or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court dismisses Apple false advertising claim over Amazon Appstore name
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court dismisses Apple false advertising claim over Amazon Appstore name

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Amazon on Wednesday was awarded the dismissal of an Apple claim that accused the online retailer of false advertising over the use of the term "appstore."

The ruling was handed down in a San Francisco, Calif., federal court in favor of Amazon, according to Bloomberg. The decision means Amazon will be able to continue using its "Amazon Appstore" branding for its digital download service for the time being. A trial is still scheduled for August.

Amazon originally requested in September, and argued in court that the "app store" moniker has become generic, negating any false advertising claims by Apple. As evidence of this, Amazon noted that both late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and current CEO Tim Cook have both referred to competing application storefronts with the generic term "app store."

Amazon


"Apple presumably does not contend that its past and current CEOs made false statements regarding to those other app stores to thousands of investors in earnings calls," Amazon said. "To the contrary, the use of the term 'app store' to refer to stores selling apps is commonplace in the industry."

Apple first filed suit against Amazon in 2011, asserting that Amazon has violated the "App Store" trademark for which Apple has applied. But Apple has not been awarded 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, like Amazon, argued that the term "app store" is too generic to be fairly registered. Apple, for its part, believes its iOS platform popularized the word "app" and that most customers associate the words "app store" with the iOS App Store.

In its dispute with Microsoft, Apple suggested the "App Store" trademark is no less generic than "Windows," referring to Microsoft's market dominating PC operating system.
post #2 of 32
Any amateur logician can see this suit begs the question and should find amazon in violation. The moniker is commonplace because they all copied it from Apple, QED
post #3 of 32
It is all fine as long as Apple's app store is on top of search results on Google.
So the more the competitors promote the term "AppStore", the better for Apple.
post #4 of 32
Another court smacks Bruce Sewell in the face.
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

Any amateur logician can see this suit begs the question and should find amazon in violation. The moniker is commonplace because they all copied it from Apple, QED

 

That's not how the law works. 

 

You can't trademark words directly associated with what you sell - goods, names, places, etc.. A computer company named Orange is acceptable and can that company can trademark that term in related to their field of business. A green grocer may also called their business Orange but - and this is the crucial part - they can't stop other green grocers from calling their business Orange.  

 

Whether someone copies someone else has no legal consequence in this case.

 

And before anyone says that app is not a generic word, let's remember that the word app has been in use since most computer users had a beard and wore sandals.

post #6 of 32
I called this one when it first came up*. Regardless of whether Apple was first or not the term has become genericized. Even Apple's execs have used app store to describe other competitors stores.


* SpamSandwich did we have a bet on this one? 1biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

And Apple is not a generic word.

Not the same thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

Any amateur logician can see this suit begs the question and should find amazon in violation. The moniker is commonplace because they all copied it from Apple, QED

That is not how trademarks work.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

That's not how the law works. 

 

You can't trademark words directly associated with what you sell - goods, names, places, etc.. A computer company named Orange is acceptable and can that company can trademark that term in related to their field of business. A green grocer may also called their business Orange but - and this is the crucial part - they can't stop other green grocers from calling their business Orange.  

 

Whether someone copies someone else has no legal consequence in this case.

 

And before anyone says that app is not a generic word, let's remember that the word app has been in use since most computer users had a beard and wore sandals.

Are you actually saying that Amazon's "app store" is in a totally different business?

post #8 of 32
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
You can't trademark words directly associated with what you sell - goods, names, places, etc.. A computer company named Orange is acceptable and can that company can trademark that term in related to their field of business.

 

iPad cannot be protected because it is a touchpad? iPhone cannot be protected because it is a phone? 

 

So when someone does something it's protectable until anyone else copies it, at which point it becomes unable to protect?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #9 of 32
They only struck down the false advertising claim. The trade mark saga continues.
post #10 of 32

At least Google had the good sense to name their's something else.

post #11 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

iPad cannot be protected because it is a touchpad? iPhone cannot be protected because it is a phone? 

