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

[crazy dave]

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.

The last is even debatable since AppStore and App Store are the same in conversation and trademarks don't just stipulate that you have to be exactly the thing your trademarking. A breach of trademark just have to be close enough that a reasonable person could confuse branding for another and result in a loos of business for the company with the trademark. As such App Store and AppStore are largely equivalent.

However, you are right that coining a term does not signify ownership unless you are the one create a brand around that term which others do not use and cannot refer to the general class.

 

[Snookerman]

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.

How can you know that. Applications, or apps, have existed for decades. Don't you think anyone has thought about having a store to sell them in? I.e. an app store?

 

[subsonix]

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?

You are missing the point, I'm not saying they invented the idea of buying software online. I'm saying they coined and popularized the phrase "App store", to the point where it's now synonymous with a sales platform for mobile applications.

 

[StuddedLeather]

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.

Exactly this. ^

Apple just want to Trademark "App Store" so competitors can't market their stores like that "The App Store". It's not that big of a deal Microsoft.

 

[Snookerman]

But does it have a button that says "app store"?

Hahaha! It will soon, if Microsoft wins this

 

[samcraig]

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.

Ok. With that being stated. Would it be inappropriate for someone to challenge that? Because that seems to be the "hoopla" here. For many anyway. They believe that Microsoft has no basis (or is jealous, sour grapes, fill in the blank) to petition against it.

My point - and those arguing rationally (like yourself) are stating that it is, indeed, arguable whether or not App Store is trademark-able. The companies involved are truly irrelevant unless you're a Microsoft or Apple "fan boy" - a term I hate to even use

 

[crazy dave]

How can you know that. Applications, or apps, have existed for decades. Don't you think anyone has thought about having a store to sell them in? I.e. an app store?

Again largely irrelevant (of course so was the person's argument against whom this argument was leveled). Only the term "App Store" is relevant. If I create a descriptive name ... say "Internet Explorer" is that descriptive, yes? Does it contain two common words in common parlance? yes. However, does it refer to the general class of web browsers or any other web browser? No. Internet Explorer vs Web Browser - very similar, obviously trying to capitalize on the generic name, but different and specific to Microsoft. If Microsoft called it a Web Browser they would not be able to trademark it.

Similarly that app and store are both in common parlance is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you think of when I say "App Store". It's like the word association games - "quick first thing you think of"

 

[samcraig]

Exactly this. ^

Apple just want to Trademark "App Store" so competitors can't market their stores like that "The App Store". It's not that big of a deal Microsoft.

If it's not a big deal - why does Apple care? it goes both ways LOL

 

[Snookerman]

You are missing the point, I'm not saying they invented the idea of buying software online. I'm saying they coined and popularized the phrase "App store", to the point where it's now synonymous with a sales platform for mobile applications.

Exactly, that is why it's generic.

 

[maxp1]

How can you know that. Applications, or apps, have existed for decades. Don't you think anyone has thought about having a store to sell them in? I.e. an app store?

Admittedly I can't be sure that nobody ever THOUGHT about it but certainly nobody ever DID anything about it. Besides which, 'application' wasn't a common term until relatively recently, the last decade or so. Before that we called them 'programs'. Yeah, yeah you're going to have some bogus black-and-white argument but it's bogus.

Another point, Apple isn't trying to trademark 'Application Store'. Anyone can still use that and call their thing the 'My Brand Application Store'. Apple is trying to protect 'App Store' a term they created, popularized and is heavily associated with their brand.

 

[unknownart]

Originally Posted by Snookerman
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
To be clear, they are only talking about registered trademarks on this page.

Microsoft sued "Lindows.com" for being too close to "Windows." I don't know about you, but I don't mix up "windows" with "lindows." very often.

 

[harry20larry]

I think its fair to say that 'App' and 'Store' by themselves are very generic words used throughout the mobile industry and especially in media.
The term 'App Store' I think belongs to Apple, especially as it has now been deployed into is PC space.
To all the people who talk about how the media use the term app store on other mobile platforms, think about this. On all MP3 players, or special audiobook promotions or on website, it talks about headphones working with iPod, not an MP3 player or zune, with iPod. Due Apple's market dominance in the MP3 space it led to people coining every MP3 player as an iPod, even if it wasn't.
Apple coined the ideology of an 'App Store', therefore I think it deserves due credit for that name.
You see everybody rushing to prevent someone from trademarking App Marketplace?

