Then you would go to court and lose. And then you will be told your way of making burgers can't be protected in any way shape or form.
Incorrect because processes can be protected.
John Britten (of the Britten Motorcycle fame) invented a process for creating Carbon Fibre that no one had been able to do before. It allowed him to make any shape and any strength required. He patented the process not the product because Carbon Fibre had been made for years before he came along.
Apple has perfected the App Store and is claiming the trademark simply because when people think of App Store they think of the Apple iTunes store experience or the Mac App Store. Apple even calls it "App Store" on their iPhones and iPads and has done so since day dot of their developing the App Store. Therefore Apple actually has a good case.
All I can say is that before the iPhone, I don't ever recall anyone using the words "App Store". Period!
to pile on your comment, it's always been a common term (app) for apple users. whereas I've always recalled windows and other OS users referring to "apps" as programs. THink "killer apps." That's not a windows thing, apple has owned it for a while.
perhaps jobs and co. should have applied for cr along time ago.
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
The word "apple" was in use long before it became a music publishing company and also a computer (then consumer products) company... The name "Nike" was a Greek goddess long before it became a sports apparel company... There are many businesses and products with names which have become registered trademarks that I would never have thought would be given protection due to their "generic-ness". If these things are protectable, then "App Store" should certainly be allowed continued protection, especially since Apple was the first to apply for it and it is a novel combination of words, unlike the others I mentioned earlier.
Also, if someone actually had applied for a trademark on the term "Drive-Thru" they would have simply have had to continually warn and/or sue others to keep it's status. Apple is doing the right thing in protecting their already assigned trade name.
The word "apple" was in use long before it became a music publishing company and also a computer (then consumer products) company... The name "Nike" was a Greek goddess long before it became a sports apparel company... There are many businesses and products with names which have become registered trademarks that I would never have thought would be given protection due to their "generic-ness". If these things are protectable, then "App Store" should certainly be allowed continued protection, especially since Apple was the first to apply for it and it is a novel combination of words, unlike the others I mentioned earlier.
Also, if someone actually had applied for a trademark on the term "Drive-Thru" they would have simply have had to continually warn and/or sue others to keep it's status. Apple is doing the right thing in protecting their already assigned trade name.
Generic-ness does not mean the word is popular or well known. It applies if the word describes the underlying thing that it names.
Nike the goddess is a goddess. You could have trademarked Nike to describe anything that is not related to godesses. For example a sports apparel company.
Apple the fruit is a fruit. You could have trademarked Apple to describe anything that is not related to fruits. For example a music label company or maybe a computer company.
Generic-ness does not mean the word is popular or well known. It applies if the word describes the underlying thing that it names.
Nike the goddess is a goddess. You could have trademarked Nike to describe anything that is not related to godesses. For example a sports apparel company.
Apple the fruit is a fruit. You could have trademarked Apple to describe anything that is not related to fruits. For example a music label company or maybe a computer company.
Go ahead, I dare you to try to name a product an "Apple" this or that, or a "Nike" this or that. You'll be sued into nonexistence.
Amazon don't use the "store" suffix for any of their other products either, like, they sell software but there aint no "software store".
So why the heck is it a need for them to use the "store" suffix for apps?
I don't think it is at all, it's just that Apple made this name popular and now Amazon takes a ride on it.
It is not a NEED. It is a WANT. Why they want to is immaterial.
What is important is that because Apple decided to name something using a descriptive term should not prevent other people from using that descriptive term if they want to. This is why the Trademark Office does not allow the trademarking of descriptive/generic terms.
Now how App Store was awarded trademark in the first place, that is something I do not understand.
So in your logic, We can create a new OS names Windows X and Microsoft cant do anything about it since the term had been around for a long time before MS.
Amazon and MS both need to move on and pick a name.
The only reason MS wanted to be called Windows was because "piece of s**t" was taken.
You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.
None of that matters. Someone was claiming that you couldn't get a trademark using generic words. There are countless examples that prove that wrong.
Of course that isn't what you said earlier, nor isn't what I rebutted. Strawman.
Quote:
Because US Bank and Bank of America apparently have smarter lawyers than Microsoft. Everyone who is familiar with trademark law understands that the use of a generic word inside a trademark does not invalidate the trademark. I would venture that there are 100 banks who have trademarked names that contain the word 'Bank'. But 'Bank' is not the trademark, 'Bank of America' or 'US Bank' or 'Fifth Third Bank' is the trademark. As long as Bank of America doesn't start advertising themselves as US Bank, they haven't infringed US Bank's trademark.
