Apple stepping up trademark fight against Amazon Appstore
Apple's efforts to fight the Amazon Appstore name have picked up, with a new court filing accusing Amazon of intending to confuse consumers.
The filings, issued last week and highlighted on Thursday by GigaOm, demand that an Amazon executive testify why the online retailer removed the words "for Android" from the Amazon Appstore name. The filing asserts that Amazon's decision to minimize the use of "for Android" in the name is "highly relevant" to the case.
"Amazon has steadfastly refused to produce documents and information regarding the use of 'for Android' in connection with its service..." the filing reads. "Amazon has filed to produce a witness who can testify regarding the decision not to use 'for Android' with the Amazon Appstore Service outside the context of the Kindle Fire, despite clear evidence that Amazon frequently does not use 'for Android' in conjunction with its Service."
Apple first filed suit against Amazon last year, asserting that Amazon has violated the "App Store" trademark for which Apple has applied. But Apple doesn't yet own that trademark, and other major technology companies, such as Microsoft, have sought to block Apple's application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Microsoft, Amazon and others believe the term "app store" is too generic to be fairly registered, while Apple believes its iOS platform popularized the word "app" and most customers associate the words "app store" with the iOS App Store. In one court filing last year, Apple shot back at Microsoft and said that the "App Store" trademark is no less generic than Microsoft's ownership of "Windows."
One study released this March found that the Amazon Appstore, available on Android-based devices as well as the Kindle Fire tablet, is more profitable for developers on an active-user basis than Google Play, Google's own digital storefront for Android. However, analytics firm Flurry also found that Apple's iOS App Store remains the market leader in terms of profitability.
The filings, issued last week and highlighted on Thursday by GigaOm, demand that an Amazon executive testify why the online retailer removed the words "for Android" from the Amazon Appstore name. The filing asserts that Amazon's decision to minimize the use of "for Android" in the name is "highly relevant" to the case.
"Amazon has steadfastly refused to produce documents and information regarding the use of 'for Android' in connection with its service..." the filing reads. "Amazon has filed to produce a witness who can testify regarding the decision not to use 'for Android' with the Amazon Appstore Service outside the context of the Kindle Fire, despite clear evidence that Amazon frequently does not use 'for Android' in conjunction with its Service."
Apple first filed suit against Amazon last year, asserting that Amazon has violated the "App Store" trademark for which Apple has applied. But Apple doesn't yet own that trademark, and other major technology companies, such as Microsoft, have sought to block Apple's application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Microsoft, Amazon and others believe the term "app store" is too generic to be fairly registered, while Apple believes its iOS platform popularized the word "app" and most customers associate the words "app store" with the iOS App Store. In one court filing last year, Apple shot back at Microsoft and said that the "App Store" trademark is no less generic than Microsoft's ownership of "Windows."
One study released this March found that the Amazon Appstore, available on Android-based devices as well as the Kindle Fire tablet, is more profitable for developers on an active-user basis than Google Play, Google's own digital storefront for Android. However, analytics firm Flurry also found that Apple's iOS App Store remains the market leader in terms of profitability.
Comments
Apple and their lawsuits.. burning bridges everywhere they go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Apple and their lawsuits.. burning bridges everywhere they go.
They're not burning bridges. Look how they fucked over Apple (the music label) by using the Apple name in violation of their previous agreement. That ended up with Apple (the no-longer computer company) having the opportunity to sell the Beatles catalog.
If the past is any indication of the future, Apple can do whatever underhanded crap they want and still make more profits than before. Don't bet against them. Money talks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Apple and their lawsuits.. burning bridges everywhere they go.
(1) Apple should aggressively, unrelentingly, repeatedly go after the copyists to protect its IP. There is no point in seeking IP protection if you can't defend its use. (2) No need to weep for Apple. There are no relevant bridges being burnt (except those that the trolls are protecting).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
..Apple can do whatever underhanded crap they want and still make more profits than before. Don't bet against them. Money talks.
Oh, grow up.
PS: Fandroid alert! (Expect more to jump in soon).
They should, but I don't think Amazon Appstore is too confusing to violate Apple's trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Apple and their lawsuits.. burning bridges everywhere they go.
Ooh, analogies. Let's, shall we?
The bridges Apple is burning through their lawsuits are beam bridges made of rotting wood and assembled with wooden pegs at the joints. They're in the process of being updated.