 

[crazy dave]

You are missing the point, I'm not saying they invented the idea of buying software online. I'm saying they coined and popularized the phrase "App store", to the point where it's now synonymous with a sales platform for mobile applications.

As pointed out, that would be an argument for it being generic.

For Apple to trademark it has to ONLY refer to Apple. However, Xerox and plexiglass etc ... managed to get their trademarks through so Apple still has a better than decent shot.

 

[karsten]

So what that doesn't negate the fact that they are also referred to as Apps. Apple didn't invent this word! As others have point out Handango had an App store when Steve was building Blueberry iMacs, Citrix has been Actualizing APPS for as long as I can remember, and when I was in College we built COBOL Apps.

all of these examples are either not relevant any more or not in the same market as apple's product. i could see apple being granted victory and still having others being able to use "app" as a generic term for an application. it's the fact that apple has the store as a repository for them, and has shown tight integration to their products that they should win. others just use the term in a generic sense.

 

[Snookerman]

Again largely irrelevant (of course so was the person's argument against whom this argument was leveled). Only the term "App Store" is relevant. If I create a descriptive name ... say "Internet Explorer" is that descriptive, yes? Does it contain two common words in common parlance? yes. However, does it refer to the general class of web browsers or any other web browser? No. Internet Explorer vs Web Browser - very similar, obviously trying to capitalize on the generic name, but different and specific to Microsoft. If Microsoft called it a Web Browser they would not be able to trademark it.

Similarly that app and store are both in common parlance is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you think of when I say "App Store". It's like the word association games - "quick first thing you think of"

Well irrelevant posts sometimes require irrelevant answers. That's the problem with forums and debate threads, there are a bunch of discussions and it's hard to keep track of them all. People start talking about irrelevant stuff, like how forums and debate threads work

 

[crazy dave]

Well irrelevant posts sometimes require irrelevant answers. That's the problem with forums and debate threads, there are a bunch of discussions and it's hard to keep track of them all. People start talking about irrelevant stuff, like how forums and debate threads work

Very TRUE!!!!!

 

[Geckotek]

App Store

Not the first to be used commercially

 

[fabianjj]

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)

The purpose of a trademark is to protect the trademark holder from others profitting from their good name. That's why I cannot write for example some Blackjack software and call it "Microsoft Blackjack", because people would believe that it is a high quality product written by the excellent programmers at Microsoft with their excellent quality control, and not by me in my spare time.

Now why would Microsoft want to prevent Apple from getting a trademark on "App Store"? Because they want to use _that_ name. But if we all together think about it for an hour or so we should be able to create a list of fifty good names for an online software distribution website easily. The only thing that wouldn't be good about these names would be that they don't make people think of Apple's iTunes App Store and Apple's Mac App Store. Only the name "App Store" would allow Microsoft to benefit from Apple's good name. Which is _exactly_ what trademarks are there to prevent.

You have a good point, but I think the underlying problem here is that if only apple can use the word "App Store" then when anyone tries to use a different phone they will think that there is no place to download applications due to the absence of an "App Store" icon. The same way a lot of people just a few years back thought that there was no Internet connection unless they saw a swirly blue 'E' icon somewhere.

If Microsoft wins this, then that type of confusion could be avoided. One would think that it is not that hard for people to learn different names for different phones, but among most people it could be a huge problem. it wouldn't surprise me if some people returned their android phones as defective for not finding an app store icon that they were used to.

 

[maxp1]

Ok. With that being stated. Would it be inappropriate for someone to challenge that? Because that seems to be the "hoopla" here. For many anyway. They believe that Microsoft has no basis (or is jealous, sour grapes, fill in the blank) to petition against it.

My point - and those arguing rationally (like yourself) are stating that it is, indeed, arguable whether or not App Store is trademark-able. The companies involved are truly irrelevant unless you're a Microsoft or Apple "fan boy" - a term I hate to even use

I just don't understand the basis of that argument. Apple applied for the trademark in 2008. Back then nobody else had an 'App Store' and nobody else was using the term. That in the time since then it has come somewhat into generic use just doesn't seem relevant. Apple created the 'App Store' and others have tagged on with their own versions. Why should they lose their ability to trademark because others have copied them?

