Seems like Apple wants the decision handed down at this point. Someone wins someone loses. Perhaps the TM office was taking too long for Apple's taste. Obviously they believe they are going to win. They would never "pick a fight" they thought they'd lose. Especially when you consider they'd effectively lose the TM if the judged ruled in favor of Amazon before the TM office makes a decision.
I think Apple’s App Store or iApp Store or Mac App Store would be fine, but simply App Store is too generic to trademark. I think there is evidence that the term predates Apple’s usage, but even if they did popularize it I think that the term has genericized long before they tried to trademark it thus making it impossible to now own.
You think?
Cite evidence please? Which company ever used "App Store" and trademarked it?
"Apple" is generic but it was trademarked (logo and term) for Music by the Beatles. Apple Computer had to settle with the Beatles when Apple Computer begun to use the "Apple logo" with iPod devices.
If no one has trademarked a term or logo in a given field, it can be trademarked, and be protected as such.
Of course, human beings at the Patents and Trademark Office will make the decision, if they do not like Apple or Steve Jobs, Apple may not get its application approved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
So? What about gas station, grocery store, used car lot? All of these terms where at one time "not in general use" and coined by an individual or company, then they became common.
The question is: Did anyone bother to trademark them? And, after it was trademarked, was the trademark owner protect the trademark vigorously? Whether Apple would be granted its trademark application for "App Store" is another issue. But, it would surely be rejected if it does not defend it, especially at this stage.
So, Apple is just doing what it needed to do to ensure it has any chance at all to get a trademark registration.
CGC
N.B.
By the way, placing the "trademark" onto a logo or term desired is acceptable, just as publishers simply attach copyright to anywork. However, as an added legal protection, companies do tend to register the trademark, not only in the US, but also separately in other countries, just to ensure precedence of trademark protection.
Since it was brought up earlier even though it?s a patent, is Apple still licensing 1-Click from Amazon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
If you called them 'ga station', 'gro store', and 'u-car lot', respectively, that would be analogous to what Apple is doing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr
Apple pretty much is required to sue Amazon for this though because they have to vigorously defend the trademark. They can't be counter suing Microsoft claiming it's a super important unique trademark and then turn around and say "well, we're cool with Amazon". Even if they lose, they have to do it.
Good point.
ACHTUNG!: Conspiracy Theory
Imagine Apple and Amazon are working together on this. Apple sues Amazon over the usage. Amazon agrees that Apple owns the right to it long before it ever gets to court. Then in a purely coincidental move Apple agrees to pay Amazon more money than before for some other service, maybe 1-Click. Amazon gets more money and Apple gets precedence to help leverage their position.
I think Apple?s App Store or iApp Store or Mac App Store would be fine, but simply App Store is too generic to trademark. I think there is evidence that the term predates Apple?s usage, but even if they did popularize it I think that the term has genericized long before they tried to trademark it thus making it impossible to now own.
I would normally agree with you on the "too generic" argument, but since "Facebook", a generic term with a long history of recognition and use on college campus', it seems even the most mundane words are being granted trademark protection...which I consider a dangerous thing for everyone.
So? What about gas station, grocery store, used car lot? All of these terms where at one time "not in general use" and coined by an individual or company, then they became common.
but nobody has a TM on any of those..
I'm not being snarky... that's an important distinction since this article is about protecting a trademark.
I'm fairly certain "windows" was in general use before computers existed.. but MS came along and trademarked it.
This is just a formality given that Apple is mounting a (probably doomed) effort to assert trademark over what is now a broad business concept analogous to "gas station" or "hot dog stand." Apple can certainly afford the lawyers. That doesn't mean it has any significance.
Imagine Apple and Amazon are working together on this. Apple sues Amazon over the usage. Amazon agrees that Apple owns the right to it long before it ever gets to court. Then in a purely coincidental move Apple agrees to pay Amazon more money than before for some other service, maybe 1-Click. Amazon gets more money and Apple gets precedence to help leverage their position.
