Yes and Thog the Caveman created the term "book store" once upon a time. The term is GENERIC. Last post in thread for me.
I might be off base here but both book and store are definitely generic words and book store is a generic term. App is not a word, at least in any dictionary I have, but an abbreviation for a word. So if it was called "Application Store" that would seem generic IMO. Why don't they use App Mart?
I might be off base here but both book and store are definitely generic words and book store is a generic term. App is not a word, at least in any dictionary I have, but an abbreviation for a word. So if it was called "Application Store" that would seem generic IMO. Why don't they use App Mart?
It's defined as an abbreviation. It was first used in 1987. Just because it's an abbreviation doesn't mean it can't be generic, especially if it's been in use for over 20 years.
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.
When it describes software installed on phones and computers i.e. App Store on iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macs.
So, how would Apple loose money by someone else saying they have an "App Store", when none of the apps on that store will work with the iOS?
They can argue that competitive use dilutes the brand, and erodes consumer association of "App Store" with Apple's unique solution. They can further argue that if there is consumer confusion it can only damage the brand, as consumers are likely to blame Apple and the App Store if their purchases don't work.
I mean, I could open up the "Playstation Store" and sell software that didn't work with Sony's console; would you argue that because Sony wasn't specifically losing sales to such an entity that they would have no basis for litigation and no reason to be concerned?
When it describes software installed on phones and computers i.e. App Store on iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macs.
That's why it would be called Apple's App Store, vs Amazon App Store, because it's installed on Apple products. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a store selling apps and thus a generic name description. It doesn't matter who they're selling them too.
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.
OK, fine, forget Kleenex-- try "The Container Store" which is a business entity with many retail outlets who's name if forged from commonly used nouns already in use to describe that very thing, a store that sells various sorts of containers. Anyone want to argue that a national retailer, say Walmart, could open up a specialty business in containers and call it "The Container Store" without getting sued?
?So there will be at least four app stores on Android??
I think he has a point.
I don't think casual use of a term establishes the kind of prior art that would hurt Apple's case. Using my Container Store example, do you think if the CEO of that company had, during an interview, said something like "It's all well and good to open a container store, and there are various stores selling containers out there, but we feel The Container Store brings more to the table than what we've seen to date", that would make it harder to defend the brand in court?
OK, fine, forget Kleenex-- try "The Container Store" which is a business entity with many retail outlets who's name if forged from commonly used nouns already in use to describe that very thing, a store that sells various sorts of containers. Anyone want to argue that a national retailer, say Walmart, could open up a specialty business in containers and call it "The Container Store" without getting sued?
Has it been challenged in court? There would definitely be a legal argument that it could be considered generic. Until it has to defend it's trademark in court, we can't really say whether or not it would be considered generic.
I don't think casual use of a term establishes the kind of prior art that would hurt Apple's case. Using my Container Store example, do you think if the CEO of that company had, during an interview, said something like "It's all well and good to open a container store, and there are various stores selling containers out there, but we feel The Container Store brings more to the table than what we've seen to date", that would make it harder to defend the brand in court?
I didn?t think prior art has any baring on a trademark?s viability. If Steve Jobs is using it as a generic term what recourse does Apple have to say this isn?t a generic term?
I didn?t think prior art has any baring on a trademark?s viability. If Steve Jobs is using it as a generic term what recourse does Apple have to say this isn?t a generic term?
Because an individual's post facto use (even if that individual is Steve Jobs) doesn't establish whether or not a term was generic before being used as a trade name. Amazon would have to establish that "App Store" was in broad, general use prior to Apple's adoption of that term.
Has it been challenged in court? There would definitely be a legal argument that it could be considered generic. Until it has to defend it's trademark in court, we can't really say whether or not it would be considered generic.
I guess any other examples I could give of relatively generic store names appearing to pass muster as trademarks could be dismissed because they haven't been litigated, but that seems tortured.
Perhaps they haven't been litigated because it's generally understood to be unwise to simply adopt a preexisting name, and because their isn't as much money at stake.
Because an individual's post facto use (even if that individual is Steve Jobs) doesn't establish whether or not a term was generic before being used as a trade name. Amazon would have to establish that "App Store" was in broad, general use prior to Apple's adoption of that term.
I am under the impression that prior to adoption isn?t the only way to lose it, if it becomes genericized after the fact then they can also lose it. And then there is the case of Apple?s App Store being confused with MS? App Store and Amazon?s App Store.
Because an individual's post facto use (even if that individual is Steve Jobs) doesn't establish whether or not a term was generic before being used as a trade name. Amazon would have to establish that "App Store" was in broad, general use prior to Apple's adoption of that term.
Not true. Trademarks can be taken away if a term becomes generic over time.
I guess any other examples I could give of relatively generic store names appearing to pass muster as trademarks could be dismissed because they haven't been litigated, but that seems tortured.
Perhaps they haven't been litigated because it's generally understood to be unwise to simply adopt a preexisting name, and because their isn't as much money at stake.
Very true, this is all speculation right now with regards to App Store. My only point is that you can't use an example like that to prove that generic terms would withstand a court case if it hasn't ever been challenged in court.
Apple made the App Store and the App name more widely used, but I do think it's a generic term. However, if Apple ever owns the trademark to that term then they have every right to defend it.
Comments
Yes and Thog the Caveman created the term "book store" once upon a time. The term is GENERIC. Last post in thread for me.
I might be off base here but both book and store are definitely generic words and book store is a generic term. App is not a word, at least in any dictionary I have, but an abbreviation for a word. So if it was called "Application Store" that would seem generic IMO. Why don't they use App Mart?
