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.
Microsoft Objects to Apple's 'App Store' Trademark Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A descriptive term CAN be trademarked (reread cmaier and couple of other of the truly knowledgeable people's posting) . Only a generic name CANNOT. A descriptive name to be trademarked HAS to have acquired a secondary meaning tying the name to the company attempting a trademark, but if the secondary meaning is instead generic referring to the class of product/services then it cannot be trademarked.
What is at issue is not whether or not App or Store are individually generic (that is in fact almost irrelevant), but rather is "App Store" generic? A descriptive name can be trademarked as long as it has acquired a secondary association with a particular product. If you read Microsoft complaint they argue it has not acquired such a secondary meaning and that in fact "App Store" is used to refer generally to the entire class of stores not to Apple's in particular. Apple claims the opposite, that people associate "App Store" only with Apple.
For instance, "There's an App for that" is a descriptive phrase but has acquired a specific meaning tightly associated with Apple. Therefor it was successfully trademarked by Apple. There are many, many descriptive names that have been trademarked. In fact Microsoft's "Internet Explorer" is extremely descriptive, however, it is specific to Microsoft and only Microsoft. No one refers to a general web browser as an "Internet Explorer", they refer to them as web browsers as evidenced by my own sentence.
Other companies like Xerox, Kleenex, Plexiglass, etc ... suffered similar (or perhaps the complementary) problems because their names became so tightly linked with the entire class of products that they ran the risk of being called generic despite not being completely/at all descriptive. However, in general those companies got their trademark in the end. Heck Google would be in trouble today since people have a tendency to refer to "Google something" as a search for something on the internet. They'd probably still get their trademark, but it would be slightly more of a headache today.
"App Store" because of its popularity and its descriptiveness perhaps runs the risk more so than others. However, this case could go either way. It really depends on whether or not Microsoft or Apple makes a better argument, because they both have one. Apple's claim that "App Store" is tightly linked to Apple is not outrageous in the least and thus they can claim it has acquired the necessary secondary meaning ... but nor is Microsoft's claim that it is more generic than specific and thus people refer to "App Store" for the class of direct download applications for mobile devices not just Apple's. The argument is over whether or not when people say "App Store" do they mean and does the person listening know it refers to Apple's "App Store" or could the person listening/speaking just as easily be referring to the "Android Marketplace", "Handago", or all of the above.
Personally I *think* Apple will win, but not necessarily and it would hardly be a crime against humanity if they lose.
They could just call it the iApp store if they lose and trademark that if they are interested in having trademarked name.
Last edited:
What ever happened to facts? You know the things that are true and can be proven? As has been said, and proven, so so soooo many times in this thread:
Microsoft does not have a trademark on "Office" or "Word" or "Marketplace" or "Live".
Look here: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
It's not about being nice, it's about wanting to reserve the right to use a term that is used already. Doesn't matter what looks I would have gotten in the past, we live in the present. And I'm not so sure I would get weird looks, unless I was talking to someone who doesn't know what an application is. Getting an application, or app for short, from a store would have been normal any time. But like I said, it doesn't matter. In the present, app store can refer to a multitude of stores that sell apps for different platforms. If Apple trademark it, we cannot refer to them as app stores anymore, even though that is exactly what they are.
I just got around to reading this and I'm so glad it didn't take 500 people to call this one! I didn't check, but I hope someone else points out "Office" and "Word."
I had never heard the term "app store" before Apple started using it to describe the App Store. Hell, remember when those things were applications? But Apple coined that term and uses it to describe its specific store. Blame the uneducated media writers, usually easily spotted by "putting" quotation marks around "anything" that seems remotely "tech." I can't tell you how many stories I see referring to "3G," not 3G.
Anywho, if the trademark is approved, come up with your own generic name because Apple had that one. If you can't write "application store," tough turkey.
That's simply not true. All it means is that competitors couldn't use the phrase "app store" in a way that indicates origin in the marketing of their competing stores.
Fact is it wasn't used to describe a place where you bought software before apple introduced it.
We did not refer to them as app stores before, so I don't see the problem with that.
A descriptive term CAN be trademarked (reread cmaier and couple of other of the truly knowledgeable people's posting) . Only a generic name CANNOT. A descriptive name to be trademarked HAS to have acquired a secondary meaning tying the name to the company attempting a trademark, but if the secondary meaning is instead generic referring to the class of product/services then it cannot be trademarked.