So when someone does something it's protectable until anyone else copies it, at which point it becomes unable to protect?

To put it simply, trademarks are help protect from confusion for the consumer. You won't ever see the Samsung I-Phone next to the Apple iPhone in a Verizon store because that would be too confusing. On the other end of the spectrum trademarks protect against a genericized term being used as a product name when it could cause consumer confusion. Note this isn't just for words but for items as well which is why the Coke bottle (a popular example) is trademarked.



PS: "In Japan, [AirPort] is marketed under the brand AirMac due to previous registration by I-O Data."
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/2/13 at 10:51am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

iPad cannot be protected because it is a touchpad? iPhone cannot be protected because it is a phone? 

 

So when someone does something it's protectable until anyone else copies it, at which point it becomes unable to protect?

 

you can make a phone and name it iPhone just like I can make a car and name it Zcar.

 

But I can not open a gasoline station and trademark GAS STATION.

post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

Another court smacks Bruce Sewell in the face.
Not sure what you're talking about. They only struck down one of the claims.
post #14 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
Amazon originally requested in September, and argued in court that the "app store" moniker has become generic

The same could be said about 1-Click purchasing:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/09/18Apple-Licenses-Amazon-com-1-Click-Patent-and-Trademark.html

I'm pretty sure that everyone deciding they like the name doesn't suddenly make it a free-for-all, unless perhaps there's 1-rule for some and another rule when Apple's concerned.

It's just yet another example of where people draw the line but it seems unfair to suggest only one e-commerce company out of tens of thousands can own 1-click purchasing but a handful of app store providers who can easily use unique names should be allowed to use the same name.

In the interests of fair competition, I'd personally say both should be considered generic and it's unfair to suggest one is and the other isn't.
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

Any amateur logician can see this suit begs the question and should find amazon in violation. The moniker is commonplace because they all copied it from Apple, QED

Note what I posted below. The dismissal seems to just be related to claims of false advertising.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

iPad cannot be protected because it is a touchpad? iPhone cannot be protected because it is a phone? 

 

So when someone does something it's protectable until anyone else copies it, at which point it becomes unable to protect?

Did they call it touch pad? Your logic seems to center around the word pad there.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The same could be said about 1-Click purchasing:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/09/18Apple-Licenses-Amazon-com-1-Click-Patent-and-Trademark.html
I'm pretty sure that everyone deciding they like the name doesn't suddenly make it a free-for-all, unless perhaps there's 1-rule for some and another rule when Apple's concerned.
It's just yet another example of where people draw the line but it seems unfair to suggest only one e-commerce company out of tens of thousands can own 1-click purchasing but a handful of app store providers who can easily use unique names should be allowed to use the same name.
In the interests of fair competition, I'd personally say both should be considered generic and it's unfair to suggest one is and the other isn't.


Both are potentially ridiculous. I haven't looked at the one click patent. It sounds like something absurd that was simply worded deceptively by the typical descriptions, but I haven't read it. Typically I'll at least do that prior to making comments. Anyway I wanted to add this.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3827852/amazon-app-store-not-false-advertising-in-apple-trademark-case

 

Quote:
It's important to note that today's ruling only regards one out of six parts of Apple's case against Amazon, and the dismissal of the false advertising claim has no bearing on whether or not the Appstore for Android constitutes trademark infringement. We'll just have to wait for a separate ruling on that part of the case.
post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

That's not how the law works. 

You can't trademark words directly associated with what you sell - goods, names, places, etc.. A computer company named Orange is acceptable and can that company can trademark that term in related to their field of business. A green grocer may also called their business Orange but - and this is the crucial part - they can't stop other green grocers from calling their business Orange.  

Whether someone copies someone else has no legal consequence in this case.

And before anyone says that app is not a generic word, let's remember that the word app has been in use since most computer users had a beard and wore sandals.

That's not the issue here. The court seems to have determined that even if 'App store" was originally a proprietary, trademarkable term, that it had become generic and Apple (notably Jobs and Cook when they used it as a generic term) did not take sufficient action to prevent it.

