Do you want peer review as well? This is an internet forum, for god sakes.
The fact that "it's an internet forum" doesn't absolve you of the decency to back up an assertion if called on it. Of course, there's no law that says you have to, but it certainly detracts from your credibility if you don't or can't.
People reading (and posting on) this "internet forum" are not stupid.
Apple has argued with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that it is entitled to ownership of the App Store trademark in much the same way Microsoft is allowed to own "Windows" for its operating system.
[...]
"Yet, Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole."
Wow, your post is really ironic, given that you called someone else ignorant. Most of what you wrote is incorrect. Really, just read the basics at http://www.uspto.gov/ and you'll see how far off you really are.
You have not proved anything simply by pointing to a site, however official it is. Prove your point.
I will grant that we might have read the same link, but it is in the interpretation based on cases that were approved or rejected, or reconsidered, after a challenge, where the nuances of the law is manifiested.
Can you point to me actual cases that contradicted the terms I posted as not being able to be trademark protected?
One has to declare trademark protection by posting such intent (e.g., TM), or register for trademark protection for more systematic legal recourse, in case of disputes.
For example, I used in the prior post you responded to, three terms:
"FACEBOOK"? -- no one has challenged Facebook, so far.
'Apple Store'? - no one has challenged Apple so far.
"App Store" -- this is contested by Microsoft but it does not mean it would go in Microsoft's direction. We'll see how it goes.
But, however the case will go, do not forget that the reviewers and the council are human beings, too. Their decisions are affected by their perspectives, biases, just like the rest of us. Just consider the US Supreme Court decisions, or more politicized agencies, like the FCC, SEC, EPA in the US.
In this sense, laws are organic and may evolve. What is considered patentable or trademark protected may change. That is where precedence and most recent decisions make a difference. In the case of patents for example, there is a review of the prior wanton patenting of DNA sequences... that became vogue when DNA sequencing was relatively novel and expensive.
Do you want peer review as well? This is an internet forum, for god sakes.
My point, as the original title indicated is the possibilitythat with your background and exprience, you could have enlightened us better, by citing actual cases, to refute or support the points your raised.
From my readings, more specifically of the US {Copyright], Patents and Registration is that they could be subject to interpretation. So, it is the precedence and more recent decisions, when disputes arise that clarify the nuances of the provisions in the Patnet and Trademark Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded
So, you're saying that copyrighting "Windows" is OK but copyrighting "Office" is NOT OK?
Just to be more correct, Copyright is not the same as Trademark. I do not recall any instance where a single word*** has been copyrighted (but it could be trademark protected, simply by declaring your intent to protect it (assuming there was no prior trademark protection), or register it for trademark protection -- to avoid legal issues of precedence on how first declared such intent.
The policies regulating Trademark registration, is more nuanced, and subject to interpretation.
CGC
Copyright is usually reserved for more complex organization of words, audio and.or images (articles, art work, music, books, mass media productions, films, etc.).
Before it was supplanted by the internet, Phone companies claimed copyright of the data in telephone directories, in an effort to quash competition for other "White and Yellow Pages". To my knowledge, the telephone companies lost the case. This loss did not contradict the fact that no one can reproduce the White and Yellow pages, as created by the telephone companies.
The time of application matters. ... it can establish precedence if there was no registered trademark like the application, at the time the application was made. A company may be able to submit the history of the coinage of the term.
I didn't say that the time of the application doesn't matter, I said it in a specific context, that is to say it's irrelevant when the filing of the trademark occurred, once a term becomes commonly used in a generic way, the trademark loses protection.
So sure, "App Store" was in use prior to Apple filing, and used to describe an app store in the same context as Apple. However, right now, it's very commonly used in a generic sense, and that's what matters.
Quote:
The Google search you provided is garbage. You have to understand the algoritjm of Google search. It will pick any publication that will include "any" of the words in the search, sometimes even those remotely related. (snip of Google rant)
Once again, you're talking about things you really don't know anything about. Note that the search term was "App Store" in quotes. This gives a search, as I mentioned where not all results are relevant, but where you can clearly see "App Store" was in use before Apple filed. You asked for proof for that. I provide it. Heck in 1998, Apple registered the domain appstore.com.
Quote:
Can you point to me any specifc link that use the coiage "App Store"?
Yes. Do the same search, but with an earlier time period (say up to 2005) to not conflict with Apple's App Store references. Take a look at he results with excerpts turned on, you'll see the date, and the context of the words "App Store" highlighted with the words in bold. If you click through, you'll see the current (or cached page) where the term may still occur, but keep in mind that the date of the page is when the excerpt was scrapped, so you may need to go to the Way Back Machine to view the page at the time.