I like it!
Still, my guess is that Apple just needed someone to sue because things are moving so fast. If they wait for the trademark office to decide on their application, they will be that much further behind in the fight to keep their new trademark from being genericized
Cite evidence please? Which company ever used "App Store" and trademarked it?
"Apple" is generic but it was trademarked (logo and term) for Music by the Beatles. Apple Computer had to settle with the Beatles when Apple Computer begun to use the "Apple logo" with iPod devices.
If no one has trademarked a term or logo in a given field, it can be trademarked, and be protected as such.
Of course, human beings at the Patents and Trademark Office will make the decision, if they do not like Apple or Steve Jobs, Apple may not get its application approved.
CGC
The first ?think? you bolded is clearly my opinion. The statement is the citation.
The second ?think? refers to evidence so I can supply with something. I can put in ?web app? (with the quotes? into Google search and choose dates that predate Apple?s App Store and get plenty of hits. I don?t know how many are erroneous but several of the sites seem to have been created well before Apple decided to trademark what I?d think is an obvious shortening of the work Application. I have included an example?
If I had written ?I know? then I can see your need for proof to back up my claim, but I carefully choose to use ?I think? to be clear that I "have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.?*
Come now, there are thousands of examples of common usage words that are trademarked because of unique usage. Just looking around my kitchen, I see these trademarks:
KitchenAid
Sharp
Hot Point
Profile
General Electric
Foodtown
The Gourmet Weight
I could go on, but I think this makes the point...
None of these words are "unique" infact they are all rather common. Again, no one seriously claims that App Store is something that no one else could have thought of--just that no one was using the term before Apple.
Apple then made it seem obvious--isn't that exactly what trademark protection is for? So someone can't piggyback off of your success?
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store or app store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection?
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection?
Does it make a difference? IANAL.
I'm not a lawyer either, so I make no claim beyond my own homemade opinion!
Anyway, I don't think it makes a difference. Companies trademark all sorts of thing, not just brands or products. Slogans, catch phrases and such come to mind. It seems that you can protect combinations or usages of words or images that are integral to your business...
I'm not being snarky... that's an important distinction since this article is about protecting a trademark.
I'm fairly certain "windows" was in general use before computers existed.. but MS came along and trademarked it.
On the money. And, they must protect it too.
In a related note, scientists (before the biotechnology industry really took off) and the government usually give away its discoveries and inventions to the public.
The only trouble with that is that companies can do a slight twist on those inventions and discoveries and make a huge profit from those prior discoveries and inventions.
A good example are the early anti-HIV drugs. The drugs were developed initially as anti-cancer drugs, but they proved to be useless and very toxic. Then when the HIV-AIDS epidemic came along, again it was either scientists at the National Institutes of Health or those funded by grant money that led to the initial findings that those anti-cancer drugs worked as anti-HIV drugs. Most of the clinical trials were similarly funded by federal funds.
But in the end, it was a private drug company that got the patent for their clinical use, and made billions and billions of dollars with it.
In the meantime, federal funding for basic research continue to be eroded. Imagine if all those "publicly" endowed discoveries and inventions get recognized and special fees are then levied on every invention or discovery using those "public patents", there would be no more problem funding basic research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection?
Does it make a difference? IANAL.
In principle, if you read the US Patents and Trademark act (and the relevant FAQs) one can literally trademark anything, e.g., logo, brand, term, style or pattern (in fashion and graphics) for any given field, provided the use of such term in a given field has not become generic before the application.
Of course, the arbitration is done by human beings, so there are nuances on what gets approved and rejected. Approved trademarks as well as patents can be challenged by anyone however, and that is where Patent lawyers make big bucks.
If you want to get rich and have the IQ and the aptitude to be one, it is the lawyers that win, one way or another. Just look at class action suits against corporations or even institutions and organizations.