When Jobs and Cook use the term as generic, it is not going to be entitled to a trademark.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #17 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


The same could be said about 1-Click purchasing:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2000/09/18Apple-Licenses-Amazon-com-1-Click-Patent-and-Trademark.html

 

 

 

Wow Apple missed the boat on that one, they should have implemented 0-Click purchasing. As you browse the store products are magically purchased without the user doing anything at all.

post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

 

you can make a phone and name it iPhone just like I can make a car and name it Zcar.

 

But I can not open a gasoline station and trademark GAS STATION.

 

Have you ever been to "The Container Store" which sells containers? I have.

 

But, yes, "Generic Terms—words that are the accepted and recognized description of a class of goods or services (e.g., computer software, facial tissue)"*  are not able to be trademarked.

 

*International Trademark Association

post #19 of 32

I think Apple is really screwing this one up.  Not in loosing this case, but if they had spent more than 30 seconds on the name they could have come up with something unique and better than "app store".  Now instead of fixing their mistake they are attempting to defend it in a court of law .  The fact that "app store" became so common so quickly is proof positive to me that this term is too generic.  Whether they can or should be able to trademark it or not is almost irrelevant at this point.  The name is tainted.  The media started using it to describe ANY store selling applications for download.  Apple should have recognized that and changed the name when it released the iPhone 3GS- one year after the original app store.  That is how almost every other company on the planet would have responded, but instead Apple hired lawyers.

 

[EDIT: Saying every other company would have renamed the store is the wrong way to put it.  That said, companies do rename products regularly to protect their identity, make them more unique, or leverage a brand.  All I meant was that many companies in similar situations have renamed their products or services to make them stand out.  It is not uncommon to do so soon after the introduction when possible problems with the name are identified. Using the law to eliminate the problem seems like a much tougher road than a simple renaming.]

 

Google renamed "Android Marketplace" to "Google Play Store" when other Android app stores became common.  It made sure that Google's own store was separated from the pack and made it stand out.  THAT was the right way to handle a problem like this.  Go ahead and make yourself unique.  If you want to fight the battle for your trademark on principal, fine, but keep in mind you might loose.  Renaming sooner rather than later is better.  

 

Even if Apple ultimately wins this trademark, they only prevent competitors from using the term.  They cannot remove the term from the English language.  The may win the trademark only to lose it once it is clear it has become a generic term for any store selling applications for download.  At some point, it becomes impossible to defend.

 

I just don't get why they are so hung up on the name "App Store". It isn't worth defending.

 

By the way, this is certainly no defense of Amazon.  They could have been more unique and came up with a more clever name as well.  Everything I say about Apple goes for them as well.

 

NOTE: Before anyone points out Apple was awarded a trademark for "App Store" you had better dig a little deeper.  The approval is under appeal.  If Apple ultimately wins , I am sure Apple can defend the trademark back to the date it was tentatively approved.  That said, lawyers are still arguing as to whether it is valid or not.  Nothing is official until the appeal is decided.


Edited by rednival - 1/2/13 at 2:50pm
post #20 of 32
Originally Posted by rednival View Post
…if they had spent more than 30 seconds on the name they could have come up with something unique and better than "app store". 

 

So why didn't Amazon?

 

Now instead of fixing their mistake they are attempting to defend it in a court of law.

 

This is humorous. It was a mistake to create a storefront and give it the most appropriate name imaginable?

 

You'd prefer "Apple Appapalooza"? "Apple Stor4Apz"? "iApp iStore"?

 

The fact that "app store" became so common so quickly is proof positive to me that this term is too generic.

 

iPod has become generic. Apple deserves absolutely no protection of the name. Band-aid is generic. Obviously it shouldn't be protected. Xerox. Kleenex.

 

Whether they can or should be able to trademark it or not is almost irrelevant at this point. The name is tainted. The media started using it to describe ANY store selling applications for download.  Apple should have recognized that and changed the name when it released the iPhone 3GS- one year after the original app store.

