While I passionately support the exchange and debate of ideas, I also think it is important to remember that, under our current legal system, it is impossible to determine a person's entitlement to a legal remedy merely by discussing the matter on an online forum.
Many posts in this thread purport to declare a decisive and proper conclusion, notwithstanding that not a single poster claims to have any first hand knowledge of the facts other than having used this kid's...
I agree completely. On one hand Apple is going to great lengths to give the OS a more sophisticated look (e.g. removing "candy" elements), and on the other hand they are shoehorning gimmicky faux leather and simulated book-covers into core applications. I'm not sure I understand how to synthesize those two approaches in a single OS update.
Users should be aware, however, that the Ad-based content will be supported by free core content that may appear in the form of banners, which could, in some instances, detract from users' advertising experience by obscuring portions of advertisements with banners containing free, high-quality content, tools, and features.
I stand corrected. Thank you. Would you agree then, that to prevail, Apple would have to succeed in establish that: 1) "App Store" is not generic, but 2) is descriptive of their propriety store, and 3) that the term has acquired secondary meaning?
Historical use of generic terms is not the relevant legal consideration with regard to enforcement of a trademark. What matters is if the generic terms has acquired a secondary meaning that is unique to the product of the trademark holder.
It is important to remember that despite what trademark holders would like to think, the purpose of trademark law is to avoid confusion of the public. This clearly provides a benefit to the trademark holder by avoiding the diversion...