why not amazon market for applications? App market? Amazon apps? Android applications by amazon? Application store? App shop?
Any of those are at least as "obvious" as amazon appstore, but they don't make the customer think of apple's app store-- which is what amazon wants and why apple is suing.
Generic words can be trademarked for specific uses. If someone here can cite proof that the term "App Store" was in wide generic use for an online marketplace where one can purchase computer and mobile device programs before Apple applied for the trademark, I'd gladly concede the point. Until then, kindly STFU.
Already pointed out that "killer app" existed for an application/program that encouraged hardware sales.
Google Apps also existed before the app store.
You all have fun. This has been debated ad nauseum.
Edit: Not posted here, but on Arstechnica, in the response Amazon quoted Steve Jobs in his Oct earnings call that even he uses the term generically:
Quote:
"So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
Another link that appeared in the thread, interesting if true:
The fact is Apple has made "App Store" the generally recognized term for a centralized web-based application store for smart phones and now tablets. Given that, the rush to create competitive "App Stores" is clearly trading on public perception that "App Store" means certain things. The only reason it seems like some variant on same is the obvious or only term for such a store is simply testament to how throughly Apple has monopolized that perception.
I think Apple has a case in this instance (and cases are always decided on the particulars, not some general idea about "common names" or the like) exactly because "App Store" is such a valuable property and because there's a clear desire on the part of the competition to get some of Apple's credibility in the space to rub off via naming..
It?s the part in bold that makes me thing Amazon has a case. There are plenty of products that have had to fight the genericization of their product name.
Already pointed out that "killer app" existed for an application/program that encouraged hardware sales.
Google Apps also existed before the app store.
You all have fun. This has been debated ad nauseum.
Edit: Not posted here, but on Arstechnica, in the response Amazon quoted Steve Jobs in his Oct earnings call that even he uses the term generically:
"So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple?s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
Another link that appeared in the thread, interesting if true:
Generic words can be trademarked for specific uses. If someone here can cite proof that the term "App Store" was in wide generic use for an online marketplace where one can purchase computer and mobile device programs before Apple applied for the trademark, I'd gladly concede the point. Until then, kindly STFU.
Not if the generic word describes exactly what the trademarked entity is or does. The term bookstore or grocery store couldn't be trademarked back in the day before the term was ubiquitous because it described exactly it did. The term app was used before Apple used it to describe their apps. They made it popular, they didn't invent it and they didn't make it unique.
I'd love to know how the term app store doesn't exactly describe a store that sells apps. Similarly, the term app marketplace or whatever other moniker you can come up with would have trouble defending a trademark on the same grounds.
We can argue what's generic and what's not, which is certainly what Microsoft and amazon are doing, but we have to be honest here. Amazon just doesn't want the term app store (or appstore) just because they got lazy. There's a popularity that comes along with the term, there's safety (the consumer hears app store is feels safer downloading from that place), there's convenience, there's a whole host of things that are automatically associated with the term app store because of.... You guessed it. Apple. Apple didn't create app or even store but I surely never heard of "app store" before apple came along. Did you? Amazon wants all of the hard work that comes along with a stupid little term. It can't be denied, there is an immense value that is tied to those simple words, whether you separate them or combine them as amazon has done. And it can't further be denied that it was apple that added that value. It's why apple desperately wants to hold on to the term and amazon (and microsoft) desperately want it to be shared. We'll have to wait and see.
Kellog's Frosted Flakes is what was trademarked, I see the same thing happening with Apples app store.
Interesting example. But are you sure that they can't trademark "frosted flakes" because it is obvious or is it because they just think it until it after others were doing it? If it is the second case then this example actually bolsters Apple's case and justifies it. (If it is indeed the first case then Apple is in trouble with this case!)
Apple should argue in part that App Store is NOT generic -- as Apple and NeXT before it have named their apps with a name.app since the beginning of NEXTSTEP, AFAIK. Of course Apple got this legacy with the NeXT merger and now Mac OS X (nee Rhapsody)...
There are clueless idiots who will be confused about Apple's App Store and Amazon's AppStore. I can just see someone going to the Amazon AppStore and buying an app and try to install it on their iPhone. How was I supposed to know? The Amazon version of Angry Birds was cheaper. And they will do that regardless of the name.
There is nothing new here. The people who think that because the term "app" existed previously so Apple cannot trademark "App Store" will continue to do so. The people who understand trademark law will see that that is beside the point and that the term "app store" itself was unique until Apple popularized it. This article adds nothing to that "debate."
What's new is that Amazon filed its court papers, laying out its arguments.
Interesting that they cite The American Dialect Society choosing "app" as the word of the year in 2010. That's funny on two levels - first, Apple copyrighted the term "App Store" two years before that, and the only reason "app" even became a common word (for the general public, not computer geeks) is because of Apple's use of it, with its "There's an app for that" advertising.
What's new is that Amazon filed its court papers, laying out its arguments.
Interesting that they cite The American Dialect Society choosing "app" as the word of the year in 2010. That's funny on two levels - first, Apple copyrighted the term "App Store" two years before that, and the only reason "app" even became a common word (for the general public, not computer geeks) is because of Apple's use of it, with its "There's an app for that" advertising.
As I recall, trademarks are not like patents. You can?t sit on an used trademark the way you can a patent and, which may be Apple?s case, you can?t let your trademark become genericized. I think Apple may end up being a victim of its own success in this matter.
The word "Kleenex" is widely used by the public to mean facial tissue but only one company is allowed to use it for their product. Examples like this are endless.
Exactly. That is a completely different issue. Kleenex was not generic before the Kleenex brand existed so it has to become genericized. One of the tests is whether a company fights for the name not to get genercized which Kleenex has. Another example is Jello who protects its brand from becoming genericized with commericals say Jello brand gelletin. "app", on the other hand, was existed before the Apple App Store.
