Microsoft cites Amazon Appstore in continued opposition to Apple trademark - Page 2

Well it is a poor choice of name, is generic and wouldn't even be granted but OK.


Then you would go to court and lose. And then you will be told your way of making burgers can't be protected in any way shape or form.

Like the Zon Store or Amazon App Jungle.

I am a computer programmer and have heard the term "App" used as shorthand for application many many times, long before the iPhone, iPod, etc. In fact, many programmers wrote Applets, a nickname for a small application that gets its name from adding the suffix let (meaning small) to app (again, shorthand for application).

So...I really don't get what point you were trying to make there. I doubt Apple is trying to prove they coined the term app, cause that simply is not the case. What they are trying to do is defend the term App Store as a brand name.

Good point. Not sure it's entirely relevant, but it is certainly ironic. They are also called applications or application programs in computer science. Nobody asked, but I think application is the more precise nomenclature because application is a type of program, of which there are others. Only the most dedicated Mac snobs have pondered on this one, I'd wager.

App Store is trademarked, you can't patent a word or phrase. A patent would be more for something like the design of the iPad. (which Apple also owns)

And here we go again!

Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".

Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.

Nothing else (like how generic the terms are, or when they were coined) really matters.

Because the "Amazon" is a rain forest and not an online book store.

Lotus 123 was the "killer app". Dvorack must have used this a hundred times in the 90's.

Windows Explorer refers to them as applications.

Apple reserving "App Store" for their own use is only an insult, not an injury like all the beat-downs Microsoft has taken since iPhone was released. A far bigger insult is the fact that Apple has replaced Microsoft as the world's most valuable tech company.

But the one that really hurts is that Apple products are becoming part of modern culture. Everyone knows what an iPod is. Everyone has heard of iPhone and iPad and Macintosh. And now everyone knows that if your phone doesn't run apps, it's toast. No apps, no sale.

If you ask an American for a Kleenex, we know exactly what you're talking about. Or a Q-Tip or Scotch Tape. If you ask anyone in the world about the App Store, they will likely think of the Apple App Store.

It's too late, Microsoft. Mindshare is infinitely valuable. You can't buy it. You can't throw money at this problem, spread FUD, and expect to come up with something barely acceptable in version 3.0. You're the next Sony. The next major corporation whose golden years were in the previous century.

Has the Windows trademark ever been tested in a court of law? It probably has but I'm too young to remember.

I'm don't know much about US IP law but the app store trademark wouldn't be valid in England & Wales. You can't trademark names, places or nouns related to your business field. So, yes, you could open a restaurant in the England called McDonald's. The moment you started using a red and yellow colour scheme is when you'd be in trouble.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/1bugeye.gif

No. There was a case, but Microsoft paid $20 M to gain the rights to the Lindows trademark and settle the case, so the validity of the Windows trademark has never been litigated.


And Apple has already done that. The problem is that you ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with you. Apple had a number of expert linguists testifying that 'App Store' was inextricably tied to Apple in most peoples' minds.


Bank of America
U.S. Bank
Visa
American Express
Federal Express
United Parcel Service
Windows (as applied to computer software)
Office (as applied to computer software)

You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.


None of that matters. Someone was claiming that you couldn't get a trademark using generic words. There are countless examples that prove that wrong.


Because US Bank and Bank of America apparently have smarter lawyers than Microsoft. Everyone who is familiar with trademark law understands that the use of a generic word inside a trademark does not invalidate the trademark. I would venture that there are 100 banks who have trademarked names that contain the word 'Bank'. But 'Bank' is not the trademark, 'Bank of America' or 'US Bank' or 'Fifth Third Bank' is the trademark. As long as Bank of America doesn't start advertising themselves as US Bank, they haven't infringed US Bank's trademark.

This really is simple stuff. Leave it to the veteran Apple-haters to be so easily confused.


Simple - for anyone with even the tiniest understanding of trademark law (which obviously doesn't include you). Trademarks cover a market. You are perfectly free to sell office windows for the construction market. You are NOT free to sell a product called 'Office' or 'Windows' in the computer software market.

Similarly, at one time, Apple Computer had the trademark for 'Apple' as applied to computer hardware and software while Apple Records had the trademark for music. (Obviously, the iPod created some overlap - which is why they ended up back in court). It is very, very common for two different companies to use the same trademark in different markets.

These two co-exist so it doesn't look like it's been tested in a court of law.