I might be off base here but both book and store are definitely generic words and book store is a generic term. App is not a word, at least in any dictionary I have, but an abbreviation for a word. So if it was called "Application Store" that would seem generic IMO. Why don't they use App Mart?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...0&t=1303857719
It's defined as an abbreviation. It was first used in 1987. Just because it's an abbreviation doesn't mean it can't be generic, especially if it's been in use for over 20 years.
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.
When it describes software installed on phones and computers i.e. App Store on iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macs.
So App Store is not unique but "one click" is? Isn't Apple paying royalties to Amazon to use "one click" on the apple web site?
That was for a patent, this is for a trademark.
PS: I no longer can find any mention of 1-Click in iTunes but it?s still mentioned on their site, and not in some archaic help file.
So, how would Apple loose money by someone else saying they have an "App Store", when none of the apps on that store will work with the iOS?
They can argue that competitive use dilutes the brand, and erodes consumer association of "App Store" with Apple's unique solution. They can further argue that if there is consumer confusion it can only damage the brand, as consumers are likely to blame Apple and the App Store if their purchases don't work.
I mean, I could open up the "Playstation Store" and sell software that didn't work with Sony's console; would you argue that because Sony wasn't specifically losing sales to such an entity that they would have no basis for litigation and no reason to be concerned?
When it describes software installed on phones and computers i.e. App Store on iPhones, iPads, iPods and Macs.
That's why it would be called Apple's App Store, vs Amazon App Store, because it's installed on Apple products. That doesn't change the fact that it's still a store selling apps and thus a generic name description. It doesn't matter who they're selling them too.
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.
OK, fine, forget Kleenex-- try "The Container Store" which is a business entity with many retail outlets who's name if forged from commonly used nouns already in use to describe that very thing, a store that sells various sorts of containers. Anyone want to argue that a national retailer, say Walmart, could open up a specialty business in containers and call it "The Container Store" without getting sued?
?So there will be at least four app stores on Android??
I think he has a point.
I don't think casual use of a term establishes the kind of prior art that would hurt Apple's case. Using my Container Store example, do you think if the CEO of that company had, during an interview, said something like "It's all well and good to open a container store, and there are various stores selling containers out there, but we feel The Container Store brings more to the table than what we've seen to date", that would make it harder to defend the brand in court?
OK, fine, forget Kleenex-- try "The Container Store" which is a business entity with many retail outlets who's name if forged from commonly used nouns already in use to describe that very thing, a store that sells various sorts of containers. Anyone want to argue that a national retailer, say Walmart, could open up a specialty business in containers and call it "The Container Store" without getting sued?
Has it been challenged in court? There would definitely be a legal argument that it could be considered generic. Until it has to defend it's trademark in court, we can't really say whether or not it would be considered generic.
I don't think casual use of a term establishes the kind of prior art that would hurt Apple's case. Using my Container Store example, do you think if the CEO of that company had, during an interview, said something like "It's all well and good to open a container store, and there are various stores selling containers out there, but we feel The Container Store brings more to the table than what we've seen to date", that would make it harder to defend the brand in court?
I didn?t think prior art has any baring on a trademark?s viability. If Steve Jobs is using it as a generic term what recourse does Apple have to say this isn?t a generic term?
I didn?t think prior art has any baring on a trademark?s viability. If Steve Jobs is using it as a generic term what recourse does Apple have to say this isn?t a generic term?
Because an individual's post facto use (even if that individual is Steve Jobs) doesn't establish whether or not a term was generic before being used as a trade name. Amazon would have to establish that "App Store" was in broad, general use prior to Apple's adoption of that term.
Kindle is unique. Kindling (i.e. to start a fire) is not unique.
You weren't a cub/boyscout were you? You use kindle to start a fire. Look it up.
Kindle is unique. Kindling (i.e. to start a fire) is not unique.
You weren't a cub/boyscout were you? You use kindle to start a fire. Look it up.
Has it been challenged in court? There would definitely be a legal argument that it could be considered generic. Until it has to defend it's trademark in court, we can't really say whether or not it would be considered generic.
I guess any other examples I could give of relatively generic store names appearing to pass muster as trademarks could be dismissed because they haven't been litigated, but that seems tortured.
Perhaps they haven't been litigated because it's generally understood to be unwise to simply adopt a preexisting name, and because their isn't as much money at stake.
Because an individual's post facto use (even if that individual is Steve Jobs) doesn't establish whether or not a term was generic before being used as a trade name. Amazon would have to establish that "App Store" was in broad, general use prior to Apple's adoption of that term.
I am under the impression that prior to adoption isn?t the only way to lose it, if it becomes genericized after the fact then they can also lose it. And then there is the case of Apple?s App Store being confused with MS? App Store and Amazon?s App Store.
We can always bet on the outcome.
Because an individual's post facto use (even if that individual is Steve Jobs) doesn't establish whether or not a term was generic before being used as a trade name. Amazon would have to establish that "App Store" was in broad, general use prior to Apple's adoption of that term.
Not true. Trademarks can be taken away if a term becomes generic over time.
I guess any other examples I could give of relatively generic store names appearing to pass muster as trademarks could be dismissed because they haven't been litigated, but that seems tortured.
Perhaps they haven't been litigated because it's generally understood to be unwise to simply adopt a preexisting name, and because their isn't as much money at stake.
Very true, this is all speculation right now with regards to App Store. My only point is that you can't use an example like that to prove that generic terms would withstand a court case if it hasn't ever been challenged in court.