I think they're arguing the wrong term. Amazon should just argue that it doesn't matter whether "App Store" is generic or not, but "Amazon Appstore" is definitely not generic, because Amazon is a well-known brand they own and people would not associate Amazon with Apple.
Comments
why not amazon market for applications? App market? Amazon apps? Android applications by amazon? Application store? App shop?
Any of those are at least as "obvious" as amazon appstore, but they don't make the customer think of apple's app store-- which is what amazon wants and why apple is suing.
exactly!
I am sure we can find some equally "generic" trademarks that Amazon would be quick to defend.
Google Apps also existed before the app store.
You all have fun. This has been debated ad nauseum.
Edit: Not posted here, but on Arstechnica, in the response Amazon quoted Steve Jobs in his Oct earnings call that even he uses the term generically:
"So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone."
Another link that appeared in the thread, interesting if true:
http://trademarkem.com/descriptivene...-vs-salesforce
http://trademarkem.com/descriptivene...apple-vs-amaon
Come to think of it, both "Windows" and "Amazon" could be contested for their lack of originality...
Yes, you beat me to it. I guess the Brazilians should have a good case there!
The fact is Apple has made "App Store" the generally recognized term for a centralized web-based application store for smart phones and now tablets. Given that, the rush to create competitive "App Stores" is clearly trading on public perception that "App Store" means certain things. The only reason it seems like some variant on same is the obvious or only term for such a store is simply testament to how throughly Apple has monopolized that perception.
I think Apple has a case in this instance (and cases are always decided on the particulars, not some general idea about "common names" or the like) exactly because "App Store" is such a valuable property and because there's a clear desire on the part of the competition to get some of Apple's credibility in the space to rub off via naming..
It?s the part in bold that makes me thing Amazon has a case. There are plenty of products that have had to fight the genericization of their product name.
Already pointed out that "killer app" existed for an application/program that encouraged hardware sales.
Google Apps also existed before the app store.
You all have fun. This has been debated ad nauseum.
Edit: Not posted here, but on Arstechnica, in the response Amazon quoted Steve Jobs in his Oct earnings call that even he uses the term generically:
Another link that appeared in the thread, interesting if true:
http://trademarkem.com/descriptivene...-vs-salesforce
Killer app store?
NO
Google app store?
NO
Maybe if Apple trademarked "app" you may have a point, but they didn't, so you don't.
Already pointed out that "killer app" existed for an application/program that encouraged hardware sales.
Google Apps also existed before the app store.
You all have fun. This has been debated ad nauseum.
Edit: Not posted here, but on Arstechnica, in the response Amazon quoted Steve Jobs in his Oct earnings call that even he uses the term generically:Another link that appeared in the thread, interesting if true:
http://trademarkem.com/descriptivene...-vs-salesforce
That sounds like something Amazon?s lawyers will bring up. Nice post.
Killer app store?
NO
Google app store?
NO
Maybe if Apple trademarked "app" you may have a point, but they didn't, so you don't.
?So there will be at least four app stores on Android??
I think he has a point.
Generic words can be trademarked for specific uses. If someone here can cite proof that the term "App Store" was in wide generic use for an online marketplace where one can purchase computer and mobile device programs before Apple applied for the trademark, I'd gladly concede the point. Until then, kindly STFU.
Not if the generic word describes exactly what the trademarked entity is or does. The term bookstore or grocery store couldn't be trademarked back in the day before the term was ubiquitous because it described exactly it did. The term app was used before Apple used it to describe their apps. They made it popular, they didn't invent it and they didn't make it unique.
I'd love to know how the term app store doesn't exactly describe a store that sells apps. Similarly, the term app marketplace or whatever other moniker you can come up with would have trouble defending a trademark on the same grounds.
Kellog's Frosted Flakes is what was trademarked, I see the same thing happening with Apples app store.
Interesting example. But are you sure that they can't trademark "frosted flakes" because it is obvious or is it because they just think it until it after others were doing it? If it is the second case then this example actually bolsters Apple's case and justifies it. (If it is indeed the first case then Apple is in trouble with this case!)
There is nothing new here. The people who think that because the term "app" existed previously so Apple cannot trademark "App Store" will continue to do so. The people who understand trademark law will see that that is beside the point and that the term "app store" itself was unique until Apple popularized it. This article adds nothing to that "debate."
What's new is that Amazon filed its court papers, laying out its arguments.
Interesting that they cite The American Dialect Society choosing "app" as the word of the year in 2010. That's funny on two levels - first, Apple copyrighted the term "App Store" two years before that, and the only reason "app" even became a common word (for the general public, not computer geeks) is because of Apple's use of it, with its "There's an app for that" advertising.
What's new is that Amazon filed its court papers, laying out its arguments.
Interesting that they cite The American Dialect Society choosing "app" as the word of the year in 2010. That's funny on two levels - first, Apple copyrighted the term "App Store" two years before that, and the only reason "app" even became a common word (for the general public, not computer geeks) is because of Apple's use of it, with its "There's an app for that" advertising.
As I recall, trademarks are not like patents. You can?t sit on an used trademark the way you can a patent and, which may be Apple?s case, you can?t let your trademark become genericized. I think Apple may end up being a victim of its own success in this matter.
The word "Kleenex" is widely used by the public to mean facial tissue but only one company is allowed to use it for their product. Examples like this are endless.
Exactly. That is a completely different issue. Kleenex was not generic before the Kleenex brand existed so it has to become genericized. One of the tests is whether a company fights for the name not to get genercized which Kleenex has. Another example is Jello who protects its brand from becoming genericized with commericals say Jello brand gelletin. "app", on the other hand, was existed before the Apple App Store.