But again, the issue is what is happening today, and that is, as you ignored in your response, people are searching for "App Store" (in quotes) as it relates to Android and others.
Quote:
Apple is applying a trademark for "App Store", not "App", not "Store", not even "APPSTORE", but "App Store". It won't matter if "Blackberry Store" or "________ Store" existed before the application.
So, in your opinion, Microsoft could (without issue) call their store APPSTORE? or Microsoft App Store if Apple does get a trademark registration for App Store? You'd be wrong if so. Sorry, but in your interrogation of JetLaw (who was correct about everything), you missed a fundamental point of trademark law, and that is it's supposed to prevent confusion.
Quote:
Note that Apple may have trademark protection for "Apple Store" which would be considered a different trademark from "App Store".
And, even if there was any, did any prior company attempt to trademark protect it?
Of course Apple has trademark protection for Apple Store. It's a registered trademark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
the trademark Levi's blue jeans is protected. Just slight variations in the blue jeans design "can" and has been protected. So, as far as the Trademark rules are concerned, the word "APPSTORE" is not the same as "App Store", just like the Beatles cannot claim infringement when "Apple, Inc" was registered as a trademark even if the Beatles has trademark rights on the "Apple" related to music. On the other hand, Apple has to settle with the Beatles when Apple tried to assoicated the simplified "Apple" logo to Apple iTunes music. It could have fought the Beatles, because the simplified "Apple" logo is different enough from the Apple music logo of the Beatles, but Apple decided to settle because it so coveted to market the albums of the Beatles.
Wow, you're just wrong about everything. Apple Corp (owned by the Beatles) did claim infringement against Apple Computer and filed a suit in 1978. Apple Computer (later Inc) settled the suit by paying Apple Corp and agreeing not to enter the music business with Apple Corp agreeing not to enter the computer business. Apple Corp then sued for violation of the agreement in 1986, which caused Apple Computer to radically change hardware plans, and again there was a settlement involving cash being paid to Apple Corp in 1991.
The iTunes suit of 2003 was again not a trademark violation suit, but about breach of contract. Apple Computer won the case in 2006 and in 2007 then bought all "Apple" trademarks from Apple Corp and licensed back the Apple Corp name (and related ones) to Apple Corp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202
The term Windows is commonly used, but the term Windows, as it applies to operating systems is not generic. That is the basis for comparison, however foolish you may think it is.
Foolish? This is exactly what I was saying all along. See my first posts in this forum. Specifically, Microsoft couldn't trademark the name Windows to refer to glass panels, but can with the OS. That's why it's foolish to point to Windows being generic as a precedence, because Windows as an OS is not generic.
Quote:
Finally, the issue will be decided by the copyright, patent and trademark office in the US, and their counterparts, internationally...
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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?
We've gone over this a million times in the previous articles. Apple just need to change the submission to "iOS App Store" and "Mac App Store" and there wouldn't be a problem.
Microsoft call their mobile shop the "Marketplace". They aren't going to start calling it the "Windows Phone App Store".
They just want to keep being able to use the "Web Apps" branding without Apple bringing the hammer down on them.
Meh. Doesn't hold water. If I were the judge, I'd tell them to come up with something better.
Prior to Windows, and even still today, people refer to the "windows" as screens. Windows was obviously a different take on this, like each screen was a window into something new and exciting (yeah, really gay.)
An "app store" is all that is: A store to buy apps from. Apple fails to realize that people have been calling software "Apps" or "Appz" for AGES.
If Microsoft called their software "Screens" then Apple's argument would make sense. The use of "Windows" was creative, while "App store" is not, plain and simple.
Apple fails.
Maybe apps, appz or whatever may have been used forever and Apple isn't trying to trademark apps or appz. Apple is trying to trademark "app store" because there wasn't an app store until Apple created it and named it.
MS has not ever trademarked the word windows. It HAS, however, trademarked "Microsoft Windows". Apple's argument is specious at best. If they want to TM "Apple App Store" or "iOS App Sore" and "Mac App Store" I can't imagine that this would be too problematic. They just want MS and Google to stop using the phrase App Store for their, well, app stores. Nonsense.
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.
Well, Face Book is a name certain colleges use for a paper publication that is given out to the freshman class. Zuckerberg made a digital version of this existing "face book" that was invented and coined by other people (indeed it was a generic term). I used the term "the face book" in college years before Zuckerberg started at Harvard.
Can it be trademarked? I suppose so, as a dot-com. Can pets.com be trademarked? I suppose so. Does that mean the words "pets" or "face book" can be trademarked? Nope.