 

See the above. WHY?

 

…many companies in similar situations have renamed their products or services to make them stand out.

 

Or they do the equally legal thing and protect their names. Like Xerox, Kleenex, and Band-Aid.

 

 THAT was the right way to handle a problem like this.

 

Yes. Because they weren't first.

 

At some point, it becomes impossible to defend.

 

Band-Aid: 1920

Kleenex: 1924

Xerox: ~1960

 

Yes, "some point", but I don't think that point matters much. We're coming up on 100 years of defense for the first one there.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post

I think Apple is really screwing this one up.  Not in loosing this case, but if they had spent more than 30 seconds on the name they could have come up with something unique and better than "app store".  Now instead of fixing their mistake they are attempting to defend it in a court of law . The fact that "app store" became so common so quickly is proof positive to me that this term is too generic.  Whether they can or should be able to trademark it or not is almost irrelevant at this point.  The name is tainted.  The media started using it to describe ANY store selling applications for download.  Apple should have recognized that and changed the name when it released the iPhone 3GS- one year after the original app store. That is how almost every other company on the planet would have responded, but instead Apple hired lawyers.

1) I see no proof that it's a mistake or that hey spent less than 30 seconds considering the name. Apple is popular.

2) Trademarks have to be defended or they can be lost. If you let others use your name without attempting to defend against or licensing its use you can lose it so it's completely expect for Apple to defend itself.

3) It's hard to believe anyone would pooh-pooh a company for being popular but you are. Based on your comments above Apple should have known better than to use the completely made up name iPod because people would start using it to describe all drive-based portable digital music players. That's a ridiculous stand to take.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 32
If Apple said: "The others don't have an AppStore", it doesn't logically follow that the term "AppStore" also applies to them.
post #23 of 32
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
3) It's hard to believe anyone would pooh-pooh a company for being popular but you are.

 

Success is demonized. Faults of the successful, real or otherwise, are ballooned into earth-shattering problems. Destroy those who stand out above, ignore those who stand out below.

 

It's a disturbing trend.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple, for its part, believes its iOS platform popularized the word "app"
Lol?
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival 
if they had spent more than 30 seconds on the name they could have come up with something unique and better than "app store".  The fact that "app store" became so common so quickly is proof positive to me that this term is too generic.

It has become so common because mobile app store purchases have gone from near zero users to over 1 billion in 5 years.

Using a simple name is what Apple does best: Final Cut, Aperture, Shake, Motion, iTunes.

The best name immediately lets you know what it represents while also being iconic. I'd say App Store fitted that description in 2007. I thought iStore might have been better as it has music, movies, apps, podcasts etc but it doesn't immediately let you know what's in it like iTunes Music Store and App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Band-Aid: 1920
Kleenex: 1924
Xerox: ~1960

Yes, "some point", but I don't think that point matters much. We're coming up on 100 years of defense for the first one there.

It seems that it is actually possible for a popular trademark to lose its protection and those companies have had similar troubles:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/04/09/apple-ipad-is-only-tablet-people-know/

Again though, those rules aren't applied consistently. To google for something is now widely associated with an internet search and yet nobody would ever suggest that another search engine could use the term.

Legals issues always seem to come to these inconsistencies because they are really just opinions enforced by the people who have the power to enforce them. People who have a bias one way or another.
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So why didn't Amazon?

 

I said Amazon did a poor job naming their product and said I wasn't defending Amazon.  You always assume comments like that are to cover up Apple hatred.  So go ahead and tell me how you know what I mean better than I do.  I will wait.

 

Your argument seems to ignore that Apple lost.  Was Amazon right to use a term that Apple had trademarked?  The court seems to think it was acceptable.  You can conclude Amazon is scum and a trademark thief, but not in the eyes of this court.  

 

 

Quote:

This is humorous. It was a mistake to create a storefront and give it the most appropriate name imaginable?

