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.
Judge Skeptical of Apple's 'Appstore' Trademark Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right. Because a store that sells apps is an "app store," and a pocketable device for making phone calls, running apps, and surfing the web is a "droid."
In fact, I always keep my droid in my pocket. I know most people call such devices "smartphones" or "phones," but they're just ignorant.
No, you are wrong. Trademarking "Application Store" would be like trademarking "Grocery Store". To make your analogy correct, you must compare App Store to Groc Store. I think you can trademark Groc Store - it's an invented word. App is an invented word. It is NOT just the shortening of "application" like "Dr." is a shortening for doctor or drive. While the word "app" may be commonly used in technology circles, Apple is the first and only company to trademark its use as "App Store". Apple should be able to protect that special combination.
The other side of this is that Apple invented the app store idea. Why is it that Google and Amazon, and any number of other companies, should be able to legally use something that Apple invented? How many app stores were there before Apple unveiled theirs? None. Now there are all these copycats who are trying to bounce off Apple's success. I don't think so.
The other thing you guys don't realize... Apple already owns the trademark. They were granted a trademark on this already, and Amazon/others are in violation of that trademark.
So if what you are saying is true, when a company invents a new trademarked name and others immediately copy it, the trademark holder will lose simply because they have not had sufficient time to build brand equity. That's not how trademark suits are decided.
How many of them called their stores "App Stores"? Selling applications in a store is different than calling your store The App Store. Get it?
You said they weren't app stores. Tehy were.
And there was at least one called App Store long ago, in 1.998, and another in 2.008
Get it?
Windows wasn't an operating system back when it was registered either. It was a windowing system running on top of DOS.
Have you though maybe they figured it was generic and so they wanted a name that would be able to be identified by them.
Apple should of gone with iApp Store. No one would of question that name. Or Apple App Store or iTunes App Store. I am willing to bet Apple will end up one or the other or even both by the time it is all said and done they they screwed up by not going with iApp Store from day one.
Weird. I seem to have been able to buy apps for my Treo and samsung Palm-based phones for many many years before iphone was invented.
Yes, we realize that. Doesn't mean it's a valid trademark. The court will decide.
Actually, the mark has no registration number so it hasn't been granted yet. It is in its opposition phase. Come on, a lawyer should know the difference.
Actually, the mark has no registration number so it hasn't been granted yet. It is in its opposition phase. Come on, a lawyer should know the difference.
If we're going to get hypertechnical, they already have the trademark. The USPTO only results in federally registered trademarks. A trademark need not be registered with the USPTO, and trademarks are traditionally a state law issue. In short, a trademark is obtained simply by using it in commerce on a good or service. (Sort of like how you get a copyright just by fixing a creative work in a tangible medium). Of course USPTO registration does bring many advantages....
Yeah, I know, I even brought up this very same argument in the iCloud Communications thread when others pointed out that they hadn't registered their mark, thus should lose it.
It's also quite understandable why Apple is defending the mark right now, as opposed to waiting to get a registration, because exactly as you state, the registration is optional.
What I don't get is why they are so adamant on "App Store". It used to be called "iTunes App Store", why do they want something so descriptive ? Why is their CEO using the mark generically in earning calls ?
I always thought "app store" was the name of the application Apple used on iphones/etc. to connect to the store within itunes that sold apps. I never saw the connection of "App store" to apple in the way that apple is trying to trademark- that is the name of this store to buy apps is "App store" not itunes.
I could possibly see decrying naming your application "app store" as that's less generic than "photos" or "camera".
I could possibly see decrying naming your application "app store" as that's less generic than "photos" or "camera".
Hmmm
Someone may have said this in earlier posts, but I think they would be better suited to call the thing the iOS App Store seeing how they call their SL store the Mac App Store. Apple wants continuity among their products, well this helps achieve that goal in my book. But what the hell do i know?
Someone may have said this in earlier posts, but I think they would be better suited to call the thing the iOS App Store seeing how they call their SL store the Mac App Store. Apple wants continuity among their products, well this helps achieve that goal in my book. But what the hell do i know?
Yeah, I know, I even brought up this very same argument in the iCloud Communications thread when others pointed out that they hadn't registered their mark, thus should lose it.
It's also quite understandable why Apple is defending the mark right now, as opposed to waiting to get a registration, because exactly as you state, the registration is optional.
What I don't get is why they are so adamant on "App Store". It used to be called "iTunes App Store", why do they want something so descriptive ? Why is their CEO using the mark generically in earning calls ?
I think they really don't care. If they can enforce the trademark they will, otherwise they'll move on. I think the Apple press pays a lot more attention to this than anyone at Apple.
Maybe you're right. Especially seeing how the execs don't really seem to care about it and casually use "app store" the way they do.
Maybe Apple Legal just has time on their hands and they think this is good for a few laughs at least instead of twiddling their thumbs.
what about the notifications apple stole from android in IOS5
Well, that's the least they could do in return
I'd be more pleased if she ruled that Steve Jobs had to wear Scarlet lettering on his turtlenecks that said, "I'm a total ass" for the next 5 years. I'd probably settle for a big fancy scarlet A with two little 's' after it
I think the farming coalitions should get together and sue Apple for infringing the fruit market by calling themselves Apple. I keep trying to order Apple cider off the Apple web site and can't seem to find it.
I think the farming coalitions should get together and sue Apple for infringing the fruit market by calling themselves Apple. I keep trying to order Apple cider off the Apple web site and can't seem to find it.
Although, perhaps, it doesn't necessarily mean they can copyright it... They're pioneers with many devices and features though by the looks of things.
Possibly, but thats only because the market is a new one. Apples App Store is only a few years old and Google entered the market later, Amazon later still and Microsofts own investment in this sort of service has only ramped up in recent times.
Of course one of the first names to sprint to mind is Apple, they're the one thats marketed it most and Amazon who is fighting this case only arrived months ago. That doesn't make it any less of a generic term. People should keep in mind the smart phone market is still relatively immature, while it's been around a while it's in recent years its experienced this momentum. If it seems like other companies only recently just started copying ideas from one another, its probably because the original ideas weren't implemented that long ago either.
Jeeze this is as bad as the "Windows" cases. In terms of mobile phones no, droid is not a generic term...you wouldn't use it to describe any other device on the market. It's a name and a name only just as Windows is the name of an Operating system and has no place in describing any other OS (which is different to the term window used within the context within the operating system to describe a pane with icons on it, something other vendors can do).
An App Store, as being argued here, is generic because you would use the term to describe any store that sells applications as an App Store. As before, even Apple themselves have used the term to describe competing stores.
Last edited: