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

Snookerman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm betting that what Microsoft wants to do is make a shiny button that says "App Store" since it is short and easier to fit in a shiny button thing rather than "Microsoft Application Marketplace"
 
crazy dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

The other companies have proven that it is quite easy find another name, I guess it doesn't have the same ring as the original does since the original called shot gun on the best name, hence why the media choose to use it.

I agree how it has become a generic term, but surely if it has become a generic term through a single companies success it is worthy to reward that company with a term that they made generic?
 
mKTank said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again mostly irrelevant arguments. "Internet Explorer" is descriptive of what it does, is very close in meaning to the generic name web browser, but it isn't that name - so it's okay. Descriptive names are trademark-able.

The issue is whether or not "App Store" is something tied to Apple or does it refer to the general class. The origins of app and store are irrelevant (therefore so are any argument claiming Apple invented app too).

Apple called their product "App Store" - the issue is at the time was that already a name associated with the general class of products or was that something specific to Apple and is it so now?

Honestly I'm no sure what is more important - the now or at the time - it seems like the latter should be more important and therefor Apple has a pretty strong case since there were very few stores selling mobile apps and the idea hadn't really quite caught on. Therefore there wasn't a generic name to call it and therefore it is simply them being a victim of their own success that everyone thinks of them now as app stores. However, most companies have also had to defend from the "now" - like Xerox, Plexiglass, etc ... by the time their patents had been approved Xerox started to try to refer to people photocopying things since Xerox had been so successful that Xerox was becoming associated with the general class of product.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by subsonix
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's as generic as "Make me a Xerox of this form.", or "Hand me a Kleenex, please." App Store is just like those previous two examples-widely used, but really a trademark of a particular company.

(I have made an effort to ask for a "photocopy" instead of a "Xerox", but still fall back on "Kleenex" when I want a "tissue" ever since the two companies made noises about their names being thought of as generic.)
 
unknownart said:
No, it's as generic as "Make me a Xerox of this form.", or "Hand me a Kleenex, please." App Store is just like those previous two examples-widely used, but really a trademark of a particular company.

(I have made an effort to ask for a "photocopy" instead of a "Xerox", but still fall back on "Kleenex" when I want a "tissue" ever since the two companies made noises about their names being thought of as generic.)
Click to expand...

Completely opposite. Those were nonsense words that later became associated with an action/product. App Store is exactly the opposite of that a purely descriptive term that a company decided to adopt for a product.

But while it's use may have become more popularized by Apple, Apple didn't coin the term nor were they the first to use it commecially. They will lose this battle.
 
unknownart said:
I'm betting that what Microsoft wants to do is make a shiny button that says "App Store" since it is short and easier to fit in a shiny button thing rather than "Microsoft Application Marketplace"
Click to expand...

If they wanted shiny buttons with short text, they could have one saying "Apps" which is generic and can be used by anyone.
 
Geckotek said:
Completely opposite. Those were nonsense words that later became associated with an action/product. App Store is exactly the opposite of that a purely descriptive term that a company decided to adopt for a product.

But while it's use may have become more popularized by Apple, Apple didn't coin the term nor were they the first to use it commecially. They will lose this battle.
Click to expand...

Sorry but isn't App a made up word(by shortening application) that Apple have been using first? And then it got common for people to use when Apple exploded with the iPhone?

I do understand "application", but App sound to me a jargon that came from Apple. I never heard this word ever since I heard it from Apple, it's theirs.

Plus they own the ".app" extension so the App Store can be esily associated to it whether people knows that or not, it's theirs.

I'm not against MS they have a point, but why none of the other companies gives a sh t?
 
maxp1 said:
How about 'Application Store'? Apple isn't trying to trademark that.
Click to expand...

That's because "application store" is a description of what it is.

"App Store" is similar to KMart or Walmart. Instead of Walton's Market, They went for Wal-Mart and just now shortened it to Walmart. I have no idea what the "k" in KMart is for... (Kenmore?)
 
crazy dave said:
Again mostly irrelevant arguments. "Internet Explorer" is descriptive of what it does, is very close in meaning to the generic name web browser, but it isn't that name - so it's okay. Descriptive names are trademark-able.