 

 

 

Yes when it the second most generic name imaginable.  They could call it app store, but the term "app" was used well before "App Store".  If you don't agree, take it up with Webster's Dictionary.  According to Webster's dictionary the first known use or "app" as a shorter form of "application" was 1987.  You cannot start a store that sells applications and call it "Application Store" and expect a trademark for the name.  You can absolutely call it "Application Store" as long as you want, but you cannot trademark a generic name that simply describes the product or service.  A trademark must uniquely identify your product or service.  If that doesn't help your argument, take it up with the USPTO.  Believe whatever you want, but in my view, "Application Store" and "App Store" are one in the same.  

 

(The reason is I am just too stupid and brainwashed to be convinced otherwise (my hatred for Apple does tend to blind me).   Lots of other pathetic, misguided people share my opinion.)

 

Quote:
You'd prefer "Apple Appapalooza"? "Apple Stor4Apz"? "iApp iStore"?

 

 

Depends.  They're more unique than "App Store"...though "unique" and "good" aren't the same thing.  But hey, no one would want to steal them.  If Amazon stole Appapalooza there's not a pit in hell deep enough....

 

Quote:

iPod has become generic. Apple deserves absolutely no protection of the name. Band-aid is generic. Obviously it shouldn't be protected. Xerox. Kleenex.

 

The term "iPod" is a made up word.  My whole argument hangs on the word "app" being in existence before Apple claimed it and "App Store" as their own.  It was ALREADY generic.  Apple should nail anyone that uses trademarks such as iPod, iPhone, or iPad to the wall and defend them vigorously   For that matter, they can do the same for "App Store" or they will definitely lose the trademark.  Of course, I think it is irrelevant and they ultimately will lose it anyway (but remember I am stupid and blinded by hatred.  I eat only pears.  Apples make me sick).  

 

The ONLY reason I question "App Store" is it did not become generic...IT WAS GENERIC.   You might want to consider that they did TRY to nail someone to the wall over the use of App Store, and they failed (seems like I read about that somewhere...). 


See the above. WHY? [is it tainted]

 

This decision and the debate surrounding the origins of  the world "app" will be weighed in the USPTO decision, thus I think it is tainted and is becoming more and more of an uphill battle for Apple to keep the trademark.  They have plenty of money but it sure seems like they could do better things besides fight a losing battle (yes, yes, I assume they will lose with no proof.  Remember- I am stupid).

 

 


Or they do the equally legal thing and protect their names. Like Xerox, Kleenex, and Band-Aid.

 

 

Yes. Because they weren't first.

 

 

Band-Aid: 1920

Kleenex: 1924

Xerox: ~1960

 

Yes, "some point", but I don't think that point matters much. We're coming up on 100 years of defense for the first one there.

 

 

 

 

You point to brands that ran the risk of becoming generic but ultimately did not. In all the cases you sight, defense of the name becoming generic was necessary only after many, many years of the brand's success.  The dates you give are the dates those companies were founded.  It is true they probably had to defended their trademarks in court from misuse, but they did not have to deal with the threat of their trademark becoming generic until much later.  When that time came, once again, the court could only help them prevent the misuse of their trademark.  Ultimately the trademarks did not become generic, but it took advertising and campaigns to change public perception of the brands.  More than just court cases.  Preventing your trademark from being declared generic is as much a PR battle as a legal one.

 

Also, all the names sighted were created out of thin air.  They ONLY became common in use AFTER the product had been around and had become VERY popular.   Comparing them to a recognized abbreviation of a word with "store" hitched on is ridiculous   
 

I also notice you didn't mention Thermos, Saran Wrap, Yo-yo, Zipper, or Phillips head screw driver.  All of those are companies that LOST their trademarks...but those don't serve your purposes so better ignore those.  Should they have lost their trademarks?  I don't know, but the point is they did.  You can spend billions on advertising and legal defense but in the end only one thing matters: is it generic?  If that answer is "yes", the trademark is done.  Whether it is generic from the beginning, as I contend with "app store", or the term becomes generic from overuse, the death of any trademark is being or becoming generic.