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection? ...
You are just completely wrong about this. Not that you are the only one, I just picked your response cause it was near the end.
The fact is that Apple could *easily* claim a trademark on "App Store since they used it first. Whether or not it's a generic word has no bearing whatsoever (see "Windows"). They used it first, they trademarked it, and continue to use it. Therefore it's their trademark. Period.
Secondly, as is often pointed out when this topic comes up. it's only considered by some to be a generic term because Apple made it so in the first place. "Apps" were not always called apps, they were called "executables" for the most part or "programs." It was NeXT/Apple that started calling them "applications" (for the most part), and used the *.app extension for them. They were called "apps" at Apple headquarters and in the Mac community for years and years. Only *after* that did it go mainstream and on then did it become common usage to say "apps" when you mean applications, programs or executable files.
Apple may not win because the law is a (corrupt) ass, but truthfully and factually, they have the word "app" locked up. They basically invented the term and even if you argue they didn't they still trademarked it first and started using it first. Amazon just doesn't have an argument here at all and neither does Microsoft.
The first ‘think’ you bolded is clearly my opinion. The statement is the citation.
The second ‘think’ refers to evidence so I can supply with something. I can put in “web app” (with the quotes” into Google search and choose dates that predate Apple’s App Store and get plenty of hits. I don’t know how many are erroneous but several of the sites seem to have been created well before Apple decided to trademark what I’d think is an obvious shortening of the work Application. I have included an example…
If I had written “I know” then I can see your need for proof to back up my claim, but I carefully choose to use “I think” to be clear that I "have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.”*
Just for the record, we are all speculating. So any claim may be challenged, whether it is just an opinion or a fact.
Until there is a precedence (i.e. a decision) set by the US Patent Office, the issue about the term "App Store" is not settled. That is why Microsoft is challenging the application, and Amazon is defying such claim.
Since the stakes are high, it can even go beyond the Patents Office, as Microsoft has done in protecting Windows.
Google search is not a proof if you are familiar with Google search algorithm. Search for "App Store" and it will spew out millions that has the word "App" and "Store" , as well as anything remotely associated with those.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the relevance of your link to "App Store" trademark. That the word App was used as in "web app"? The the author you cited by any chance thinking of using the term "web app" as an online store?
"Web App" is not synomymous with "App Store", in the context that Apple is using it. Both can in theory be trademarked. Also, I did not see any TM on the article you linked to stake a claim.
Please don't let me muddle through the whole article cited.
And, if ever anyone or any company used it, did they stake a claim to the term.
You are just completely wrong about this. Not that you are the only one, I just picked your response cause it was near the end.
The fact is that Apple could *easily* claim a trademark on "App Store since they used it first. Whether or not it's a generic word has no bearing whatsoever (see "Windows"). They used it first, they trademarked it, and continue to use it. Therefore it's their trademark. Period.
Secondly, as is often pointed out when this topic comes up. it's only considered by some to be a generic term because Apple made it so in the first place. "Apps" were not always called apps, they were called "executables" for the most part or "programs." It was NeXT/Apple that started calling them "applications" (for the most part), and used the *.app extension for them. They were called "apps" at Apple headquarters and in the Mac community for years and years. Only *after* that did it go mainstream and on then did it become common usage to say "apps" when you mean applications, programs or executable files.
Apple may not win because the law is a (corrupt) ass, but truthfully and factually, they have the word "app" locked up. They basically invented the term and even if you argue they didn't they still trademarked it first and started using it first. Amazon just doesn't have an argument here at all and neither does Microsoft.
Good points, but the funny part is apple can lose the trademark and stand to lose absolutely nothing.
what do you think of when you hear app store? i think of the company apple. just like when someone says windows i think of microsoft. apple has enough rights to keep it as their trademark. otherwise, this will become a confusion.