The issue is whether or not "App Store" is something tied to Apple or does it refer to the general class. The origins of app and store are irrelevant (therefore so are any argument claiming Apple invented app too).

Apple called their product "App Store" - the issue is at the time was that already a name associated with the general class of products or was that something specific to Apple and is it so now?

Honestly I'm no sure what is more important - the now or at the time - it seems like the latter should be more important and therefor Apple has a pretty strong case since there were very few stores selling mobile apps and the idea hadn't really quite caught on. Therefore there wasn't a generic name to call it and therefore it is simply them being a victim of their own success that everyone thinks of them now as app stores. However, most companies have also had to defend from the "now" - like Xerox, Plexiglass, etc ... by the time their patents had been approved Xerox started to try to refer to people photocopying things since Xerox had been so successful that Xerox was becoming associated with the general class of product.
Click to expand...

MkTank, I feel, is correct.

'Windows', 'Word' and 'Access' don't in any way indicate what these programs actually are unless you have prior knowledge of them. If the trademarked names were exactly the same as what they are, then you'd have a point. So in the examples above the names would need to be 'Operating System', 'Word Processor' and 'Database' to be names that are too generic to be trademarked.

'Internet Explorer' is descriptive of what it does, but isn't the name of what it is. The too-generic-to-be-trademarked-name would be 'Browser' or 'Web Browser' or 'Internet Browser'.

'App Store' or 'Application Store', however, is an exact description of what this service is, and is thus really too generic a term to be trademarked. All Apple need to do is call it something like 'iOS App Store' and it's no longer too generic.
 
Fraaaa said:
Sorry but isn't App a made up word(by shortening application) that Apple have been using first? And then it got common for people to use when Apple exploded with the iPhone?
Click to expand...

No, app is an abbreviation. Abbreviations are accepted terms in our language and are not considered "made up".

And see my previous post and about a million others in this thread....APPLE DID NOT USE "APP" FIRST.
 
Fraaaa said:
Sorry but isn't App a made up word(by shortening application) that Apple have been using first? And then it got common for people to use when Apple exploded with the iPhone?

I do understand "application", but App sound to me a jargon that came from Apple. I never heard this word ever since I heard it from Apple, it's theirs.

Plus they own the ".app" extension so the App Store can be esily associated to it whether people knows that or not, it's theirs.

I'm not against MS they have a point, but why none of the other companies gives a sh t?
Click to expand...

Whether App is an Apple term is irrelevant - only "App Store" is relevant.

I don't remember seeing any references to app stores before Apple and I wasn't able to reproduce the results that said the term "app store" was already in commercial use a descriptor for Apps. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't and if app store was a generic term in common parlance Apple will *probably* lose, but not necessarily. Again, what is important is whether use of the term "App store" is meant to signify Apple's store or is a generic term for the class. If the latter, is Apple's success responsible for making it a generic term? These are all factors and none are clear cut.
 
unknownart said:
That's because "application store" is a description of what it is.

"App Store" is similar to KMart or Walmart. Instead of Walton's Market, They went for Wal-Mart and just now shortened it to Walmart. I have no idea what the "k" in KMart is for... (Kenmore?)
Click to expand...

Hahahaha, Kenmore is a Sears brand. Sears and K-Mart are only recently the same company. K-Mart wouldn't have used a Sears brand to come up with their name. K-Mart most likely came from the founder's name...Kresge.
 
crazy dave said:
Whether App is an Apple term is irrelevant - only "App Store" is relevant.

I don't remember seeing any references to app stores before Apple and I wasn't able to reproduce the results that said the term "app store" was already in commercial use a descriptor for Apps. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't and if app store was a generic term in common parlance Apple will *probably* lose, but not necessarily. Again, what is important is whether use of the term "App store" is meant to signify Apple's store or is a generic term for the class. If the latter, is Apple's success responsible for making it a generic term? These are all factors and none are clear cut.
Click to expand...

Prior art is a patent thing, not a trademark thing. It's not because no one used "Shoe Store" before in a commercial setting to talk about their store that sells shoes that you can trademark "Shoe Store". App Stores are a dime a dozen and are a category of stores, stores that happen to sell apps as abbreviated for applications.

