Originally Posted by cgc0202
You have not proved anything simply by pointing to a site, however official it is. Prove your point. Can you point to me actual cases that contradicted the terms I posted as not being able to be trademark protected?
It's funny because you're wrong about everything, but when people point it out, you ask for proof. When given proof, you then make other false comments without citing anything yourself, so we can at least see where you're getting your incorrect information from. You're very hard to keep up with everything you're wrong about, but here it goes:
To my knowledge, the Term "App Store" has never been used by the Apple Computer, Inc., nor any other computer or tech company before that. From what was indicated in the documents, Apple filed trademark protection, almost immediately after it coined the term: App Store.
No, Apple even registered the domain appstore.com in 1998. Do a whois search. See other comments on how to search for other uses of "App Store" (with quotes) in Google with time bounded searches before Apple filed the trademark application.
Bayer lost its trademark right to the term "Aspirin", a drug formulation first created by Bayer, when the drug company did not protect it with trademark application.
Nope. It filed in the US in 1900, registered, but then lost. Likewise it was filed/registered in other countries (anywhere Bayer could) and either denied or lost. Pretty much Bayer lost the trademark due to war and generic use of the name *after* Bayer had coined the term. It's really an interesting read. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aspirin
As noted in previous post, copyright and trademark laws in the US and the world, allow the copyright of a word, to brand itself in a given field, if no one has copyrighted it yet.
You're obviously confused about the difference between a copyright and trademark.
At the same time, a company cannot claim automatic trademark of a word, even if it the first to create or coin it, as was the case with the term "Aspirin" (see previous post).
If a company creates a word, like Aspirin, they can expect to have the trademark registration to go through without opposition. However, if they start using a combination of words like App Store, that has been in use, in the exact same area of use, especially where both words are generic in the area of use, they can expect a serious fight over it (if there are interested parties like in this case).
Face and book may be generic words, but "Facebook" is a new term And, so is "App Store"
No, Facebook is a combo word being applied to an area of different context from Face or Book. It's fine as a trademark for the same reason why Windows is fine as a trademark for an OS. App Store is, not only generically used and used before the filing, but it's a combo word of generic terms in the same area of use. Car Dealership wouldn't be ok for a Car Dealership, but would be ok for say a board game. See: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/degr...ml#descriptive
App and Store are generic and combining them has not only become generic, but it was descriptive to begin with.
And, even if someone did, the original creator of the term "App Store" protected it with a trademark? If not, then a company can do so within a given time period, and prevent others from using the same term.
No. If you name a business or a product and don't file an application for a trademark, it doesn't mean that you give up all rights to the mark. Even if you did give up your rights, another company must go through the trademark process and meet all of the requirements.
So, if it was plain and simple, and not creative, why then does the more creative Microsoft object to its exclusive use by Apple, since no one has trademark it yet?
The poster said "creative' in the use of Microsoft for the word Windows as an OS, and that's not technically correct, but his point remains. And Microsoft and others have grounds to complain because App Store being trademarked by Apple means that others could not use the common and generic name that people have been using. See the reference in my other post. You have 3 million searches around "Android App Store" each month. Clearly there would be confusion if the search returned "no results found" as opposed to going to Android Market. Android, Microsoft, and others should have the right to market and promote their app stores.
And, to reiterate a previous point, unless someone has already trademarked the term, Apple is within its right to do so.
No, the mark needs to qualify and not be in use (even if it hasn't been trademarked).
Not correct, as far as US trademark laws are concerned. Terms can become used, widely, e.g, Google, as in Google it, pretty quick quickly.
Google has become a verb, not a generic term. See cases filed against companies infringing on Google's trademark. Short answer, you can't launch your own website utilizing the name Google, just because it's become a verb. This is because there would be confusion between your site and Google. Now, if Google had tried to trademark Web Search, that would be a totally different story.
I think I've caught up. Is there anything else you said that I could show is incorrect?