All of these incorporate one or more words not related to their field of business. Parcel Service wouldn't be allowed as a trademark, United Parcel Service is fine.


Again, like the banks, Open Office and KOffice exist so probably untested in a court of law.


Got any examples of single generic, market-related words that have survived a court challenge?

I should have been more specific.

To make this case go away Apple need to prove that when people (I'm unsure of the definition of "people") hear "App Store" they think of Apple's application store for iOS devices, not a store that sells "apps".

To win this case Microsoft need to prove the opposite, that when "people" hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps.

By "prove" I mean by the standard of law where ever this case was filed, not by my standard or this forums.

Neither side has proven their position yet, hence these articles continually popping up on AI.

Hurrah to apple for trying, but I don't think they're going to win this one. They should have picked a more unique name.

There is so much misinformation, rhetoric and opinion from "arm chair enthusiasts" (yeah that was a dig at your fat a** sofa butt) in this thread it's ridiculous. I love how all of the nonsense comes from "experts" with less than 100 posts and anything that remotely resembles logic the opposite is true.

A couple of things to point out by a non expert that are at least attributable to basic logic...

1) Apple's reference to Apps and Applications was built into Mac OS right from the beginning and was differentiated as PROGRAMS in windows, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. There is already precedence and it was set by MSFT when they released Windows. Apple users always used Apps and I've never heard a windows user refer to apps or applications. Always software or programs. To navigate to a program you go to "start" and "Programs", not Applications. If i was to use that terminology in a support session with a windows user they would most likely be lost.

2) Apple is not trademarking "App" or "Application" alone. They are trademarking "App Store". There, so far as I know, never existed an "App Store before Apple. It is not a generic term; certainly no more than as others have pointed out than Bank of America or General Motors.

Only an idiot or an company run by idiots (MSFT or Amazon who has zero precedence in the field; I have no idea why they are even pretending to be in this game; Porting Apps to the Kindle, please with a screen that refreshes like molasses WITH ghosting, yeah that'll work quite well. ) would believe Apple would not be rewarded or able to defend a trademark bearing the name "App Store"

Please someone who is a trademark lawyer speak up. The rest of us should just STFU. Myself included. Please, Please Please someone with credentials and is not paid by either party speak up.

Supporting links:

2005: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-k...or-real-estate
2004: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1599324,00.asp
2003: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1191830,00.asp

Unless, of course, you were helping the user with "Windows Explorer" in which case you would use "applications".

Apple already has been given it as a trademark. Applied for in 2008 and granted by the USPTO in 2010.
In order to keep a trademark, it has to be "vigorously defended", which is one reason Apple is suing.

Did you know in Australia the trademark for Burger King is not owned by the Burger King. That is why Burger King restaurants in Australia are called Hungry Jacks. Although this may have been rectified by now and the trademark may have been purchased but Hungry Jacks has kind of become a well known name for Australians.

Burger King actually lost their case in respects the trademark because it had been used for many years in Australia before Burger King started going international.

However, this is not the case with the App Store. No one has been able to claim they were using App Store before Apple therefore Apple is well within their rights to protect something they made popular.

Incidentally I still hear people use "iPod" in reference to generic MP3 players, a trademark that Apple started so how is App Store any different?

Incorrect because processes can be protected.

John Britten (of the Britten Motorcycle fame) invented a process for creating Carbon Fibre that no one had been able to do before. It allowed him to make any shape and any strength required. He patented the process not the product because Carbon Fibre had been made for years before he came along.

Apple has perfected the App Store and is claiming the trademark simply because when people think of App Store they think of the Apple iTunes store experience or the Mac App Store. Apple even calls it "App Store" on their iPhones and iPads and has done so since day dot of their developing the App Store. Therefore Apple actually has a good case.

to pile on your comment, it's always been a common term (app) for apple users. whereas I've always recalled windows and other OS users referring to "apps" as programs. THink "killer apps." That's not a windows thing, apple has owned it for a while.

perhaps jobs and co. should have applied for cr along time ago.

deleted

The word "apple" was in use long before it became a music publishing company and also a computer (then consumer products) company... The name "Nike" was a Greek goddess long before it became a sports apparel company... There are many businesses and products with names which have become registered trademarks that I would never have thought would be given protection due to their "generic-ness". If these things are protectable, then "App Store" should certainly be allowed continued protection, especially since Apple was the first to apply for it and it is a novel combination of words, unlike the others I mentioned earlier.