Has nothing to do with lawyers.
Quote:
This really is simple stuff. Leave it to the veteran Apple-haters to be so easily confused.
Leave it to the apple lovers to fail basic comprehension.
Quote:
Simple - for anyone with even the tiniest understanding of trademark law (which obviously doesn't include you). Trademarks cover a market. You are perfectly free to sell office windows for the construction market. You are NOT free to sell a product called 'Office' or 'Windows' in the computer software market.
Uh huh.
Quote:
Similarly, at one time, Apple Computer had the trademark for 'Apple' as applied to computer hardware and software while Apple Records had the trademark for music. (Obviously, the iPod created some overlap - which is why they ended up back in court). It is very, very common for two different companies to use the same trademark in different markets.
That goes to show you just don't really know jack what you are talking about. I let you figure out why you are so pathetically wrong.
And so is Apple. Why is that? Who is Apple records? Why did I bring that up?
Is Bank of America suing US Bank? Why not?
Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.
An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.
Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.
An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.
Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.
An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.
It might not be the same, but piggy banking off another trademark isn't legal either.
It is not a NEED. It is a WANT. Why they want to is immaterial.
What is important is that because Apple decided to name something using a descriptive term should not prevent other people from using that descriptive term if they want to. This is why the Trademark Office does not allow the trademarking of descriptive/generic terms.
Now how App Store was awarded trademark in the first place, that is something I do not understand.
But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.
I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.
And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.
But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.
I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.
And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.
Good point. I was unclear.
What I meant to say is that if there is a choice of several similar terms, I shouldn't be prevented from using one of them because a competitor trademarked it. If I NEED to use one of them to describe my business then I should be able to use the one I WANT.
So store, shop, market, it's all the same. I should be able to describe my "store" with any of them without infringing on an a trademark.
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
I dub your flavor of philosophy "Genericism", and those who practice it "Generecists." This helps organize the world a little.
Now from a Generecist point of view if a word existed before it was used for a trademark or service mark, it is generic and therefore not usable as a trademark. Let us examine the state of the world following those rules.
Is Windows trademarkable? No.
Penny's No.
Quick Mart? No.
Nissan? No
<imagine a near endless set of business names, all followed by a no>
Under strict genericist logic, the only things actually trademark-able would be nonsense names that had never seen use across a tongue before. Hey, even the name of a person is used by more than one person, making that term more generic than unique.
I don't think Congress ever intended everyone, for the rest of the history of the United States, make up nonsense names in order to be able to trademark them.
No, Congress actually passed a law that shows EXACTLY how a trademark can be made up of common use words and how much protection that special use of the common words gets, and what protection it doesn't get.
Congress even makes folks that trademark combinations of particularly common words list these restrictions in something called a disclaimer that says the trademark owner doesn't own the word completely, but just for use in discriminating between one business/product or another.
The genericist philosophy is simply stupidity run amok. Idiots talking out their asses sideways without any concept of what the real rules and practices are. They are nothing short of the moron who knows just enough to be dangerous to themself, but not enough to be even a little bit right.
I've cited the USPTO verbiage covering the use of generic terms twice before in threads, apparently when becoming a genericist you are advised to not read anything that might actually force andy useful knowledge into the braincase. Here it is again on chance the characters displayed on the screen might be accidentally seen and register on the brain searing themselves past the bastions of conscious stupidity erected to prevent actual fact from interfering with illogical thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
IANAL, but here is the USPTO's synopsis of the laws:
37 C.F.R. §2.41. Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f).
(a)... (b)...
“To establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982).
That's all she wrote. Apple could ride that one to the bank. There's lots of other ways to illustrate distinctiveness too, like:
1213.05 “Unitary” Marks is all about how compound words can be registered interpreted as a single mark rather than as individual words.
1213.06 Entire Mark May Not Be Disclaimed describes how terms in a unitary trademark are legally handled, as in the individual words don't get owned as part of the trademark, just the composite use.
Again this all goes towards dispelling the notion of some form of blanket generic term issue with trademarks. The laws are explicitly written to have a specific means for dealing with the difference between the individual words and the composite registered mark meaning.
This was trivially easy to look up. I suggest you do your reading.
But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.
I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.
And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.
I'm having a little difficulty following which side of the issue you support. That last paragraph seems muddled and the tread above it didn't help much. But at least you are discussion rationally, not generically, whichever way you see the issue. and then on to...