 

The youngest company you sight started 50 years ago and has A LOT more to lose than Apple does at this point.  They were established trademarks decades before they ran the risk of being lost.  Apple has had all of 3 years and they are already in a battle, not just to prevent abuse, but to prove the trademark isn't generic. To me that is a sign of a poor name and I don't see the value in defending it.  That's me and I may ultimately be wrong.  (After all, I am stupid).


Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I see no proof that it's a mistake or that hey spent less than 30 seconds considering the name. Apple is popular.

 

 I was sharing an opinion and using a literary device known as "hyperbole".   The phrase "sense of humor" is one you should lookup sometime.  It'll change your life...

 


2) Trademarks have to be defended or they can be lost. If you let others use your name without attempting to defend against or licensing its use you can lose it so it's completely expect for Apple to defend itself.

 

Apple can and should defend their trademarks, no argument there.  My opinion is "app store" is too generic to be a trademark and it will ultimately be lost regardless   Defending and losing cases like this are as detrimental as not defending.  You better believe the USPTO Appeal board will find out about this case.  It helps Microsoft's  appeal.


Originally Posted by SolipsismX

 

3) It's hard to believe anyone would pooh-pooh a company for being popular but you are. Based on your comments above Apple should have known better than to use the completely made up name iPod because people would start using it to describe all drive-based portable digital music players. That's a ridiculous stand to take.

 

 

You are drawing unfounded conclusions.  I have no idea why this is about me criticizing them for being popular.  (Oh wait, that's right.  I don't agree with one thing they're doing and I hate them.  Man I wouldn't have a single opinion if you guys weren't there to tell me what I think.)

 

I've already addressed  the iPod thing.  The term "iPod" wasn't around when Apple came up with it so it is a completely separate issue.  You can only conclude that I believe the iPod trademark should be lost if you believe

 

1) Apple invented the word "App"  (Apple invented term iPod)

2) Assume that the "app store" trademark has reached final approval (iPod trademark is not in question- it is final)

3) Given both 1 and 2, I am dumb enough to still think  the trademark should be lost. (leave iPod trademark alone)

 

Newsflash: If assumption 1 and 2 were true, I'd want Apple to sue Amazon for every penny.

 

if Apple made up the term "app"  they should have filed the trademark in 1987.  In the case of "App Store", Apple was naive to think it was not too generic.   Someone high up at Apple was obviously convinced "app" wasn't a common term.  To take a word that is the abbreviation of what you will be selling, throw the word "store" on the end, and expect everyone to lie down and just accept it as unique is absurd.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Success is demonized. Faults of the successful, real or otherwise, are ballooned into earth-shattering problems. Destroy those who stand out above, ignore those who stand out below.

 

 

 

I've contributed an awful lot to their success.   Judge me, insult me, demonize me.  Whatever makes you feel better.  I know what I meant and where I stand with Apple.

 

Ultimately you both feel stronger about this than I do.  I didn't balloon this.  I made a prediction of what I think is going to happen.  The name doesn't do anything for me, and I don't see why they're so attached to it.  Simply because I don't like a name suddenly I am a guy that hates success, Apple, and the American way.

 

I remember someone arguing Apple would NEVER call something the iPhone 5.  It was gonna be just "iPhone".  (you terrorist)

 

I was "commenting" (I could have swore that's what that  button says at the bottom of the article- guess I can't even read).

 

I am sure you guys will do the same with my responses and twist them around again.  Highly unlikely I'll bother to respond from here on out.  I remember why I stopped commenting here now.  Far better things I could do with my time.  

 

Gonna go see what's new on the Appapalooza Store...


Edited by rednival - 1/2/13 at 9:24pm
post #27 of 32
SO I can open my own Home Depot without any ramifications now?
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by walletinspector View Post

SO I can open my own Home Depot without any ramifications now?

Is it really too much trouble to read the article and the decision?

