Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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.)
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....
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.
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
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.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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