You're right in so many ways, but why does some one who trademarked the term, just as the product existed have to take the fall...
This is all so stupid...
o.k. so apple can make a search engine called "Googles"... No trademark infringement there right? Cut a letter out... Paste one in...
No they can't. The rule isn't just whether it's the exact same word. The rule is whether it can cause customer confusion. That's why companies in completely different industries can each have trademarks of the same term....no customer confusion.
I actually agree with Microsoft on this one. It is too generic a term. Whether Windows is also too generic a term is besides the point. However, where Microsoft is stupid is that it wouldn't be a big deal to call their store something other than App Store. They can call it the Windows Solution Store or something like that.
Though on this topic they are a bunch of hypocrites, I gotta agree with them. I'm actually really shocked Apple would even trademark such a generic name as it doesn't clearly come across as Apple only. Maybe if they called it "apple app store" or "Mac app store" or something more recognizable as being their service.
I never heard the phrase "app store" until Apple debuted it on the iPhone. App is short for application. iPhones apps are small applications.
To say Apple has referred to other companies coming out with their own app stores is like saying they coming out with their own iPods or iPhones. They are copies and rip-offs of original apple products.
What about "App Store"? Apple didn't try to trademark just the word "App".
Right, and if successful it would only cover a usage specific to online software retailing. They could not prevent anyone from using it in connection with selling, say, home appliances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Microsoft has filed an objection to Apple's application for the "App Store" trademark, calling the term too generic to be fairly registered.
It is like the difference between "Motor Bike" and "Mo bike".. I would think. By shortening it apple made it catchy and so they should get to trademark it.
normally i'd agree about too generic trademarks but in this case apple should win cos they were the ones to refer to installed software as apps and applications. on windows it's "programs" and generically it's software
they can call theirs winstore or the prog store... or how about app shop?
I have to disagree. App Store is too generic. Mac App Store, iOS App Store would be fine, and specific
I suspect said office could side against Apple on this one.
Just because a company introduce a product name or phrase which becomes used in standard language doesn't mean it should be excluded from trademark protection. A great example here in the UK is "hoover", which most people use to refer to a vacuum cleaner as the hoover company made the biggest selling cleaner in the UK for decades... 'Hoover' is still owned by the hoover company though...
Heh. As an american my personal favorite from the UK is the use of the name "Tannoy" as a generic term for a public paging system. "Mr. Smith? Just a moment, let me tannoy him." Had me rolling on the floor the first time I heard that.
But many company names become generic, such as "make a xerox of that letter," "fedex that package right away," etc. Language is fun.
Trademarking generic unoriginal words already long in use by the public is indeed dumb and shouldn't be allowed, (see "Droid" and a million other examples), but I completely forgot that Apple actually originated the term in the first place.
In other news, Microsoft has applied for a trademark on the letter "e". This follows closely on the heels of their failed attempt to trademark the letter "a" two years ago. If this application is approved, everyone who uses the letter 'e" in any corporate name, correspondence, research, and conversation will have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft. This would include hardware licensing of keyboards that continue to be sold with the "e" key. A trade group is investigating the possible workaround of using double i "ii" as a phonetic substitute but Nintendo is said to be blocking infringement on its "Wii" trademark.
Comments
I've been objecting to Microsoft's trademarks for decades!
You're right in so many ways, but why does some one who trademarked the term, just as the product existed have to take the fall...
This is all so stupid...
o.k. so apple can make a search engine called "Googles"... No trademark infringement there right? Cut a letter out... Paste one in...
No they can't. The rule isn't just whether it's the exact same word. The rule is whether it can cause customer confusion. That's why companies in completely different industries can each have trademarks of the same term....no customer confusion.
I actually agree with Microsoft on this one. It is too generic a term. Whether Windows is also too generic a term is besides the point. However, where Microsoft is stupid is that it wouldn't be a big deal to call their store something other than App Store. They can call it the Windows Solution Store or something like that.