Anyhow... App Store, it's in a slightly grey area. I think both sides have a lot of substance in this.
... 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.
...
This is only one of the many places where you lose your argument. app and store were both generic terms UNTIL Apple put them together. Nobody was searching for app store anything until Apple opened one, named it and applied for trademark protection.
MS has not ever trademarked the word windows. It HAS, however, trademarked "Microsoft Windows". Apple's argument is specious at best. If they want to TM "Apple App Store" or "iOS App Sore" and "Mac App Store" I can't imagine that this would be too problematic. They just want MS and Google to stop using the phrase App Store for their, well, app stores. Nonsense.
And why did Lindows (a linux distro) have to change their name after a bitter fight in the courtroom with Microsoft?
actually it seems like it may not have held up in court but MS wouldnt want to take the chance...
Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims[5]. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
In July 2004, Microsoft offered to settle with Lindows.[6] As part of this licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $20 million US, and Lindows transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed their name to Linspire.
The fact that "it's an internet forum" doesn't absolve you of the decency to back up an assertion if called on it. Of course, there's no law that says you have to, but it certainly detracts from your credibility if you don't or can't.
People reading (and posting on) this "internet forum" are not stupid.
That being the case, I assume the 'not stupid' people on this Internet forum would be in a position to call bs on any assertion which sounds fishy. Doesn't seemed to have happened just yet. At least not in this thread.
I've also done ip law as a student but where I live there is no overlap between copyright and trademark, so everything noted so far does not make a lot of sense. I say nothing. The ad hominen on this forum certainly discourages any attempts to back credibility.
Apple has responded to Microsoft's complaint over a trademark filing for the term "App Store," with the iPhone maker calling out Microsoft's ownership of the name "Windows."
And who gets fat over all this, the Attorneys, the bottom suckers!
Comments
Do you want peer review as well? This is an internet forum, for god sakes.
The fact that "it's an internet forum" doesn't absolve you of the decency to back up an assertion if called on it. Of course, there's no law that says you have to, but it certainly detracts from your credibility if you don't or can't.
People reading (and posting on) this "internet forum" are not stupid.
'App' (capitalized) has something to do with the name of the company, surely?
As far as I am concerned, the others can call theirs the Goo Store, the Micro Store, the Sam Store......
...the NoStore (for Nokia)
Apple has argued with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that it is entitled to ownership of the App Store trademark in much the same way Microsoft is allowed to own "Windows" for its operating system.
[...]
"Yet, Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole."
Oh snap!
Wow, your post is really ironic, given that you called someone else ignorant. Most of what you wrote is incorrect. Really, just read the basics at http://www.uspto.gov/ and you'll see how far off you really are.
You have not proved anything simply by pointing to a site, however official it is. Prove your point.
I will grant that we might have read the same link, but it is in the interpretation based on cases that were approved or rejected, or reconsidered, after a challenge, where the nuances of the law is manifiested.
Can you point to me actual cases that contradicted the terms I posted as not being able to be trademark protected?
One has to declare trademark protection by posting such intent (e.g., TM), or register for trademark protection for more systematic legal recourse, in case of disputes.
For example, I used in the prior post you responded to, three terms:
"FACEBOOK"? -- no one has challenged Facebook, so far.
'Apple Store'? - no one has challenged Apple so far.
"App Store" -- this is contested by Microsoft but it does not mean it would go in Microsoft's direction. We'll see how it goes.
But, however the case will go, do not forget that the reviewers and the council are human beings, too. Their decisions are affected by their perspectives, biases, just like the rest of us. Just consider the US Supreme Court decisions, or more politicized agencies, like the FCC, SEC, EPA in the US.
In this sense, laws are organic and may evolve. What is considered patentable or trademark protected may change. That is where precedence and most recent decisions make a difference. In the case of patents for example, there is a review of the prior wanton patenting of DNA sequences... that became vogue when DNA sequencing was relatively novel and expensive.
CGC
Do you want peer review as well? This is an internet forum, for god sakes.
My point, as the original title indicated is the possibilitythat with your background and exprience, you could have enlightened us better, by citing actual cases, to refute or support the points your raised.
From my readings, more specifically of the US {Copyright], Patents and Registration is that they could be subject to interpretation. So, it is the precedence and more recent decisions, when disputes arise that clarify the nuances of the provisions in the Patnet and Trademark Act.
So, you're saying that copyrighting "Windows" is OK but copyrighting "Office" is NOT OK?
Just to be more correct, Copyright is not the same as Trademark. I do not recall any instance where a single word*** has been copyrighted (but it could be trademark protected, simply by declaring your intent to protect it (assuming there was no prior trademark protection), or register it for trademark protection -- to avoid legal issues of precedence on how first declared such intent.