Anyway, seeing how the USPTO initially denied Apple and only came to the objection phase after Apple badgered them, I don't see how they'll get the trademark granted after this high profile objection to it. It seems the deck is stacked against them and rightly so. "Mac App Store", "iTunes App Store", go for it, but I can't really approve of them trying to trademark "App Store", just like I wouldn't approve of 7-eleven trademarking and renaming their stores "Convenience Store".
 
Fraaaa said:
Sorry but isn't App a made up word(by shortening application) that Apple have been using first? And then it got common for people to use when Apple exploded with the iPhone?

I do understand "application", but App sound to me a jargon that came from Apple. I never heard this word ever since I heard it from Apple, it's theirs.

Plus they own the ".app" extension so the App Store can be esily associated to it whether people knows that or not, it's theirs.

I'm not against MS they have a point, but why none of the other companies gives a sh t?
Click to expand...

Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it didn't exist before Apple. Check out this site for instance: http://appsapps.info/ or just do a Google search for "app". Besides, you said so yourself that "application" has existed before, but Apple didn't "invent" the short for it. People have shortened words since long words have been invented.
 
mrochester said:
MkTank, I feel, is correct.

'Windows', 'Word' and 'Access' don't in any way indicate what these programs actually are unless you have prior knowledge of them. If the trademarked names were exactly the same as what they are, then you'd have a point. So in the examples above the names would need to be 'Operating System', 'Word Processor' and 'Database' to be names that are too generic to be trademarked.

'Internet Explorer' is descriptive of what it does, but isn't the name of what it is. The too-generic-to-be-trademarked-name would be 'Browser' or 'Web Browser' or 'Internet Browser'.

'App Store' or 'Application Store', however, is an exact description of what this service is, and is thus really too generic a term to be trademarked. All Apple need to do is call it something like 'iOS App Store' and it's no longer too generic.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Read Microsoft's claim. It isn't that the name is descriptive. Descriptive names can be trademarked, regardless of "is" or "does" - the only thing that matters is if it is a generic name or something specific to Apple.

P.S. Your argument is also flawed in another respect: Browser is description of the action taken (or more accurately the person/thing who is doing the browsing) - it is exactly analogous in every respect to the word Explorer a description of the action or more accurately to the person/thing doing the exploration.

However, again this counter argument is irrelevant since the original argument was irrelevant. Descriptive names are viably trademarked as long as they have become associated completely with the company and the product and not a generic name.
 
Snookerman said:
If they wanted shiny buttons with short text, they could have one saying "Apps" which is generic and can be used by anyone.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
However, I had never heard of the term "apps" used as pervasively as when it was used for the App Store. In the past, I kinda cringed every time I heard "app". (Not so much anymore. I guess the usage dulled my cringe-muscles)

However, the emphasis is really on "store" y'know, so you can sell stuff, make money, that kind of thing.

A shiny button called "Apps" could mean that it would take you to the software you already have.

Maybe "shiny button" could be interchangeable with the word "tile".

Having a "tile" on, oh, say, some hand held mobile device labeled "app store" would be ever so keen.
 
bootedbear said:
Ummm, glass houses? Word? Office? Access? Windows? Paint?

Ballmer is probably just worried about how they're going to copy it.
Click to expand...

Wow, you've missed a lot. Please read at least part of the thread before posting uninformed statements.
 
crazy dave said:
Irrelevant. Read Microsoft's claim. It isn't that the name is descriptive. Descriptive names can be trademarked, regardless of "is" or "does" - the only thing that matters is if it is a generic name or something specific to Apple.

P.S. Your argument is also flawed in another respect: Browser is description of the action taken (or more accurately the person/thing who is doing the browsing) - it is exactly analogous in every respect to the word Explorer a description of the action or more accurately to the person/thing doing the exploration.

However, again this counter argument is irrelevant since the original argument was irrelevant. Descriptive names are viably trademarked as long as they have become associated completely with the company and the product and not a generic name.
Click to expand...

Uh oh, we've created an irrelevancy chain :p

By the way, dibs on trademarking "irrelevancy chain"!
 
Last edited:
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