Neither term alone is descriptive, but the combination is, and as a combination it is distinctive and trademark-able simply by being the first to file paperwork. Sure there are restrictions on how far Apple can use 'App Store', but in 2008 when the original filing was made, how many app stores (note lower casing) were there in the world? Answer: 1. That shows uniqueness of the combination, that more vendors are trying to capitalize on a mark Apple listed in 2008 and filed on, only goes to prove they were on the right track to snap it up for exclusive use.
I'm having a little difficulty following which side of the issue you support. That last paragraph seems muddled and the tread above it didn't help much. But at least you are discussion rationally, not generically, whichever way you see the issue. and then on to...
Neither term alone is descriptive, but the combination is, and as a combination it is distinctive and trademark-able simply by being the first to file paperwork. Sure there are restrictions on how far Apple can use 'App Store', but in 2008 when the original filing was made, how many app stores (note lower casing) were there in the world? Answer: 1. That shows uniqueness of the combination, that more vendors are trying to capitalize on a mark Apple listed in 2008 and filed on, only goes to prove they were on the right track to snap it up for exclusive use.
In 2008 there were plenty of non-Apple apps that were actually called "apps". And these non-Apple "apps" were sold in non-Apple stores. One could think of these stores as app stores, app markets, app shops, app sites, app download sites, app purchase sites and other words that effectively mean app store.
Is it possible no one else rushed to be the first to file the paperwork for any of these descriptive terms because it would be a waste of money as none of these terms should ever be approved for a store that sells apps?
Comments
Then you would go to court and lose. And then you will be told your way of making burgers can't be protected in any way shape or form.
Incorrect because processes can be protected.
John Britten (of the Britten Motorcycle fame) invented a process for creating Carbon Fibre that no one had been able to do before. It allowed him to make any shape and any strength required. He patented the process not the product because Carbon Fibre had been made for years before he came along.
Apple has perfected the App Store and is claiming the trademark simply because when people think of App Store they think of the Apple iTunes store experience or the Mac App Store. Apple even calls it "App Store" on their iPhones and iPads and has done so since day dot of their developing the App Store. Therefore Apple actually has a good case.
All I can say is that before the iPhone, I don't ever recall anyone using the words "App Store". Period!
to pile on your comment, it's always been a common term (app) for apple users. whereas I've always recalled windows and other OS users referring to "apps" as programs. THink "killer apps." That's not a windows thing, apple has owned it for a while.
perhaps jobs and co. should have applied for cr along time ago.
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
The word "apple" was in use long before it became a music publishing company and also a computer (then consumer products) company... The name "Nike" was a Greek goddess long before it became a sports apparel company... There are many businesses and products with names which have become registered trademarks that I would never have thought would be given protection due to their "generic-ness". If these things are protectable, then "App Store" should certainly be allowed continued protection, especially since Apple was the first to apply for it and it is a novel combination of words, unlike the others I mentioned earlier.
Also, if someone actually had applied for a trademark on the term "Drive-Thru" they would have simply have had to continually warn and/or sue others to keep it's status. Apple is doing the right thing in protecting their already assigned trade name.
The word "apple" was in use long before it became a music publishing company and also a computer (then consumer products) company... The name "Nike" was a Greek goddess long before it became a sports apparel company... There are many businesses and products with names which have become registered trademarks that I would never have thought would be given protection due to their "generic-ness". If these things are protectable, then "App Store" should certainly be allowed continued protection, especially since Apple was the first to apply for it and it is a novel combination of words, unlike the others I mentioned earlier.
Also, if someone actually had applied for a trademark on the term "Drive-Thru" they would have simply have had to continually warn and/or sue others to keep it's status. Apple is doing the right thing in protecting their already assigned trade name.
Generic-ness does not mean the word is popular or well known. It applies if the word describes the underlying thing that it names.
Nike the goddess is a goddess. You could have trademarked Nike to describe anything that is not related to godesses. For example a sports apparel company.
Apple the fruit is a fruit. You could have trademarked Apple to describe anything that is not related to fruits. For example a music label company or maybe a computer company.
Generic-ness does not mean the word is popular or well known. It applies if the word describes the underlying thing that it names.
Nike the goddess is a goddess. You could have trademarked Nike to describe anything that is not related to godesses. For example a sports apparel company.
Apple the fruit is a fruit. You could have trademarked Apple to describe anything that is not related to fruits. For example a music label company or maybe a computer company.
Go ahead, I dare you to try to name a product an "Apple" this or that, or a "Nike" this or that. You'll be sued into nonexistence.
So why the heck is it a need for them to use the "store" suffix for apps?
I don't think it is at all, it's just that Apple made this name popular and now Amazon takes a ride on it.
