But no one had an app store until Apple called it such. It's like no one knew what a kleenex was until Kleenex defined it. Now, you ask for a tissue you probably don't ask for a "tissue" you ask for a kleenex.
Apple wins.
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
But no one had an app store until Apple called it such. It's like no one knew what a kleenex was until Kleenex defined it. Now, you ask for a tissue you probably don't ask for a "tissue" you ask for a kleenex.
Apple wins.
But I might like to point out that word kleenex is not a trademark. It is a generic term now days.
And once again I must point out...Handmark App Store existed long before the iPhone.
For those haters, and people struggling to get to grips with the real issue of Apple's ownership, the task is a simple one... find someone, anyone, that was using the term 'App Store' before Apple. If you find one, Apple lose, if you can't, and obviously it's highly unlikely that you will, then Apple win. It is superfluous about its ubiquity, because being so far ahead of the ratpack let Apple make it that way.
MS making such a fuss just seems like the desperate thrashings of a company completely without any confidence in what it does. The Evil Empire has 'Android Market', and seem content enough with that, then there's 'BB App World' etc etc.
MS rode roughshod over anyone that threatened its profits in the past, but now market share is falling, innovation dried up, momentum lost, and even the most rabid Windows fanboys sense their own irrelevance and prefer using their 'Droid's' to bitch about Apple.
MS making such a fuss just seems like the desperate thrashings of a company completely without any confidence in what it does. The Evil Empire has 'Android Market', and seem content enough with that, then there's 'BB App World' etc etc.
MS rode roughshod over anyone that threatened its profits in the past, but now market share is falling, innovation dried up, momentum lost, and even the most rabid Windows fanboys sense their own irrelevance and prefer using their 'Droid's' to bitch about Apple.
Guess what, we can all spout out opinions all day long on this forum, but none of it means squat. Despite all our conjecture, the decision will be made and nothing we say here will have made a bit of difference.
That being said, feel free to bookmark this and check it later....I believe that MS will win this one. Feel free to disagree all you like, won't change the facts the way I see them.
I will agree with you. Most people will agree with you. But the buck stops there. There's no other angle. Has Microsoft ever used the term "Apps store"? Do they even HAVE such a service?
Now consider all the many many many angles that Apple has. They deserve the trademark.
Stop being such a passive annoyance. Big text doesn't make you right, it makes you a nuisance.
Maybe I should just post this every couple of pages.
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.
Not a good analogy, since Kleenex probably couldn't survive a trademark challenge. If App Store is to application stores what Kleenex is to tissues, then Microsoft probably wins (even though Kleenex still has their trademark. It's not clear that, if someone challenged them, Kleenex would get to keep their trademark).
I tend to agree with Microsoft here. But just because they can't trademark App Store doesn't make much of a difference. Kleenex didn't go out of business when they lost the trademark. To the contrary, losing the trademark was a reflection of their market dominance. Same with Xerox, Yo-Yo, Zipper, Thermos, Phillips-head, Kerosene, Asprin, etc. Apple will always have the App Store, whether there's a Windows App Store or not.
I think this is a close case though. But Apple does not have as good a case for App Store as, for instance, Google would have for Google. Even though "google" has probably become more genericized than App Store.
Last edited:
Yes it can. So far, at least. "Aspirin," on the other hand, didn't fare as well (in the U.S., at least).
Here's why Microsoft will FAIL its App Store trademark objection. CHART + analysis:
http://obamapacman.com/2011/01/anal...mark-objection-microsoft-tries-to-fool-uspto/
So obvious to call it the "App Store" isn't it?
http://obamapacman.com/2011/01/anal...mark-objection-microsoft-tries-to-fool-uspto/
So obvious to call it the "App Store" isn't it?
Attachments
So google will lose its trademarked company name because people use "Google" instead of web search?
I fully agree. The term "App Store" was invented. Before the App revolution appear, nobody had a clue on what an "App Store" was all about. Microsoft uses the extension ".exe", Apple ".app". It is that simple. Why is Microsoft not calling theirs the "Exe Store", or the "M$ Store"?
So google will lose its trademarked company name because people use "Google" instead of web search?
Someday it could happen. Bayer lost the trademark to "aspirin" in the U.S. that way.
MS still up to their old tricks.
History dictates Microsoft was not the first to use the term Windows as a computer term.
Apple used the word window in the Mac OS and Lisa OS (to describe the graphical objects we know as windows) BEFORE Microsoft called their OS Windows. And the term Window was used by Xerox in the Park Interface. And might have been used before that in the history of the development of the GUI.
History dictates Microsoft was not the first to use the term Windows as a computer term.
Apple used the word window in the Mac OS and Lisa OS (to describe the graphical objects we know as windows) BEFORE Microsoft called their OS Windows. And the term Window was used by Xerox in the Park Interface. And might have been used before that in the history of the development of the GUI.
Uh, actually - it's EXACTLY that. And Apple obviously thinks so, too, so go argue with them.
You have a very poor grasp of trademark and copyright concepts.
Precisely! Not to mention what happened to Kleenex and Cellophane! And Coca-Cola has a phalanx of lawyers whose main responsibility it is to protect the Coke brand from the same fate.
"App Store" is nothing at all like Walmart being called "A Store". Not even close. Many successful trademark names can be broken down into uncopyrightable, 'generic' word components. "Pizza Hut", for instance. It's their assemblage as a phrase - and their link to a particular product or business - that allows a copyright and/or trademark to be established.
Furthermore, the reason WalMart didn't call itself "A Store" was not because of a lack of ability to trademark the term. It was because no one could differentiate it from any OTHER store. But if someone really wanted that business name badly enough, they could probably have it - as long as no one else has it already.
Last edited:
Wrong.
I really don't see the point of arguing with these friggin' people anymore. Pissing in a sea of piss.
He's sort of right. Making a purely descriptive mark "famous" (in the sense that the public associates it with a particular supplier or company) is what is required to obtain a trademark on such a mark.
This does not work for generic marks (which denote the genus of the product) of course.
Which is why I think he'll be wrong. There are other factors is what I was trying to say, but looking back that's not how I said it.