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

Microsoft Objects to Apple's 'App Store' Trademark Application

It is safe to say Apple is and should loss this one.

The fact that it was already denied once for being too generic says a lot and that was before MS got involved in it. Now that MS is going against it no way in hell Apple is going to win.

Remember Apple already lost the first time for being too generic.

Now Apple can and should trade mark "There is a an App for that."
 
John.B said:
That's exactly what we're saying. You could trademark "Veggie Market" if you were the first to try to do it. Heck, Seven-Eleven trademarked two numbers!
Click to expand...

Being first doesn't matter if it's generic. Seven-eleven trademarked a name for their stores/restaurants. "App Store" and "Veggie Market" describe what those things are, "Seven-Eleven" doesn't. If Apple wanted, they could call their app store twelve-one-hundred and it would go through. But it would still be an app store. You have to make the distinction between brands and descriptions.
 
for those of you trying to explain the sanity behind trademarks visit here;

Ainsworth IP

they have trademarks for the color PURPLE and the color ORANGE and, are you ready... the word OS

note: i worked for them and the trademarks are very specific.
 
I don't see why it would not be trade markable. Before the App store there were no such thing as an app store.
 
subsonix said:
I don't see why it would not be trade markable. Before the App store there were no such thing as an app store.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It could be argued that Apple is responsible for the phrase being in the vernacular.
 
I hope apple goes down. Yes, there never really were "apps" or "app store" before apple, but I just don't really like apple anymore. All they care about is having control over the user, so the less control they have, the better for me and everyone else.
 
plathunter said:
Um yes it does mean the trademark holder losses right to his trademark its called genericized trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
Click to expand...

From your link, "Other trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. Such is the case with Xerox for photocopiers, Plexiglass for shatter-resistant polymer glass, Kleenex for facial tissues, and others. A trademark owner takes a risk in engaging in such a corrective campaign because the campaign may serve as an admission that the trademark is generic.[citation needed] So, the owner must irreversibly commit to continuing the campaign until relatively sure the trademark has achieved primary meaning as a trademark rather than as a common name of the product or service."
 
"Radio" is a somewhat generic term, as is "Shack".

Together, they made something that could be trademarked.

"App Store", prior to iOS was not in use by anyone. Even the term "app" — the file extension for applications on the Mac — was pretty much limited to the Mac platform (the Atari ST platform at one time used .app). The Windows world was still using terms like "exie" or "program".

The term App Store has become pretty common, yes. But it's become so out of the co-opting of the term by Apple's competitors. Apple could have a fairly strong argument that because the term has only been used by competitors, that trademark protection is much needed.
 
Please. MSFT is in a glass house throwing rocks.

Not only have they trademarked generic terms like "Windows" and "Word" but they copied the idea of overlapping windows from Mac OS (Xerox did not have overlapping windows). They also copied the trash on the desktop (renaming it it to recycle bin and putting it in the upper left corner instead of lower right), the Apple menu ( renaming it the start menu and putting in the bottom left instead of the top left) and taking the Dock from NEXT Step and renaming it the quick launch and taskbar.

App has been with Apple and NeXT for a lot longer than MSFT has had an Applications Data folder.

Speaking of folders, look at the similarity between Vista/Windows 7 and OS X folder structures compared with what they were with Xp or below.

OS X has /users/ while windows Vista or greater has c:\users\ whereas before it was c:\Documents and Settings\.

OS X has Library folder while Windows 7 now also has a Library virtual folder.

OS X has /users/username/documents and now Windows 7 has c:\users\username\documents whereas XP had C:\Documents and Settings\My Documents\.

OS X has /users/username/pictures and now Windows 7 has c:\users\username\pictures\.

The same with music.
 
KnightWRX said:
Again, being famous, first, etc.. has no bearing on whether something is generic or not. This isn't patents with the prior art clause.

You can't trademark "Grocery Store" as the name for your grocery store. It doesn't matter that you're the first to try or that you made the "grocery store" tag famous. It refers to a category of stores which sell groceries, which can be a lot of different vendors/companies.

No one says you can't try, but then don't expect to get it when people object.
Click to expand...

Very true. Question (& I'm being serious, not trying to be a jackass or anything): Can Microsoft trademark Windows, Office, Word, Flight Simulator etc.? MS seems to have a lot of products that have generic sounding names that tell, albeit simplistically, what they do.
 
KnightWRX said:
So because no one ever used "Shoe Store" I could trademark it and open a line of "Shoe Stores" everywhere and sue Payless Shoes if they dared say they are a "Shoe Store" ?

Sorry, App store is generic,
Click to expand...

Wrong. Trademarks are allowed for use in commerce. That's the "trade" or "service" part of trademark/servicemark. If I open a store to sell toilet paper and I call it the "TP Store", I can get a trademark in the appropriate retail classification. Doesn't matter in the slightest that the phrase TP has been used for 100 years in some people's personal speech. If it hasn't been used in commerce in that classification, and meets all the other trademark requirements, it's allowable.

Again, show us the commercial use of "App Store" to market computer software prior to Apple in 2008. Not "application store", not "apps", not "app", not "software apps", not "app store" in someone's personal utterances, even if it's Steve Jobs. I'll wait. Go ahead and Google® it.
 
aristotle said:
Please. MSFT is in a glass house throwing rocks.

Not only have they trademarked generic terms like "Windows" and "Word" but they copied the idea of overlapping windows from Mac OS (Xerox did not have overlapping windows). They also the trash on the desktop (renaming it it to recycle bin and putting it in the upper left corner instead of lower right), the Apple menu ( renaming it the start menu and putting in the bottom left instead of the top left) and taking the Dock from NEXT Step and renaming it the quick launch and taskbar.

App has been with Apple and NeXT for a lot longer than MSFT has had an Applications Data folder.

Speaking of folders, look at the similarity between Vista/Windows 7 and OS X folder structures compared with what they were with Xp or below.

OS X has /users/ while windows Vista or greater has c:\users\ whereas before it was c:\Documents and Settings\.

OS X has Library folder while Windows 7 now also has a Library virtual folder.

OS X has /users/username/documents and now Windows 7 has c:\users\username\documents whereas XP had C:\Documents and Settings\My Documents\.

OS X has /users/username/pictures and now Windows 7 has c:\users\username\pictures\.

The same with music.
Click to expand...

And OSX got this from where?
 
Equal Justice Under Applemagic123

applemagic123 said:
I hope apple goes down. Yes, there never really were "apps" or "app store" before apple, but I just don't really like apple anymore. All they care about is having control over the user, so the less control they have, the better for me and everyone else.
Click to expand...

I agree, let's toss out the concept of rule of law. Let's go to a system where popularity is the determinate.

So do you think we should move to a) rule by mob; or b) rule by one person; or perhaps c) rule by oligarchy? Let me know.
 
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