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

[iStudentUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Perhaps Microsoft wouldn't mind giving up the 'Windows' trademark then based on their logic.

You could say the same if Office and Word, but the argument doesn't work. It depends on context.

Office was not used as a name for desktop publishing before MS did it, so they rightly protected the name.

Apple didn't have the first app store and the term was, and is, used in general terms in the same context as Apple are trying to trademark.

By analogy, Mars can protect the name Mars Bar despite Mars having other uses, they would not be able to trademark a new bar called "Chocolate Bar"- the term is generic in that context.

 

[NebulaClash]

When Microsoft creates something new

Hmm . . . in what mythical future might this happen?

 

[Geckotek]

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.

The problem is your example says "Microsoft Blackjack" which differentiates it from other Blackjack programs. Apple should be able to Trademark the "Apple App Store" or some variation, but not just a generic "App Store".

When I ask an Android user if they have an app, I ask them if it's available in their "App Store" becuase that is the generic term in my mind. It's too bad that Apple chose such a generic term. We'll see how this turns out in the end, but I think MS has a good case.

 

[pepitko]

Yes, it may seem that M$ is fighting because they are behind the curve again, but as far as I can make out, Windows programs were also called applications a long time ago, so yes, app store really is generic. Would be the same as trademarking something like the "bakery."

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-gb; GT-P1000 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

When I download an app from Apple, I get it from the "App store"
When I download from Google, I get it from "Android Market"
If I got it from a WP7 phone I get it from the "Windows Marketplace".

Apple are more than welcome to "App store" as that is what I associate Apple's store with. I can't say that I've ever seen a Google keynote where they use "app store" over "Android Market" in that respect.

 

[John.B]

Did any of those companies invent the term app store, or did the press co-opt the term after Apple started using it? Are any of those companies specifically trying to use "App Store"? If this trademark has been in process since 2008, it really doesn't help the lawsuit that others (like the so-called "tech press") are misusing the term...

 

[jimmer-uk]

As a developer, I say that this would complicate things.

I advertise things as "Available on the App Store"

I don't want consumers being confused and saying they can't find it on their Windows 7 App Store.

I don't want to have to say "Available on the iOS App Store." most consumers don't know what iOS is. iPhone App Store might work, but then iPad users might not realize it's on their store too and I don't want to have to say "Available on the iPhone and iPad App Store."

I can see your point but as a developer you develop for customers and I like the general use of the term app store to be for applications for a device, not just for ios device.

Just like if you told me available in the "supermarket" I would instantly know where to get it, perhaps not which one, but I'd know where.

 

[Popeye206]

Silly

This is a silly argument.

The way Trademarks work is they have to be unique in your market place. "App store" is too generic. However, "Apple App Store" or "iOS App Store" would probably stick. MS will probably win this one. If Apple would have applied for this years ago, it probably would have been granted and stuck.

For Trademarks like "MS Word", today this would be a hard one to trademark. Even back in the 90's when I had to Trademark some major software applications, it was very difficult to find a defendable and unique name. But when "MS Word" was trademarked, there was little prior art.

With all that said... MS is just mad because they have no Apps!

 

[ZilogZ80]

I find it highly amusing that this seemingly innocuous story is suddenly such a hot topic!!

 

[buckers]

uh, "windows" anyone???

+1

 

[rjohnstone]

Nope, because Microsoft Windows call them "PROGRAMS"

When was the last time you used Windows, 1988?
Open Explorer and look at the definition of an EXE... Microsoft labels them as Applications, not Programs.
Yes, they still use the term Program(s) in the control panel, but they are listed as Applications in the file type descriptions.

And many in the tech industry have called Programs, "App(s)" when referring to applications on the Windows platform for many years.

Steve Jobs brought the term "App Store" into generic use and is now trying to claim it for Apple.
Sorry Steve, you cannot have it both ways.