Seems like Apple wants the decision handed down at this point. Someone wins someone loses. Perhaps the TM office was taking too long for Apple's taste. Obviously they believe they are going to win. They would never "pick a fight" they thought they'd lose. Especially when you consider they'd effectively lose the TM if the judged ruled in favor of Amazon before the TM office makes a decision.
Apple already has the trademark registered... the only way Amazon can win is if they convince the judge to invalidate the trademark.
EDIT: Actually, having read about the trademark process a bit, it looks like their application hasn't gone through all phases yet... so I'm not sure if their 'trademark application' is legally considered the same as a final trademark.
what do you think of when you hear app store? i think of the company apple. just like when someone says windows i think of microsoft. apple has enough rights to keep it as their trademark. otherwise, this will become a confusion.
True, but since it is being challenged, the issue has to be addressed; The first decision will come from a body inside the US Patents Office.
However, since the stakes are high and egos of individuals and companies are involved. the issue may take years to resolve
By then, the technology may have moved on.
The controversy itself just plays to the side of Apple. How many TV viewer ever forget the statement:
"There's an App for that.... Only at Apple!" (or something to that effect)
And, they won the truth in advertising when that was challenged in the UK, or somewhere in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illimiter
Apple already has the trademark registered... the only way Amazon can win is if they convince the judge to invalidate the trademark.
It is being challenged and defied. I did not really look but anyone can place a TM to stake a claim. Does Apple have the "Registered" icon after it also? That is done only after it was already approved. Not really following the issue that much.
Quote:
Obviously they believe they are going to win. They would never "pick a fight" they thought they'd lose.
Not really. Even if they think they would lose, they have to be vigilant in challenging any challenge or defiance to their staked trademark. Not to do so would fall under not "vigorously defending" a TM, and that would then make the term generic.
While I agree that Apple should be able to keep the App Store trademark, "Amazon Appstore" seems different from "App Store" to me, because Amazon is an extremely well known brand. Nobody would look at "Amazon Appstore" and think it's a part of Apple. It'd be viewed as a store affiliated with Amazon instead. On the other hand, if some company create a store selling apps and call that "My Appstore", or "Mobile Appstore", etc, then that shouldn't fly.
Comments
I
Second...can't generic terms be trademarked? The Container Store comes to mind.
Excellent point. There are hundreds along those lines.....
I think Apple’s App Store or iApp Store or Mac App Store would be fine, but simply App Store is too generic to trademark. I think there is evidence that the term predates Apple’s usage, but even if they did popularize it I think that the term has genericized long before they tried to trademark it thus making it impossible to now own.
You think?
Cite evidence please? Which company ever used "App Store" and trademarked it?
"Apple" is generic but it was trademarked (logo and term) for Music by the Beatles. Apple Computer had to settle with the Beatles when Apple Computer begun to use the "Apple logo" with iPod devices.
If no one has trademarked a term or logo in a given field, it can be trademarked, and be protected as such.
Of course, human beings at the Patents and Trademark Office will make the decision, if they do not like Apple or Steve Jobs, Apple may not get its application approved.
So? What about gas station, grocery store, used car lot? All of these terms where at one time "not in general use" and coined by an individual or company, then they became common.
The question is: Did anyone bother to trademark them? And, after it was trademarked, was the trademark owner protect the trademark vigorously? Whether Apple would be granted its trademark application for "App Store" is another issue. But, it would surely be rejected if it does not defend it, especially at this stage.
So, Apple is just doing what it needed to do to ensure it has any chance at all to get a trademark registration.
CGC
N.B.
By the way, placing the "trademark" onto a logo or term desired is acceptable, just as publishers simply attach copyright to anywork. However, as an added legal protection, companies do tend to register the trademark, not only in the US, but also separately in other countries, just to ensure precedence of trademark protection.
If you called them 'ga station', 'gro store', and 'u-car lot', respectively, that would be analogous to what Apple is doing here.