The policies regulating Trademark registration, is more nuanced, and subject to interpretation.
CGC
Copyright is usually reserved for more complex organization of words, audio and.or images (articles, art work, music, books, mass media productions, films, etc.).
Before it was supplanted by the internet, Phone companies claimed copyright of the data in telephone directories, in an effort to quash competition for other "White and Yellow Pages". To my knowledge, the telephone companies lost the case. This loss did not contradict the fact that no one can reproduce the White and Yellow pages, as created by the telephone companies.
The time of application matters. ... it can establish precedence if there was no registered trademark like the application, at the time the application was made. A company may be able to submit the history of the coinage of the term.
I didn't say that the time of the application doesn't matter, I said it in a specific context, that is to say it's irrelevant when the filing of the trademark occurred, once a term becomes commonly used in a generic way, the trademark loses protection.
So sure, "App Store" was in use prior to Apple filing, and used to describe an app store in the same context as Apple. However, right now, it's very commonly used in a generic sense, and that's what matters.
The Google search you provided is garbage. You have to understand the algoritjm of Google search. It will pick any publication that will include "any" of the words in the search, sometimes even those remotely related. (snip of Google rant)
Once again, you're talking about things you really don't know anything about. Note that the search term was "App Store" in quotes. This gives a search, as I mentioned where not all results are relevant, but where you can clearly see "App Store" was in use before Apple filed. You asked for proof for that. I provide it. Heck in 1998, Apple registered the domain appstore.com.
Can you point to me any specifc link that use the coiage "App Store"?
Yes. Do the same search, but with an earlier time period (say up to 2005) to not conflict with Apple's App Store references. Take a look at he results with excerpts turned on, you'll see the date, and the context of the words "App Store" highlighted with the words in bold. If you click through, you'll see the current (or cached page) where the term may still occur, but keep in mind that the date of the page is when the excerpt was scrapped, so you may need to go to the Way Back Machine to view the page at the time.
But again, the issue is what is happening today, and that is, as you ignored in your response, people are searching for "App Store" (in quotes) as it relates to Android and others.
Apple is applying a trademark for "App Store", not "App", not "Store", not even "APPSTORE", but "App Store". It won't matter if "Blackberry Store" or "________ Store" existed before the application.
So, in your opinion, Microsoft could (without issue) call their store APPSTORE? or Microsoft App Store if Apple does get a trademark registration for App Store? You'd be wrong if so. Sorry, but in your interrogation of JetLaw (who was correct about everything), you missed a fundamental point of trademark law, and that is it's supposed to prevent confusion.
Note that Apple may have trademark protection for "Apple Store" which would be considered a different trademark from "App Store".
And, even if there was any, did any prior company attempt to trademark protect it?
Of course Apple has trademark protection for Apple Store. It's a registered trademark.
the trademark Levi's blue jeans is protected. Just slight variations in the blue jeans design "can" and has been protected. So, as far as the Trademark rules are concerned, the word "APPSTORE" is not the same as "App Store", just like the Beatles cannot claim infringement when "Apple, Inc" was registered as a trademark even if the Beatles has trademark rights on the "Apple" related to music. On the other hand, Apple has to settle with the Beatles when Apple tried to assoicated the simplified "Apple" logo to Apple iTunes music. It could have fought the Beatles, because the simplified "Apple" logo is different enough from the Apple music logo of the Beatles, but Apple decided to settle because it so coveted to market the albums of the Beatles.
Wow, you're just wrong about everything. Apple Corp (owned by the Beatles) did claim infringement against Apple Computer and filed a suit in 1978. Apple Computer (later Inc) settled the suit by paying Apple Corp and agreeing not to enter the music business with Apple Corp agreeing not to enter the computer business. Apple Corp then sued for violation of the agreement in 1986, which caused Apple Computer to radically change hardware plans, and again there was a settlement involving cash being paid to Apple Corp in 1991.
The iTunes suit of 2003 was again not a trademark violation suit, but about breach of contract. Apple Computer won the case in 2006 and in 2007 then bought all "Apple" trademarks from Apple Corp and licensed back the Apple Corp name (and related ones) to Apple Corp.
The term Windows is commonly used, but the term Windows, as it applies to operating systems is not generic. That is the basis for comparison, however foolish you may think it is.
Foolish? This is exactly what I was saying all along. See my first posts in this forum. Specifically, Microsoft couldn't trademark the name Windows to refer to glass panels, but can with the OS. That's why it's foolish to point to Windows being generic as a precedence, because Windows as an OS is not generic.