The issue is that Apple was not treating 'app store' like a trademark. The court specifically cited the issue of both Jobs and Cook using the term as a generic.

Specifically:
Quote:
Amazon originally requested in September, and argued in court that the "app store" moniker has become generic, negating any false advertising claims by Apple. As evidence of this, Amazon noted that both late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and current CEO Tim Cook have both referred to competing application storefronts with the generic term "app store."

I didn't see any discussion of whether 'app store' COULD HAVE BEEN trademarked. Presumably, it could have if they met the requirements. But Apple treated it like a generic term, so they can no longer claim that it's trademarked.

If Home Depot started referring to their competitors as 'home depots' and stopped using trademark symbols on their advertising, then they would lose the right to protect their trademark - and you COULD open a store called 'Home Depot'. But they do protect their trademarks, so you can't.

Have you asked for a 'Coke' in a restaurant which serves Pepsi? If they're doing their job, they will say "we don't have Coke, is Pepsi OK?" because Coca Cola spent a lot of years protecting their trademark (even punishing restaurants that violated it). Even the best trademarks (kleenex, aspirin, etc) are lost if they're not protected and treated as trademarks. That's the issue here. Apple blew it - but not in the sense most people mean. They blew it when Jobs and Cook used the term as if it were generic.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #29 of 32
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
The issue is that Apple was not treating 'app store' like a trademark. The court specifically cited the issue of both Jobs and Cook using the term as a generic.
Specifically:
I didn't see any discussion of whether 'app store' COULD HAVE BEEN trademarked. Presumably, it could have if they met the requirements. But Apple treated it like a generic term, so they can no longer claim that it's trademarked.

 

So the second that the CEO of Johnson & Johnson uses the word "Band-Aid" to describe, even entirely ambiguously, a bandage, their trademark is immediately, irrevocably destroyed? 

 

Abject nonsense.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So the second that the CEO of Johnson & Johnson uses the word "Band-Aid" to describe, even entirely ambiguously, a bandage, their trademark is immediately, irrevocably destroyed? 

 

No, of course not.     The problem comes when constantly using the term generically for a similar product made by any company.   E.g.

 

  • If the J&J CEO often said "our band-aids are stickier than their band-aids" .
  • Or if the Xerox CEO repeatedly said "our xerox machine copies better than their xerox machine". 
  • Or if the BK CEO advertised several times that "our whoppers taste nicer than their whoppers".

 

In this case, what happened was that Apple chiefs used "app store" generically over and over again...

 

  • Steve Jobs said that Apple had "the easiest-to-use, largest app store in the world".
  • Tim Cook talked about "the number of app stores out there".
  • Steve Jobs referred to the "four app stores on Android".

 

It would've been infinitely better for them if they'd said "our App Store versus all the other online program stores" or something like that.

post #31 of 32

Interestingly, a company called SAGE Networks trademarked "AppStore" back in 1998, for software downloaded online:

 

1000

 

SAGE abandoned the trademark shortly after, but it was picked up again around 2005 by Salesforce.com, which had developed such an app ecosystem after Steve Jobs had advised such to its CEO Benioff.

 

That part of the story ends as told here: 

 

Quote:
"Years later, in 2008, Benioff was in the audience when Steve Jobs announced his own App Store. After the announcement, Benioff went up to Steve Jobs and offered the AppStore.com domain and the trademark rights as a gift, in appreciation of his help in 2003."
 

 

Perhaps Apple didn't think they needed to consult him first, because Apple's trademark is for "App Store" with a space, and Salesforce's trademark did not have one.... just like "Amazon Appstore".


Edited by KDarling - 1/5/13 at 9:23pm
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal View Post

They only struck down the false advertising claim. The trade mark saga continues.

Yesterday the court ordered Apple and Amazon into mediation on the remaining trademark claim, according to press reports.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/apple-amazon-settlement-talks-scheduled-in-appstore-case-1-.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Court dismisses Apple false advertising claim over Amazon Appstore name