Apple pretty much is required to sue Amazon for this though because they have to vigorously defend the trademark. They can't be counter suing Microsoft claiming it's a super important unique trademark and then turn around and say "well, we're cool with Amazon". Even if they lose, they have to do it.
Good point.
ACHTUNG!: Conspiracy Theory
Imagine Apple and Amazon are working together on this. Apple sues Amazon over the usage. Amazon agrees that Apple owns the right to it long before it ever gets to court. Then in a purely coincidental move Apple agrees to pay Amazon more money than before for some other service, maybe 1-Click. Amazon gets more money and Apple gets precedence to help leverage their position.
I think Apple?s App Store or iApp Store or Mac App Store would be fine, but simply App Store is too generic to trademark. I think there is evidence that the term predates Apple?s usage, but even if they did popularize it I think that the term has genericized long before they tried to trademark it thus making it impossible to now own.
I would normally agree with you on the "too generic" argument, but since "Facebook", a generic term with a long history of recognition and use on college campus', it seems even the most mundane words are being granted trademark protection...which I consider a dangerous thing for everyone.
So? What about gas station, grocery store, used car lot? All of these terms where at one time "not in general use" and coined by an individual or company, then they became common.
but nobody has a TM on any of those..
I'm not being snarky... that's an important distinction since this article is about protecting a trademark.
I'm fairly certain "windows" was in general use before computers existed.. but MS came along and trademarked it.
ACHTUNG!: Conspiracy Theory
Imagine Apple and Amazon are working together on this. Apple sues Amazon over the usage. Amazon agrees that Apple owns the right to it long before it ever gets to court. Then in a purely coincidental move Apple agrees to pay Amazon more money than before for some other service, maybe 1-Click. Amazon gets more money and Apple gets precedence to help leverage their position.
I like it!
Still, my guess is that Apple just needed someone to sue because things are moving so fast. If they wait for the trademark office to decide on their application, they will be that much further behind in the fight to keep their new trademark from being genericized
You think?
Cite evidence please? Which company ever used "App Store" and trademarked it?
Yeah, second that. If companies can get away with (this is just from the first 25 names on the Fortune 500 list)......
Bank of America
General Motors
General Electric
American International Group
Home Depot
International Business Machines
United Health Group
(Not to mention, 'Apple' and 'Amazon')....
I don't know what 'genericized' means.
You think?
Cite evidence please? Which company ever used "App Store" and trademarked it?
"Apple" is generic but it was trademarked (logo and term) for Music by the Beatles. Apple Computer had to settle with the Beatles when Apple Computer begun to use the "Apple logo" with iPod devices.
If no one has trademarked a term or logo in a given field, it can be trademarked, and be protected as such.
Of course, human beings at the Patents and Trademark Office will make the decision, if they do not like Apple or Steve Jobs, Apple may not get its application approved.
CGC
The first ?think? you bolded is clearly my opinion. The statement is the citation.
The second ?think? refers to evidence so I can supply with something. I can put in ?web app? (with the quotes? into Google search and choose dates that predate Apple?s App Store and get plenty of hits. I don?t know how many are erroneous but several of the sites seem to have been created well before Apple decided to trademark what I?d think is an obvious shortening of the work Application. I have included an example?If I had written ?I know? then I can see your need for proof to back up my claim, but I carefully choose to use ?I think? to be clear that I "have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.?*
* New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Come now, there are thousands of examples of common usage words that are trademarked because of unique usage. Just looking around my kitchen, I see these trademarks:
KitchenAid
Sharp
Hot Point
Profile
General Electric
Foodtown
The Gourmet Weight
I could go on, but I think this makes the point...
None of these words are "unique" infact they are all rather common. Again, no one seriously claims that App Store is something that no one else could have thought of--just that no one was using the term before Apple.
Apple then made it seem obvious--isn't that exactly what trademark protection is for? So someone can't piggyback off of your success?
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store or app store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection?
Does it make a difference? IANAL.