Windows
Though on this topic they are a bunch of hypocrites, I gotta agree with them. I'm actually really shocked Apple would even trademark such a generic name as it doesn't clearly come across as Apple only. Maybe if they called it "apple app store" or "Mac app store" or something more recognizable as being their service.
To say Apple has referred to other companies coming out with their own app stores is like saying they coming out with their own iPods or iPhones. They are copies and rip-offs of original apple products.
I have to side with apple on this one.
What about "App Store"? Apple didn't try to trademark just the word "App".
Right, and if successful it would only cover a usage specific to online software retailing. They could not prevent anyone from using it in connection with selling, say, home appliances.
Microsoft has filed an objection to Apple's application for the "App Store" trademark, calling the term too generic to be fairly registered.
Maybe Microsoft can make there own and call it the Mic Store.
How do you analyze "wooden chair" under that test? Could it be a valid trademark?
If you're naming your diner that is furnished with wooden chairs, yes.
If you're naming a business that sells wooden chairs, yes.
If you're naming a product that happens to be a chair made of wood, no.
I thought App was short for Apple.
Maybe Microsoft can make there own and call it the Mic Store.
There's an app for that!
It is like the difference between "Motor Bike" and "Mo bike".. I would think. By shortening it apple made it catchy and so they should get to trademark it.
Just my 2 cents ...
More like Apple tried to trademark "moped", IMO.
If you're naming your diner that is furnished with wooden chairs, yes.
If you're naming a business that sells wooden chairs, yes.
If you're naming a product that happens to be a chair made of wood, no.
And what if you are naming a store that happens to sell apps?
well i don't know about a 'dollar short'.....
MS's devastating drop in market cap since the Ballmer reign is a few dollars short I'd say!
I thought App was short for Apple.
Maybe Microsoft can make there own and call it the Mic Store.
How about ... "Install this and something else will stop working Store"
Microsoft should use a little irony and have a "Win Store".
Windows Mobile 7 Store 2011: App Edition
Like SongSmith should have been Microsoft Band 2009: Garage Edition.
normally i'd agree about too generic trademarks but in this case apple should win cos they were the ones to refer to installed software as apps and applications. on windows it's "programs" and generically it's software
they can call theirs winstore or the prog store... or how about app shop?
I have to disagree. App Store is too generic. Mac App Store, iOS App Store would be fine, and specific
I suspect said office could side against Apple on this one.
MS's devastating drop in market cap since the Ballmer reign is a few dollars short I'd say!
you got me on that one. very true!
the best line i have heard was "the day microsoft makes products that don't suck is when they start making vacuum cleaners'....ha
-- Jonathan Swift
well i don't know about a 'dollar short'.....
I already shorted Microsoft. They'll be treading water @ $25 by April.
Just because a company introduce a product name or phrase which becomes used in standard language doesn't mean it should be excluded from trademark protection. A great example here in the UK is "hoover", which most people use to refer to a vacuum cleaner as the hoover company made the biggest selling cleaner in the UK for decades... 'Hoover' is still owned by the hoover company though...
Heh. As an american my personal favorite from the UK is the use of the name "Tannoy" as a generic term for a public paging system. "Mr. Smith? Just a moment, let me tannoy him." Had me rolling on the floor the first time I heard that.
But many company names become generic, such as "make a xerox of that letter," "fedex that package right away," etc. Language is fun.
Trademarking generic unoriginal words already long in use by the public is indeed dumb and shouldn't be allowed, (see "Droid" and a million other examples), but I completely forgot that Apple actually originated the term in the first place.
In other news, Microsoft has applied for a trademark on the letter "e". This follows closely on the heels of their failed attempt to trademark the letter "a" two years ago. If this application is approved, everyone who uses the letter 'e" in any corporate name, correspondence, research, and conversation will have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft. This would include hardware licensing of keyboards that continue to be sold with the "e" key. A trade group is investigating the possible workaround of using double i "ii" as a phonetic substitute but Nintendo is said to be blocking infringement on its "Wii" trademark.