As for the "Windows" trademark, none exists.
Microsoft lost that trademark many years ago.
They hold many marks like "Windows Live" and Windows Vista", but the original "Windows" mark was canceled by the USPTO.
Go do a TESS search and see for yourself.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4010:sd3c92.5.251

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

It's a stupid fight.

Not by any means.

It is quite relevant to both involved parties. Especially Apple.

See some posts above yours. They also called them applications.

A few examples do not a consensus make. I guess part of me just wants to assume that people here grew up through this, but that's probably far from the truth. Regardless of whether the term application has been used by Microsoft, even in Windows 3.1, it was the standard term on Mac OS, was very rarely used by Microsoft by comparison, and was not the term Microsoft users typically used in relation to the platform (unless they started on a Mac and carried it over, for example). Programs, executables, whatever.

But it should still be pointed out that this isn't very relevant to this trademark.

The lawyers will say whatever they are paid to. They will present what they are told to present and see if if flies.

And if 'App Store' couldn't be trademarked, they wouldn't have tried. Seemingly generic terms are frequently trademarked when they are used (especially in combination) to describe a platform, business, whatever. Apple has a good case here, and App Store is iconic in users' minds. And Microsoft has some wiggle room (others that want the term too) to put up a bit of a battle; they have something to gain if they win.

 

[plathunter]

Most peoples arguments does not even make sense just because nobody had called their stores app store before apple did it does not mean you can trademark it. When Steve Jobs refers to other stores as app store he would lose the trademark because than it has become known as a generized trademark just like elevator, escalator, xerox or many other trademarks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

 

[cleanup]

Personally I see this a bit like Apple trademarking the term "multitasking".

Oh yeah, people calling for Microsoft to relinquish their use of "Windows" and "Word" = idiots. Those are brand names and are RESTRICTED within the realm of such... ie. you can't have another IT company called Microsoft or another OS called Windows. Certainly you can still use the term "windows" in describing application windows. Apple is trying to secure "app store" as just a generic term that is THEIRS to use, and no one else's, so that no matter what you do, you can't stick the those two words in the same order for anything. I think what Apple is really worried about though is other companies having the ability to use the same term and glean some of its popularity/familiarity. Apple obviously wants other handset/OS manufacturers to use obscure terms like "Marketplace," "Program Market" or some awkward b*llshit like that.

 

[netvvork]

100% wrong. If the "App" "Store" is a store selling applications....then it IS in fact generic.

If they called it "Appz Store" or "iApp Store" then this is something they could trademark.

its not actually a store selling applications. its an app called "app store". its just an interface that was designed by apple to connect you to the store. "app store" revolutionized the WAY we purchase applications. nothings else.

 

[silentnite]

The truth is I never heard of an app. store until apple started using the term app. store. or itunes, now suddenly everyone has an app for that or an app. store. What really needs to happen is everyone needs to stop coat tailing apple and get original with an idea already. Just like the ipad many company's could have put out a tablet way before apple. Question why didn't they? because they wanted to follow the leader as always.

 

[MisterMe]

Window is not a generic term in the computer industry at the time of trademark.

It’s a common word in a domestic sense.

Don't be a complete buffoon.

You are completely and totally wrong about the use of the term windows in the computer industry. The term was in use to describe having multiple tasks on the same display back in the 1970's prior to the existence of MS-DOS, let alone Microsoft Windows. The term was popularized by the Apple Macintosh long before Microsoft Windows hit the market.

As for the term app, the .app extension is used for application bundles that run on MacOS X and no other operating system. However, the term became popular only after Apple added the capability for users to install their own applications to the iPhone. Apple called these applications "apps." There's an app for that! was the tagline that seared the term into our consciousness.

The iOS App Store has been online for years now. Only after the MacOS X App Store came online did Microsoft wake up and is now running scared.

 

[logandzwon]

Read up. Microsoft does NOT. I repeat, does NOT have a trademark on Windows OR Word.

Why don't we all just call it what it is and always has been, that Linux has been using for years and years, a "Software Repository", sure it's not nifty sounding, but hey, then nobody can whine about who gets to name it!