 

[Snookerman]

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.

Well I'm not sure how that would work, but doesn't it mean that if Microsoft would want to write something like "check our Marketplace our very own app store for a bunch of great apps", they would have to write "app store®" and then mention that "app store®" is a registered trademark by Apple Inc. or whatever? I would say that is a big deal for a competitor to have to do. But again, I'm not sure that's how it would work.

 

[crazy dave]

I think its fair to say that 'App' and 'Store' by themselves are very generic words used throughout the mobile industry and especially in media.
The term 'App Store' I think belongs to Apple, especially as it has now been deployed into is PC space.
To all the people who talk about how the media use the term app store on other mobile platforms, think about this. On all MP3 players, or special audiobook promotions or on website, it talks about headphones working with iPod, not an MP3 player or zune, with iPod. Due Apple's market dominance in the MP3 space it led to people coining every MP3 player as an iPod, even if it wasn't.
Apple coined the ideology of an 'App Store', therefore I think it deserves due credit for that name.
You see everybody rushing to prevent someone from trademarking App Marketplace?

One could argue that on a moral level the coiner does deserve it and that may indeed weigh in the balance, but on a legal level it's not always that simple. However, most of the cases I can think of the coiner did indeed win - however, in most of those cases there was a viable generic term to differentiate them even if their own name had become synonymous with the product class.

I have to admit, that I can't think of what else I would call the class of products "App Store", "Android Marketplace", "Handago", etc ... which is a strike against Apple (though not necessarily a deadly one). Sometimes a company can be the victim of its own success.

 

[mKTank]

Facedesk.

Let's set a couple of things straight here.

This objection by Microsoft is perfectly reasonable. It's like doing it to a store called the Food Store or an electronics store called The Electronics Store.

Apple invented app.
No, Apple didn't invent 'app.' It existed in the mid-80s before Apple even thought of making Mac.

Windows is generic too. And so is Word, and Office...
Except the trademark actually reads "Microsoft Windows," "Microsoft Word," and "Microsoft Office." Not to mention, you don't really understand how it works. 'Windows' isn't a description of what the OS does. 'Word' isn't a description of what the program does. 'Office' isn't a description of what the suite does. 'App Store' is a description of what it is.

Microsoft waited 4 years? Lol just because WP7 came out recently.
No. Apple wasn't actually granted the trademark until January 2010. So it took them a year. Okay, reasonable, given that a) it probably takes a long time to prepare legal grounds, and b) they were too busy making WP7 instead of picking future fights.


I can't imagine for a single second why somebody would actually agree with Apple here. It's like Walmart being called "A Store" or Steam being called "Online Video Game Distribution System." It's absolutely nuts. Almost as idiotic as trying to trademark the letter 'i,' which was unsurprisingly denied.

 

[Snookerman]

Microsoft sued "Lindows.com" for being too close to "Windows." I don't know about you, but I don't mix up "windows" with "lindows." very often.

First of all, I didn't even mention "Windows", second of all, that is totally irrelevant, third of all "lindows" is one letter off from "windows". I have no idea what the rules are from infringement (or w/e it's called for trademarks) but I reckon one letter is pretty close.

 

[maxp1]

I have to admit, that I can't think of what else I would call the class of products "App Store", "Android Marketplace", "Handago", etc ... which is a strike against Apple (though not necessarily a deadly one). Sometimes a company can be the victim of its own success.

How about 'Application Store'? Apple isn't trying to trademark that.

 

[crazy dave]

Well I'm not sure how that would work, but doesn't it mean that if Microsoft would want to write something like "check our Marketplace our very own app store for a bunch of great apps", they would have to write "app store®" and then mention that "app store®" is a registered trademark by Apple Inc. or whatever? I would say that is a big deal for a competitor to have to do. But again, I'm not sure that's how it would work.

No ... I *believe* you could use the descriptive name still as a descriptor. But you couldn't call your source for apps "App Store" or anything close to that. However, I'm not sure either.