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection?
Does it make a difference? IANAL.
I'm not a lawyer either, so I make no claim beyond my own homemade opinion!
Anyway, I don't think it makes a difference. Companies trademark all sorts of thing, not just brands or products. Slogans, catch phrases and such come to mind. It seems that you can protect combinations or usages of words or images that are integral to your business...
but nobody has a TM on any of those..
I'm not being snarky... that's an important distinction since this article is about protecting a trademark.
I'm fairly certain "windows" was in general use before computers existed.. but MS came along and trademarked it.
On the money. And, they must protect it too.
In a related note, scientists (before the biotechnology industry really took off) and the government usually give away its discoveries and inventions to the public.
The only trouble with that is that companies can do a slight twist on those inventions and discoveries and make a huge profit from those prior discoveries and inventions.
A good example are the early anti-HIV drugs. The drugs were developed initially as anti-cancer drugs, but they proved to be useless and very toxic. Then when the HIV-AIDS epidemic came along, again it was either scientists at the National Institutes of Health or those funded by grant money that led to the initial findings that those anti-cancer drugs worked as anti-HIV drugs. Most of the clinical trials were similarly funded by federal funds.
But in the end, it was a private drug company that got the patent for their clinical use, and made billions and billions of dollars with it.
In the meantime, federal funding for basic research continue to be eroded. Imagine if all those "publicly" endowed discoveries and inventions get recognized and special fees are then levied on every invention or discovery using those "public patents", there would be no more problem funding basic research.
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection?
Does it make a difference? IANAL.
In principle, if you read the US Patents and Trademark act (and the relevant FAQs) one can literally trademark anything, e.g., logo, brand, term, style or pattern (in fashion and graphics) for any given field, provided the use of such term in a given field has not become generic before the application.
Of course, the arbitration is done by human beings, so there are nuances on what gets approved and rejected. Approved trademarks as well as patents can be challenged by anyone however, and that is where Patent lawyers make big bucks.
If you want to get rich and have the IQ and the aptitude to be one, it is the lawyers that win, one way or another. Just look at class action suits against corporations or even institutions and organizations.
CGC
Your examples define a brand, not a store. Nobody questions whether or not Apple deserves apple as a brand or TM. But could KitchenAid trademark gadget store (short for appliance) and claim that it itself is unique to deserve protection? ...
You are just completely wrong about this. Not that you are the only one, I just picked your response cause it was near the end.
The fact is that Apple could *easily* claim a trademark on "App Store since they used it first. Whether or not it's a generic word has no bearing whatsoever (see "Windows"). They used it first, they trademarked it, and continue to use it. Therefore it's their trademark. Period.
Secondly, as is often pointed out when this topic comes up. it's only considered by some to be a generic term because Apple made it so in the first place. "Apps" were not always called apps, they were called "executables" for the most part or "programs." It was NeXT/Apple that started calling them "applications" (for the most part), and used the *.app extension for them. They were called "apps" at Apple headquarters and in the Mac community for years and years. Only *after* that did it go mainstream and on then did it become common usage to say "apps" when you mean applications, programs or executable files.
Apple may not win because the law is a (corrupt) ass, but truthfully and factually, they have the word "app" locked up. They basically invented the term and even if you argue they didn't they still trademarked it first and started using it first. Amazon just doesn't have an argument here at all and neither does Microsoft.
The first ‘think’ you bolded is clearly my opinion. The statement is the citation.
The second ‘think’ refers to evidence so I can supply with something. I can put in “web app” (with the quotes” into Google search and choose dates that predate Apple’s App Store and get plenty of hits. I don’t know how many are erroneous but several of the sites seem to have been created well before Apple decided to trademark what I’d think is an obvious shortening of the work Application. I have included an example…If I had written “I know” then I can see your need for proof to back up my claim, but I carefully choose to use “I think” to be clear that I "have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something.”*
* New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd edition © 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Just for the record, we are all speculating. So any claim may be challenged, whether it is just an opinion or a fact.