What is at issue is not whether or not App or Store are individually generic (that is in fact almost irrelevant), but rather is "App Store" generic? A descriptive name can be trademarked as long as it has acquired a secondary association with a particular product. If you read Microsoft complaint they argue it has not acquired such a secondary meaning and that in fact "App Store" is used to refer generally to the entire class of stores not to Apple's in particular. Apple claims the opposite, that people associate "App Store" only with Apple.
For instance, "There's an App for that" is a descriptive phrase but has acquired a specific meaning tightly associated with Apple. Therefor it was successfully trademarked by Apple. There are many, many descriptive names that have been trademarked. In fact Microsoft's "Internet Explorer" is extremely descriptive, however, it is specific to Microsoft and only Microsoft. No one refers to a general web browser as an "Internet Explorer", they refer to them as web browsers as evidenced by my own sentence.
Other companies like Xerox, Kleenex, Plexiglass, etc ... suffered similar (or perhaps the complementary) problems because their names became so tightly linked with the entire class of products that they ran the risk of being called generic despite not being completely/at all descriptive. However, in general those companies got their trademark in the end. Heck Google would be in trouble today since people have a tendency to refer to "Google something" as a search for something on the internet. They'd probably still get their trademark, but it would be slightly more of a headache today.
"App Store" because of its popularity and its descriptiveness perhaps runs the risk more so than others. However, this case could go either way. It really depends on whether or not Microsoft or Apple makes a better argument, because they both have one. Apple's claim that "App Store" is tightly linked to Apple is not outrageous in the least and thus they can claim it has acquired the necessary secondary meaning ... but nor is Microsoft's claim that it is more generic than specific and thus people refer to "App Store" for the class of direct download applications for mobile devices not just Apple's. The argument is over whether or not when people say "App Store" do they mean and does the person listening know it refers to Apple's "App Store" or could the person listening/speaking just as easily be referring to the "Android Marketplace", "Handago", or all of the above.
Personally I *think* Apple will win, but not necessarily and it would hardly be a crime against humanity if they lose.
Apple claims that people associate "App Store" only with Apple, but Microsoft has a strong case when they point out that Steve Jobs himself refers to other app stores as app stores.
I don't get it. Apple was definitely the first to combine the generic term 'app' with the generic term 'store' to create the non-generic and totally unused previously in the industry term 'App Store'. Nobody else had an 'App Store', nobody else had even thought of putting those two words together. That it has acquired a more generic meaning in the years following their application for a trademark should make no difference. They were the first to use it, they INVENTED the term, they should be able to trademark it.
I get grouchy about the abuse of intellectual property laws, patent, copyright or trademark, which seems to be happening more and more frequently. But this isn't one of those cases.
I get grouchy about the abuse of intellectual property laws, patent, copyright or trademark, which seems to be happening more and more frequently. But this isn't one of those cases.
It looks like people are ignoring my tl;dr post ... I'm curious though in you reading it and how accurately I represented the situation since most of it came from reading and summarizing your and a couple of other's posts.
It looks like people are ignoring my tl;dr post ... I'm curious though in you reading it and how accurately I represented the situation since most of it came from reading and summarizing your and a couple of other's posts.
EDIT someone did respond.
GAAH! That was suppost to be an edit not a repost ... sorry.
Agreed, though it does have to be what the general populace thinks when hearing "App Store". Microsoft has a pretty reasonable shot at winning this one (quite legitimately), but so does Apple
Bolding is mine.
How would you feel if someone had trademarked "Movie Theater" or "Dance Hall"
Just because they were first doesn't mean they have the "right" to "own" it.
Again - I think Apple was good to TRY and if they succeed - more power to them. But I don't think it's really trademark-able.
If they wanted to trademark AppStore - that would be different.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
My old Texas instruments Ti-84 calculator has a button that says "apps" on it, I'm not sure how long its been like that but definitely far longer than the app store has existed
NebulaClash said:
My old Texas instruments Ti-84 calculator has a button that says "apps" on it, I'm not sure how long its been like that but definitely far longer than the app store has existed
So, you've never moved, nor instructed a person to move a window on a Mac Plus in 1985? I have.
Maybe not by you, maybe in not such a large scale, but as has been pointed out before, application is an old word, and a place where you can buy application can be, and has been referred to as an application store or app store for short.
really? really? i've downloaded web apps, mobile apps and full blown apps from the likes of handango, download.com and tucows. so have millions and millions of others. Since download.com has Mac apps wouldn't that be a app store that predates iOS app store?
If they were the first person to create a 'Movie Theater' or 'Dance Hall' then yes, they should be allowed to trademark it. Just because in the time between the first of those establishments and now the terms have acquired generic meaning doesn't mean that they weren't trademarkable at the time.