They sit across rivers already spanned by Apple's cantilever spar cable-stayed bridges, made of carbon fiber and rated to several million tons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They should, but I don't think Amazon Appstore is too confusing to violate Apple's trademark.
Apple doesn't even OWN the trademark. Yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They should, but I don't think Amazon Appstore is too confusing to violate Apple's trademark.
What you think is probably irrelevant. (I, for instance, think the opposite, but would say the same thing about my own view). The only thing that matters is what Apple thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Apple doesn't even OWN the trademark. Yet.
Of course not. It's still being processed. It takes a few years, in case you didn't know.
---
(I was right in #5 above about more jumping in soon.....)
I don't think either of our opinions are irrelevant. I find your PoV relevant and I hope you find mine relevant, too.
I do think Apple should defend their trademark and I do think they should defend it against Amazon. I just don't think they truly believe Amazon is violating their trademark or that they will win this battle. The reason to do it is the off chance they will win, but more importantly it's to show they are willing to defend their trademarks which are very important in trademark law, from what I understand. Unlike with patents where you can let it ride and then sue once it's successful with trademarks you have to defend otherwise you risk it becoming genericized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Of course not. It's still being processed. It takes a few years, in case you didn't know.
---
(I was right in #5 above about more jumping in soon.....)
Right, I'm surely a fandroid, grow up. This was the first story I opened here all day since it's on top. I actually have work to do.
Point is, SophX can't call it Apple's trademark if they don't own it, and why I said yet. They are required to defend it even in the application process obviously.
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Point is, SophX can't call it Apple's trademark if they don't own it, and why I said yet. They are required to defend it even in the application process obviously.
When did Amazon apply for the trademark? Or have they at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell
Apple and their lawsuits.. burning bridges everywhere they go.
You don't understand what "burning bridges" even means do you? :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What you think is probably irrelevant. (I, for instance, think the opposite, but would say the same thing about my own view). The only thing that matters is what Apple thinks.
Only thing that matters is what he legal system thinks. No one gives a shit what Apple thinks, doesn't even matter what is true only what you can prove. Also grow up and give up on the fandroid nonsense. When Apple is selling 26 million iPhones and 17 million iPads a quarter its hard to justify the iHater tag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
They're not burning bridges. Look how they fucked over Apple (the music label) by using the Apple name in violation of their previous agreement. That ended up with Apple (the no-longer computer company) having the opportunity to sell the Beatles catalog.
If the past is any indication of the future, Apple can do whatever underhanded crap they want and still make more profits than before. Don't bet against them. Money talks.
It would be hard to find a more complete mis-representation of what actually went on in Apple v. Apple than what you have written here.
Talk about a generic trademark how about "1-click" owned by our friends at the South American river company. (Yes they patented AND trademarked that "non-obvious" "invention.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When did Amazon apply for the trademark? Or have they at all?
I could be wrong on this but wasn't the App Store tradmark and url owned by Marc Benioff. It given to SJ in 2008 because Jobs helped out Benioff when it came to putting together and ecosystem. I believe the company was Salesforce.
I think I can reasonably call it a trademark...
Sure, it's more accurately referred to as a service mark but that's just a trademark for a service rather than a physical product. It's also very common as it's still most commonly written as two words rather than one. Etymologically speaking you can see the evolution of terms from multiple words, to hyphenated words to a single word and it usually shows a pattern of common usage.
Seriously?! I know you're better than that.
And Apple is a major licensee to this day.
Huh, I didn't know Apple owned the rights to the name Amazon.
Quote:
The filings, issued last week and highlighted on Thursday by GigaOm, demand that an Amazon executive testify why the online retailer removed the words "for Android" from the Amazon Appstore name. The filing asserts that Amazon's decision to minimize the use of "for Android" in the name is "highly relevant" to the case.
The answer to this is surprisingly simple.
With the launch of the Kindle fire (which is not officially an Android device with its forked OS), the Amazon appstore is in breech of this Android trademark:
Quote:
Any name with 'Android' alone may not be used in a name without permission. Any name with 'Droid' alone may not be used in a name.
The word 'Android' may be used only as a descriptor, 'for Android'. If used with your logo, 'for Android' needs to be smaller in size than your logo. First instance of this use should be followed by a TM symbol, 'for Android™'.
http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/promote/brand.html
The Amazon Appstore is no longer "for Android" only.