Apple fires back at Amazon in continuing 'App Store' name dispute
Apple has responded to Amazon in court, as the company continues to defend its trademark of the words "App Store," and hopes to have a court prevent Amazon from using the name "appstore" for its Android application storefront.
Apple filed a new statement in a federal Court in Oakland, Calif., in which it denied Amazon's claim that the term "App Store" is generic, according to Bloomberg. Apple has filed a trademark infringement suit against Amazon for its Appstore for Android.
"Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," Apple's filing reads. It also argues that the term isn't commonly used by businesses to describe download services, and asserts that the term "app store" is not generic.
Apple filed its original suit against Amazon in March, a day before the online retailer's Amazon Appstore launched. In April, Amazon responded, and argued that the term "app store" is generic, and should be free for anyone to use. The latest filing by Apple served as an attempt to refute Amazon's claims.
The back-and-forth situation is playing out similar to Apple's dispute with Microsoft, though no lawsuit has been filed between those two companies. Instead, in January, Microsoft filed an objection to Apple's "App Store" trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Like Amazon, Microsoft believes that the term "app store" is too generic to be fairly registered with the USPTO. Apple originally filed for the trademark shortly after the launch of the iPhone App Store in 2008, and U.S. law requires trademark owners to aggressively defend their marks, or risk losing them.
Microsoft even cited Amazon's Appstore for Android in a later complaint. It argued that Amazon's digital storefront served as proof of a "competitive need" for generic use of the term.
For its part, Apple fired back at Microsoft in legal filings, and argued that the term "App Store" is no more generic than Microsoft's ownership of the name "Windows." The iPhone maker noted that Microsoft has "faced a decades-long genericness challenge to its claimed WINDOWS mark" that should make the Redmond, Wash., software giant "well aware" that genericness is based on how a term applies to "a substantial majority of the relevant public."
"Yet Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole," Apple's filing reads.
Apple filed a new statement in a federal Court in Oakland, Calif., in which it denied Amazon's claim that the term "App Store" is generic, according to Bloomberg. Apple has filed a trademark infringement suit against Amazon for its Appstore for Android.
"Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," Apple's filing reads. It also argues that the term isn't commonly used by businesses to describe download services, and asserts that the term "app store" is not generic.
Apple filed its original suit against Amazon in March, a day before the online retailer's Amazon Appstore launched. In April, Amazon responded, and argued that the term "app store" is generic, and should be free for anyone to use. The latest filing by Apple served as an attempt to refute Amazon's claims.
The back-and-forth situation is playing out similar to Apple's dispute with Microsoft, though no lawsuit has been filed between those two companies. Instead, in January, Microsoft filed an objection to Apple's "App Store" trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Like Amazon, Microsoft believes that the term "app store" is too generic to be fairly registered with the USPTO. Apple originally filed for the trademark shortly after the launch of the iPhone App Store in 2008, and U.S. law requires trademark owners to aggressively defend their marks, or risk losing them.
Microsoft even cited Amazon's Appstore for Android in a later complaint. It argued that Amazon's digital storefront served as proof of a "competitive need" for generic use of the term.
For its part, Apple fired back at Microsoft in legal filings, and argued that the term "App Store" is no more generic than Microsoft's ownership of the name "Windows." The iPhone maker noted that Microsoft has "faced a decades-long genericness challenge to its claimed WINDOWS mark" that should make the Redmond, Wash., software giant "well aware" that genericness is based on how a term applies to "a substantial majority of the relevant public."
"Yet Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole," Apple's filing reads.
Comments
Didn't Amazon patent "One Click" or something like that? That's pretty generic. It's just a first mover advantage that you get the generic name. I don't think people are so stupid they can't tell what store they're at.
Ironically, Apple licenses the "One-Click" to buy button technology from Amazon.
I completely agree with APPLE. "APP Store" is NOT generic. However "application store" IS generic. Why doesn't Amazon call their store, Amazon Application Store? Because they WANT their store to be perceived similiar to Apple's App Store.
Because Amazon knows that people associate App Store name with Apple and have positive thoughts when they see the word. Simple psychology, and sneakiness.
2) Amazon Appstore for Android can not be confused with App Store.
Didn't Amazon patent "One Click" or something like that? That's pretty generic. It's just a first mover advantage that you get the generic name. I don't think people are so stupid they can't tell what store they're at.
I think what Apple and others license is the patent of the 1-Click system.
This whole thing really isn't about the term "app store" with Amazon. It is about Amazon getting free advertisement.
That's an interesting idea, yes I guess their biggest challenge at the moment would be getting people to realise there *are* actually other application stores, since Apple is so dominant.
"Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps," Apple's filing reads.
If the words 'app store' together don't denote a store for apps, then what do they denote?
I'm sorry, but this nit is beyond my capacity to pick.
If the words 'app store' together don't denote a store for apps, then what do they denote?
I'm sorry, but this nit is beyond my capacity to pick.
You beat me to it. I don't know how anyone could write the sentence with a straight face. "We deny that based on their common meaning the words 'X Y' together denote an X for Y."
Apple's claim is "we coined the term app store; we used it first; we trademarked it, so suck it." I can see the advantage Apple has if they can prevent anyone else from using that term, but their current defense just makes them look silly.
You beat me to it. I don't know how anyone could write the sentence with a straight face. "We deny that based on their common meaning the words 'X Y' together denote an X for Y."