Also, if someone actually had applied for a trademark on the term "Drive-Thru" they would have simply have had to continually warn and/or sue others to keep it's status. Apple is doing the right thing in protecting their already assigned trade name.

Generic-ness does not mean the word is popular or well known. It applies if the word describes the underlying thing that it names.

Nike the goddess is a goddess. You could have trademarked Nike to describe anything that is not related to godesses. For example a sports apparel company.

Apple the fruit is a fruit. You could have trademarked Apple to describe anything that is not related to fruits. For example a music label company or maybe a computer company.

Go ahead, I dare you to try to name a product an "Apple" this or that, or a "Nike" this or that. You'll be sued into nonexistence.

Amazon don't use the "store" suffix for any of their other products either, like, they sell software but there aint no "software store".

So why the heck is it a need for them to use the "store" suffix for apps?

I don't think it is at all, it's just that Apple made this name popular and now Amazon takes a ride on it.

Hence why I said "could have". Of course you can't anymore because it is already taken.

It is not a NEED. It is a WANT. Why they want to is immaterial.

What is important is that because Apple decided to name something using a descriptive term should not prevent other people from using that descriptive term if they want to. This is why the Trademark Office does not allow the trademarking of descriptive/generic terms.

Now how App Store was awarded trademark in the first place, that is something I do not understand.

The only reason MS wanted to be called Windows was because "piece of s**t" was taken.

Of course that isn't what you said earlier, nor isn't what I rebutted. Strawman.




Has nothing to do with lawyers.


Leave it to the apple lovers to fail basic comprehension.


Uh huh.


That goes to show you just don't really know jack what you are talking about. I let you figure out why you are so pathetically wrong.

.

So...

Mr Softie thinks that a cunning linguist will solve his problems -- and be a good fella too...

.

Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.


An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aNtnl9vC6QLc

It might not be the same, but piggy banking off another trademark isn't legal either.

But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.

I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.

And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.

Good point. I was unclear.

What I meant to say is that if there is a choice of several similar terms, I shouldn't be prevented from using one of them because a competitor trademarked it. If I NEED to use one of them to describe my business then I should be able to use the one I WANT.

So store, shop, market, it's all the same. I should be able to describe my "store" with any of them without infringing on an a trademark.

I dub your flavor of philosophy "Genericism", and those who practice it "Generecists." This helps organize the world a little.

Now from a Generecist point of view if a word existed before it was used for a trademark or service mark, it is generic and therefore not usable as a trademark. Let us examine the state of the world following those rules.

Is Windows trademarkable? No.
Penny's No.
Quick Mart? No.
Nissan? No
<imagine a near endless set of business names, all followed by a no>

Under strict genericist logic, the only things actually trademark-able would be nonsense names that had never seen use across a tongue before. Hey, even the name of a person is used by more than one person, making that term more generic than unique.

I don't think Congress ever intended everyone, for the rest of the history of the United States, make up nonsense names in order to be able to trademark them.

No, Congress actually passed a law that shows EXACTLY how a trademark can be made up of common use words and how much protection that special use of the common words gets, and what protection it doesn't get.

Congress even makes folks that trademark combinations of particularly common words list these restrictions in something called a disclaimer that says the trademark owner doesn't own the word completely, but just for use in discriminating between one business/product or another.

The genericist philosophy is simply stupidity run amok. Idiots talking out their asses sideways without any concept of what the real rules and practices are. They are nothing short of the moron who knows just enough to be dangerous to themself, but not enough to be even a little bit right.

I've cited the USPTO verbiage covering the use of generic terms twice before in threads, apparently when becoming a genericist you are advised to not read anything that might actually force andy useful knowledge into the braincase. Here it is again on chance the characters displayed on the screen might be accidentally seen and register on the brain searing themselves past the bastions of conscious stupidity erected to prevent actual fact from interfering with illogical thought.

I'm having a little difficulty following which side of the issue you support. That last paragraph seems muddled and the tread above it didn't help much. But at least you are discussion rationally, not generically, whichever way you see the issue. and then on to...

Neither term alone is descriptive, but the combination is, and as a combination it is distinctive and trademark-able simply by being the first to file paperwork. Sure there are restrictions on how far Apple can use 'App Store', but in 2008 when the original filing was made, how many app stores (note lower casing) were there in the world? Answer: 1. That shows uniqueness of the combination, that more vendors are trying to capitalize on a mark Apple listed in 2008 and filed on, only goes to prove they were on the right track to snap it up for exclusive use.