Go ahead, I dare you to try to name a product an "Apple" this or that, or a "Nike" this or that. You'll be sued into nonexistence.
Hence why I said "could have". Of course you can't anymore because it is already taken.
Amazon don't use the "store" suffix for any of their other products either, like, they sell software but there aint no "software store".
So why the heck is it a need for them to use the "store" suffix for apps?
I don't think it is at all, it's just that Apple made this name popular and now Amazon takes a ride on it.
It is not a NEED. It is a WANT. Why they want to is immaterial.
What is important is that because Apple decided to name something using a descriptive term should not prevent other people from using that descriptive term if they want to. This is why the Trademark Office does not allow the trademarking of descriptive/generic terms.
Now how App Store was awarded trademark in the first place, that is something I do not understand.
So in your logic, We can create a new OS names Windows X and Microsoft cant do anything about it since the term had been around for a long time before MS.
Amazon and MS both need to move on and pick a name.
The only reason MS wanted to be called Windows was because "piece of s**t" was taken.
You're just plain wrong. Please learn something about the subject before spouting off further. A combination of generic words can most certainly be trademarked. Under many circumstances, even a single generic word can be trademarked.
None of that matters. Someone was claiming that you couldn't get a trademark using generic words. There are countless examples that prove that wrong.
Of course that isn't what you said earlier, nor isn't what I rebutted. Strawman.
Because US Bank and Bank of America apparently have smarter lawyers than Microsoft. Everyone who is familiar with trademark law understands that the use of a generic word inside a trademark does not invalidate the trademark. I would venture that there are 100 banks who have trademarked names that contain the word 'Bank'. But 'Bank' is not the trademark, 'Bank of America' or 'US Bank' or 'Fifth Third Bank' is the trademark. As long as Bank of America doesn't start advertising themselves as US Bank, they haven't infringed US Bank's trademark.
Has nothing to do with lawyers.
This really is simple stuff. Leave it to the veteran Apple-haters to be so easily confused.
Leave it to the apple lovers to fail basic comprehension.
Simple - for anyone with even the tiniest understanding of trademark law (which obviously doesn't include you). Trademarks cover a market. You are perfectly free to sell office windows for the construction market. You are NOT free to sell a product called 'Office' or 'Windows' in the computer software market.
Uh huh.
Similarly, at one time, Apple Computer had the trademark for 'Apple' as applied to computer hardware and software while Apple Records had the trademark for music. (Obviously, the iPod created some overlap - which is why they ended up back in court). It is very, very common for two different companies to use the same trademark in different markets.
That goes to show you just don't really know jack what you are talking about. I let you figure out why you are so pathetically wrong.
So...
Mr Softie thinks that a cunning linguist will solve his problems -- and be a good fella too...
.
And so is Apple. Why is that? Who is Apple records? Why did I bring that up?
Is Bank of America suing US Bank? Why not?
Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.
An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.
Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.
An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aNtnl9vC6QLc
Because US bank hasn't named itself US BANK OF AMERICA.
An example of generic name used as trade mark: American Airline. Every airline in US by definition is an American airline, but there can be only one American Airline.
It might not be the same, but piggy banking off another trademark isn't legal either.
It is not a NEED. It is a WANT. Why they want to is immaterial.
What is important is that because Apple decided to name something using a descriptive term should not prevent other people from using that descriptive term if they want to. This is why the Trademark Office does not allow the trademarking of descriptive/generic terms.
Now how App Store was awarded trademark in the first place, that is something I do not understand.
But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.
I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.
And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.
But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.
I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.
And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.
Good point. I was unclear.
What I meant to say is that if there is a choice of several similar terms, I shouldn't be prevented from using one of them because a competitor trademarked it. If I NEED to use one of them to describe my business then I should be able to use the one I WANT.
So store, shop, market, it's all the same. I should be able to describe my "store" with any of them without infringing on an a trademark.
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
I dub your flavor of philosophy "Genericism", and those who practice it "Generecists." This helps organize the world a little.
Now from a Generecist point of view if a word existed before it was used for a trademark or service mark, it is generic and therefore not usable as a trademark. Let us examine the state of the world following those rules.
Is Windows trademarkable? No.
Penny's No.
Quick Mart? No.
Nissan? No
<imagine a near endless set of business names, all followed by a no>
Under strict genericist logic, the only things actually trademark-able would be nonsense names that had never seen use across a tongue before. Hey, even the name of a person is used by more than one person, making that term more generic than unique.
I don't think Congress ever intended everyone, for the rest of the history of the United States, make up nonsense names in order to be able to trademark them.