Until there is a precedence (i.e. a decision) set by the US Patent Office, the issue about the term "App Store" is not settled. That is why Microsoft is challenging the application, and Amazon is defying such claim.
Since the stakes are high, it can even go beyond the Patents Office, as Microsoft has done in protecting Windows.
Google search is not a proof if you are familiar with Google search algorithm. Search for "App Store" and it will spew out millions that has the word "App" and "Store" , as well as anything remotely associated with those.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the relevance of your link to "App Store" trademark. That the word App was used as in "web app"? The the author you cited by any chance thinking of using the term "web app" as an online store?
"Web App" is not synomymous with "App Store", in the context that Apple is using it. Both can in theory be trademarked. Also, I did not see any TM on the article you linked to stake a claim.
Please don't let me muddle through the whole article cited.
And, if ever anyone or any company used it, did they stake a claim to the term.
CGC
You are just completely wrong about this. Not that you are the only one, I just picked your response cause it was near the end.
The fact is that Apple could *easily* claim a trademark on "App Store since they used it first. Whether or not it's a generic word has no bearing whatsoever (see "Windows"). They used it first, they trademarked it, and continue to use it. Therefore it's their trademark. Period.
Secondly, as is often pointed out when this topic comes up. it's only considered by some to be a generic term because Apple made it so in the first place. "Apps" were not always called apps, they were called "executables" for the most part or "programs." It was NeXT/Apple that started calling them "applications" (for the most part), and used the *.app extension for them. They were called "apps" at Apple headquarters and in the Mac community for years and years. Only *after* that did it go mainstream and on then did it become common usage to say "apps" when you mean applications, programs or executable files.
Apple may not win because the law is a (corrupt) ass, but truthfully and factually, they have the word "app" locked up. They basically invented the term and even if you argue they didn't they still trademarked it first and started using it first. Amazon just doesn't have an argument here at all and neither does Microsoft.
Good points, but the funny part is apple can lose the trademark and stand to lose absolutely nothing.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out.
Seems like Apple wants the decision handed down at this point. Someone wins someone loses. Perhaps the TM office was taking too long for Apple's taste. Obviously they believe they are going to win. They would never "pick a fight" they thought they'd lose. Especially when you consider they'd effectively lose the TM if the judged ruled in favor of Amazon before the TM office makes a decision.
Apple already has the trademark registered... the only way Amazon can win is if they convince the judge to invalidate the trademark.
EDIT: Actually, having read about the trademark process a bit, it looks like their application hasn't gone through all phases yet... so I'm not sure if their 'trademark application' is legally considered the same as a final trademark.
what do you think of when you hear app store? i think of the company apple. just like when someone says windows i think of microsoft. apple has enough rights to keep it as their trademark. otherwise, this will become a confusion.
True, but since it is being challenged, the issue has to be addressed; The first decision will come from a body inside the US Patents Office.
However, since the stakes are high and egos of individuals and companies are involved. the issue may take years to resolve
By then, the technology may have moved on.
The controversy itself just plays to the side of Apple. How many TV viewer ever forget the statement:
"There's an App for that.... Only at Apple!" (or something to that effect)
And, they won the truth in advertising when that was challenged in the UK, or somewhere in Europe.
Apple already has the trademark registered... the only way Amazon can win is if they convince the judge to invalidate the trademark.
It is being challenged and defied. I did not really look but anyone can place a TM to stake a claim. Does Apple have the "Registered" icon after it also? That is done only after it was already approved. Not really following the issue that much.
Obviously they believe they are going to win. They would never "pick a fight" they thought they'd lose.
Not really. Even if they think they would lose, they have to be vigilant in challenging any challenge or defiance to their staked trademark. Not to do so would fall under not "vigorously defending" a TM, and that would then make the term generic.
CGC