I would prefer them NOT to get the trademark on "App Store", as others had mentioned, it would be so much easier if they all just said "App Store" unless they chose to do something else (Android Marketplace still sounds kinda catchy, but App World, c'mon, you can do better.)

To repeat, again, since this KEEPS coming up (folks should READ a thread before they post in it). Microsoft's products named Word, Office and Windows are NOT copyrighted, and have not been for almost 10 years now.

Windows, Word and Office are not copyrighted. As in not. Check the logo on a recent version of Windows, bet it says Microsoft(TM) Windows (and nothing else) doesn't it?



Hate to burst your bubble too but Microsoft was not invited to see Xerox' machine, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were. When Lisa/Mac came out Microsoft was still licensing DOS. It was Apple who stole from Xerox, and then Microsoft consequently ripped off the idea from Apple, but what followed was a standard in computing so nobody could really "patent" it (it'd be like trying to patent the wheel)



But windows does not and never has tried to trademark the term "Executable", which is what .exe stands for.


-John

MS both has trademarks on Windows and tries to enforce them;
http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=2562.0

Also, Xerox game or sold the IP to Apple. There was no stealing involved. Microsoft signed up with Apple to write software for Mac, got a hold of confidential pre-lease machines, software, documents, etc... and relased a low cost clone.

 

[rjohnstone]

Just like the ipad many company's could have put out a tablet way before apple. Question why didn't they? because they wanted to follow the leader as always.

Poor argument.
Many DID put out tablets before the iPad.
The iPad has had better success due to marketing, and an easy to use UI.

 

[UWF404]

I can't fault Apple for trying to own the term. That said, I agree with Microsoft that it's a generic term. For the record I'm a Microsoft hater.

 

[karsten]

i actually agree w/ apple on this, they were the first ones to kind of popularize the whole idea of an 'app' for their devices

 

[gnasher729]

The problem is your example says "Microsoft Blackjack" which differentiates it from other Blackjack programs. Apple should be able to Trademark the "Apple App Store" or some variation, but not just a generic "App Store".

When I ask an Android user if they have an app, I ask them if it's available in their "App Store" becuase that is the generic term in my mind. It's too bad that Apple chose such a generic term. We'll see how this turns out in the end, but I think MS has a good case.

You missed the main point completely: "App Store" is so connected in everyone's mind with downloading iPhone applications that anyone else using the name would be benefitting from Apple's good name. That's exactly what trademarks are preventing.

And "App Store" clearly differentiates Apple's online website for purchase and download of computer and phone software from other online websites for purchase and download of computer and phone software. Microsoft itself uses "Marketplace". That's a perfectly fine name. Why not use that, except people think it's Microsoft and therefore horrible and ugly, and not Apple? Shouldn't they try to build something good themselves, like _competing_ with Apple and try to convince people that "Marketplace" is better than "App Store" instead of copying the name?

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Poor argument.
Many DID put out tablets before the iPad.
The iPad has had better success due to marketing, and an easy to use UI.

UI is the real winner here. Or more generally, usability.
For example, a desktop OS just doesn't belong on a tablet.

 

[Geckotek]

And if 'App Store' couldn't be trademarked, they wouldn't have tried.

Let's put it this way, it's not that it can't be trademarked. You can try to trademark almost anything you want (unless it blatant that it won't pass). If you pay a lawyer they will present it. The problem lies in...is anybody watching. Will anybody object. And MS was watching.

its not actually a store selling applications. its an app called "app store". its just an interface that was designed by apple to connect you to the store. "app store" revolutionized the WAY we purchase applications. nothings else.

Exactly, an interface to a store that sells applications. It's just too bad Apple didn't choose a more unique name. They will most likely lose this one.

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Let's put it this way, it's not that it can't be trademarked. You can try to trademark almost anything you want (unless it blatant that it won't pass). If you pay a lawyer they will present it. The problem lies in...is anybody watching. Will anybody object. And MS was watching.

I know you mean well, but it looks like you don't understand how this process works and has worked in the past.