No, Congress actually passed a law that shows EXACTLY how a trademark can be made up of common use words and how much protection that special use of the common words gets, and what protection it doesn't get.
Congress even makes folks that trademark combinations of particularly common words list these restrictions in something called a disclaimer that says the trademark owner doesn't own the word completely, but just for use in discriminating between one business/product or another.
The genericist philosophy is simply stupidity run amok. Idiots talking out their asses sideways without any concept of what the real rules and practices are. They are nothing short of the moron who knows just enough to be dangerous to themself, but not enough to be even a little bit right.
I've cited the USPTO verbiage covering the use of generic terms twice before in threads, apparently when becoming a genericist you are advised to not read anything that might actually force andy useful knowledge into the braincase. Here it is again on chance the characters displayed on the screen might be accidentally seen and register on the brain searing themselves past the bastions of conscious stupidity erected to prevent actual fact from interfering with illogical thought.
IANAL, but here is the USPTO's synopsis of the laws:
1212.03 Evidence of Distinctiveness Under §2(f)
37 C.F.R. §2.41. Proof of distinctiveness under section 2(f).
(a)... (b)...
“To establish secondary meaning, a manufacturer must show that, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature or term is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 851 n.11, 214 USPQ 1, 4 n.11 (1982).
That's all she wrote. Apple could ride that one to the bank. There's lots of other ways to illustrate distinctiveness too, like:
1212.06 Establishing Distinctiveness by Actual Evidence
1212.06(b) Advertising Expenditures
1212.06(c) Affidavits or Declarations Asserting Recognition of Mark as Source Indicator
1212.06(d) Survey Evidence, Market Research and Consumer Reaction Studies
1212.06(e)(i) First or Only User [my bold & u/l]
And the actual generics section
1213.03(b) Generic Matter and Matter Which Does Not Function as a Mark goes into detail of how a word may be generic, but the word in a particular stylized appearance can be registered. It's not a section on word disqualifications.
1213.05 “Unitary” Marks is all about how compound words can be registered interpreted as a single mark rather than as individual words.
1213.06 Entire Mark May Not Be Disclaimed describes how terms in a unitary trademark are legally handled, as in the individual words don't get owned as part of the trademark, just the composite use.
Again this all goes towards dispelling the notion of some form of blanket generic term issue with trademarks. The laws are explicitly written to have a specific means for dealing with the difference between the individual words and the composite registered mark meaning.
This was trivially easy to look up. I suggest you do your reading.
But the whole idea of leaving out descriptive or generic terms is that competitors NEED them to do business, like if you want to sell a car you bloody well NEED to use the word car.
I think to ask whether or not there is a NEED to use a term is the appropriate test to figure out whether that term is "descriptive" in the trademark law sense.
And again, I don't see how Amazon needs to use the store suffix for apps, as they don't use it for anything else either. Which means that "App Store" is not descriptive according to the trademark rules - as I interpret them.
I'm having a little difficulty following which side of the issue you support. That last paragraph seems muddled and the tread above it didn't help much. But at least you are discussion rationally, not generically, whichever way you see the issue. and then on to...
Neither term alone is descriptive, but the combination is, and as a combination it is distinctive and trademark-able simply by being the first to file paperwork. Sure there are restrictions on how far Apple can use 'App Store', but in 2008 when the original filing was made, how many app stores (note lower casing) were there in the world? Answer: 1. That shows uniqueness of the combination, that more vendors are trying to capitalize on a mark Apple listed in 2008 and filed on, only goes to prove they were on the right track to snap it up for exclusive use.
I'm having a little difficulty following which side of the issue you support. That last paragraph seems muddled and the tread above it didn't help much. But at least you are discussion rationally, not generically, whichever way you see the issue. and then on to...
Neither term alone is descriptive, but the combination is, and as a combination it is distinctive and trademark-able simply by being the first to file paperwork. Sure there are restrictions on how far Apple can use 'App Store', but in 2008 when the original filing was made, how many app stores (note lower casing) were there in the world? Answer: 1. That shows uniqueness of the combination, that more vendors are trying to capitalize on a mark Apple listed in 2008 and filed on, only goes to prove they were on the right track to snap it up for exclusive use.
In 2008 there were plenty of non-Apple apps that were actually called "apps". And these non-Apple "apps" were sold in non-Apple stores. One could think of these stores as app stores, app markets, app shops, app sites, app download sites, app purchase sites and other words that effectively mean app store.
Is it possible no one else rushed to be the first to file the paperwork for any of these descriptive terms because it would be a waste of money as none of these terms should ever be approved for a store that sells apps?