Finally, the issue will be decided by the copyright, patent and trademark office in the US, and their counterparts, internationally...
Really? I though we were deciding it here.
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?
We've gone over this a million times in the previous articles. Apple just need to change the submission to "iOS App Store" and "Mac App Store" and there wouldn't be a problem.
Microsoft call their mobile shop the "Marketplace". They aren't going to start calling it the "Windows Phone App Store".
They just want to keep being able to use the "Web Apps" branding without Apple bringing the hammer down on them.
Next!
People reading (and posting on) this "internet forum" are not stupid.
Damn, where's TechStud when you need him? .....
Meh. Doesn't hold water. If I were the judge, I'd tell them to come up with something better.
Prior to Windows, and even still today, people refer to the "windows" as screens. Windows was obviously a different take on this, like each screen was a window into something new and exciting (yeah, really gay.)
An "app store" is all that is: A store to buy apps from. Apple fails to realize that people have been calling software "Apps" or "Appz" for AGES.
If Microsoft called their software "Screens" then Apple's argument would make sense. The use of "Windows" was creative, while "App store" is not, plain and simple.
Apple fails.
Maybe apps, appz or whatever may have been used forever and Apple isn't trying to trademark apps or appz. Apple is trying to trademark "app store" because there wasn't an app store until Apple created it and named it.
MS has not ever trademarked the word windows. It HAS, however, trademarked "Microsoft Windows". Apple's argument is specious at best. If they want to TM "Apple App Store" or "iOS App Sore" and "Mac App Store" I can't imagine that this would be too problematic. They just want MS and Google to stop using the phrase App Store for their, well, app stores. Nonsense.
Really?
Tell that to Lindows.
I
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.
Well, Face Book is a name certain colleges use for a paper publication that is given out to the freshman class. Zuckerberg made a digital version of this existing "face book" that was invented and coined by other people (indeed it was a generic term). I used the term "the face book" in college years before Zuckerberg started at Harvard.
Can it be trademarked? I suppose so, as a dot-com. Can pets.com be trademarked? I suppose so. Does that mean the words "pets" or "face book" can be trademarked? Nope.
Anyhow... App Store, it's in a slightly grey area. I think both sides have a lot of substance in this.
... 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.
...
This is only one of the many places where you lose your argument. app and store were both generic terms UNTIL Apple put them together. Nobody was searching for app store anything until Apple opened one, named it and applied for trademark protection.
MS has not ever trademarked the word windows. It HAS, however, trademarked "Microsoft Windows". Apple's argument is specious at best. If they want to TM "Apple App Store" or "iOS App Sore" and "Mac App Store" I can't imagine that this would be too problematic. They just want MS and Google to stop using the phrase App Store for their, well, app stores. Nonsense.
And why did Lindows (a linux distro) have to change their name after a bitter fight in the courtroom with Microsoft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows
actually it seems like it may not have held up in court but MS wouldnt want to take the chance...
Microsoft kept seeking retrial, but in February 2004, a judge rejected two of Microsoft's central claims[5]. The judge denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction and raised "serious questions" about Microsoft's trademark. Microsoft feared that a court may define "Windows" as generic and result in the loss of its status as a trademark.
In July 2004, Microsoft offered to settle with Lindows.[6] As part of this licensing settlement, Microsoft paid an estimated $20 million US, and Lindows transferred the Lindows trademark to Microsoft and changed their name to Linspire.
The fact that "it's an internet forum" doesn't absolve you of the decency to back up an assertion if called on it. Of course, there's no law that says you have to, but it certainly detracts from your credibility if you don't or can't.
People reading (and posting on) this "internet forum" are not stupid.
That being the case, I assume the 'not stupid' people on this Internet forum would be in a position to call bs on any assertion which sounds fishy. Doesn't seemed to have happened just yet. At least not in this thread.
I've also done ip law as a student but where I live there is no overlap between copyright and trademark, so everything noted so far does not make a lot of sense. I say nothing. The ad hominen on this forum certainly discourages any attempts to back credibility.
Source
Amazon might be opening their Appstore for Android soon.
Apple better start getting some cease and desist letters out soon or their trademark claim will be dead.
No one.
It became common because of Apple's high selling iPhone.
Apple came up with it, so they ought to have the rights of the name 'App Store'.
And "Jobs"... I think we're onto something.
Boom!
Is it more generic than "Jobs"?
Boom! squared!
Apple has responded to Microsoft's complaint over a trademark filing for the term "App Store," with the iPhone maker calling out Microsoft's ownership of the name "Windows."
And who gets fat over all this, the Attorneys, the bottom suckers!