 100 101. G & S: Restaurant and bar services. FIRST USE: 20040900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041000
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 78504610
Filing Date October 22, 2004
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition September 27, 2005
Registration Number 3069415
Registration Date March 14, 2006
Owner (REGISTRANT) Concept Restaurants, Inc. CORPORATION MASSACHUSETTS 6801 Hollywood Boulevard Los Angeles CALIFORNIA 90028
Attorney of Record Andrew N. Spivak
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Look at the restrictions imposed on the trademark.
It has nothing to do with an actual liquor store and they cannot sue for anyone using it on an actual liquor store.
It's the name of a night club, filed under bar and restaurant services.
We actually have one of those here. Note that in this case, the Liquor Store mark and establishments are not really liquor stores, they are bars and night clubs.
If you ever went to New Jersey, you'd know no one owns a mark for Liquor Store on an actual store that sells Liquor since they are all pretty much called Liquor Store. (at least that's my experience in Wildwood).
Trademarks are usually limited to certain fields. The problem with Apple's use of App Store is that it is a descriptive mark. It is a store that sell Apps. In your Liquor Store example, this doesn't apply.
Actually Amazon uses one word, appstore, vs. app store. So that's different.
Speaking of the app store, here is a petition to remove an app:
Petition to remove App
Well yes if someone claimed it was never used before them shame on them. On the other hand that has nothing to do with the validity of a trademark. It is not all or nothing. Prior use exposed does not invalidate a trademark.
Speaking of the app store, here is a petition to remove an app:
Petition to remove App
Well yes if someone claimed it was never used before them shame on them. On the other hand that has nothing to do with the validity of a trademark. It is not all or nothing. Prior use exposed does not invalidate a trademark.
Last edited by a moderator:
And again, some of us are just replying to folks that seem oblivious to the fact that App was around before the iPhone, we're not discussing the mark itself in most of our posts.