Apple's claim is "we coined the term app store; we used it first; we trademarked it, so suck it." I can see the advantage Apple has if they can prevent anyone else from using that term, but their current defense just makes them look silly.
Maybe it is the difference between a denotation and a connotation. I don't know which, if either, is relevant in a trademark dispute.
If the words 'app store' together don't denote a store for apps, then what do they denote?
I'm sorry, but this nit is beyond my capacity to pick.
Was "app" in common usage until recent years when Apple made it popular?
I know Windows uses "Program" everywhere, e.g. c : \\ Program Files. And Application is a long-standing term for a computer program. But the shortening "App" - was that Apple just using an existing abbreviation, or did they deliberately shorten the word application, to make something unique to them and something they could trademark?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but shortening generic English words to make product names is not uncommon. And then society starts using that trademark as a general concept (e.g. Xerox), forgetting that it was an invention. Could that be what they are complaining about.
Was "app" in common usage until recent years when Apple made it popular?
I know Windows uses "Program" everywhere, e.g. c : \\ Program Files. And Application is a long-standing term for a computer program. But the shortening "App" - was that Apple just using an existing abbreviation, or did they deliberately shorten the word application, to make something unique to them and something they could trademark?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but shortening generic English words to make product names is not uncommon. And then society starts using that trademark as a general concept (e.g. Xerox), forgetting that it was an invention. Could that be what they are complaining about.
Apple’s case can’t be about the word ‘app’ because that’s very old. Perhaps even predating NeXT’s clear and constant usage.
The earliest I can find is “killer app” from a 1989 periodical on Google Books but I’d wager it goes back another decade. edit1: Dictionary.com states the origin of ’killer app’ is between 1985 and 1990. Not exactly the OED. edit2: Etymology Online states the sole us of ‘app’ is attested to 1992 but they don’t cite any sources.
Was "app" in common usage until recent years when Apple made it popular?
I know Windows uses "Program" everywhere, e.g. c : \\ Program Files. And Application is a long-standing term for a computer program. But the shortening "App" - was that Apple just using an existing abbreviation, or did they deliberately shorten the word application, to make something unique to them and something they could trademark?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but shortening generic English words to make product names is not uncommon. And then society starts using that trademark as a general concept (e.g. Xerox), forgetting that it was an invention. Could that be what they are complaining about.
You are probably correct in your statement of the basis of Apple's complaint. I wish their filing had stated it more like you did, rather than the bafflingly unclear and unpersuasive manner they did.
(As an aside, we always read about how Steve Jobs micromanages almost everything that goes on at Apple. I don't believe that someone who communicates as succinctly as Jobs would have ever approved the wording of that filing. He must be delegating more, during his medical leave.)
edit1: Dictionary.com states the origin of ’killer app’ is between 1985 and 1990. Not exactly the OED.
Yep, I don't doubt the term is very old, because it's an obvious abbreviation in some ways. But has it mainly been in tech circles? I travel in tech circles, and "killer app" has been around for years. But it just seems like what's different these days is everyone is using it, not just techies, and in that sense Apple invented the word, if widespread usage is the criteria for invention. But what is the criteria for invention of a word?
Does OED take in to account widespread adoption when deciding what to add to the dictionary every year? Because just sitting here I can make a new word "happelview" and in theory I could claim I just invented it, but a pretty meaningless claim. What is the adoption threshold and did Apple cause it to cross that.
Some would say "What's in a new"?
Skip
Apple made the concept of an app store popular. Most people will think of Apple when they hear "App store." As such, Apple should get the Trademark.
Didn't Amazon patent "One Click" or something like that? That's pretty generic. It's just a first mover advantage that you get the generic name. I don't think people are so stupid they can't tell what store they're at.
Yep, I don't doubt the term is very old, because it's an obvious abbreviation in some ways. But has it mainly been in tech circles? I travel in tech circles, and "killer app" has been around for years. But it just seems like what's different these days is everyone is using it, not just techies, and in that sense Apple invented the word, if widespread usage is the criteria for invention. But what is the criteria for invention of a word?
Invention doesn?t need to be widespread. Like a patent, it can unknown but if you are considered the originator and owner it?s yours. Trademarks are a different beast altogether and have to be protected constantly. That can also include protecting it from being ?genericized? which is something I think could hurt Apple?s position since Jobs has used the term ?app store? in a general sense more than once.
Does OED take in to account widespread adoption when deciding what to add to the dictionary every year? Because just sitting here I can make a new word "happelview" and in theory I could claim I just invented it, but a pretty meaningless claim. What is the adoption threshold and did Apple cause it to cross that.
Usage is a factor when adding new words.
Also, I no longer maintain my OED account so I can?t check to see if they have an entry for ?app'
For somebody to get a Trademark, it isn't necessary that they were the first to use the mark.
Was "app" in common usage until recent years when Apple made it popular?
I know Windows uses "Program" everywhere, e.g. c : \\ Program Files. And Application is a long-standing term for a computer program. But the shortening "App" - was that Apple just using an existing abbreviation, or did they deliberately shorten the word application, to make something unique to them and something they could trademark?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but shortening generic English words to make product names is not uncommon. And then society starts using that trademark as a general concept (e.g. Xerox), forgetting that it was an invention. Could that be what they are complaining about.