Someone asked me the other week how many apps were in the WP7 App Store. Given that the WP7 App store isn't called app store, this indicates to me that the general public don't even associate App Store only with Apple.
If Amazon can prove when "the public" (I've got no idea what the definition of "the public" is) hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps, they win.
If Apple can prove when "the public" hear "App Store" they think of the Apple App Store for iOS then they win.
Someone posted links to the definitions in previous threads on this topic. It was quite helpful
Actually, your list offers evidence Apple indeed can use App Store as a trademark. Your list contains VideoTape as a trademark that lost it's legal protection. But the fact that it was a trademark proves App Store is also trademarkable. In that case, Tape is alos descriptive, and Video wasn't owned by anyone. Yet the combination VideoTape was trademarked, until it becames generic.
You missed the point of my post. "App Store" is a trademark...right now. I doubt it will be after this case. The term "app store" wasn't allowed for a LONG time (federal courts kept striking it down) because they deemed it was too generic. After about the third appeal they gave Apple the trademark. So yes, it is a trademark. But only for now.
The point of my post was to say the fact that those were also once trademarks. However, a lot of those companies did the same thing Apple did: They tried to sue another company for using their brand. The court then stated that the name was too generic and they removed the trademark.
I don't think a lot of you understand how thin of a case Apple has here. The only thing they have is that they were granted the trademark. In a court case about whether that trademark should be removed or not, simply having it doesn't amount to a pile of beans. For those of you saying "no one really used the word 'app' before Apple," I agree with you 100% (more if I could). However, that is not a legal argument. Just because a company made it popular doesn't make it theirs. The ONLY thing Apple could argue is that there is a greater connection with App and Apple than there is with App and Application. Based on dictionary definitions and Steve Job's comment (which I REALLY think might be one of the deciding factors in this case), there is a lot of evidence that App is not associated with Apple.
Actually, that's not relevant since you're in Ireland. The "Frosted Flakes" trademark is for the US.
In the south (Florida) we have a chain of supermarkets called Publix. They sell their own brand of Frosted Flakes. The name "Publix" is in the black circle above the name Frosted Flakes.
I support Amazon's argument. Legal weenies might say Apple has a trademark. Indeed they might. Speech of generic terms strongly supercedes any trademark.
Absolutely, but that's the point. Nobody used the term "app store" until Apple announced the iPhone App Store. Yes, "app store" may be generic now, but it wasn't then.
Obviously "store" was used then, and people sometimes talked about "apps" (the more common term was applications or programs or applets or software) but never "app store" together.
Absolutely, but that's the point. Nobody used the term "app store" until Apple announced the iPhone App Store. Yes, "app store" may be generic now, but it wasn't then.
Obviously "store" was used then, and people sometimes talked about "apps" (the more common term was applications or programs or applets or software) but never "app store" together.
You are aware that if the term is considered "generic" NOW, Apple will lose the trademark, and by that this case. That's what Amazon is arguing.
Comments
Someone asked me the other week how many apps were in the WP7 App Store. Given that the WP7 App store isn't called app store, this indicates to me that the general public don't even associate App Store only with Apple.
15269
In any case what you say is true.
If Amazon can prove when "the public" (I've got no idea what the definition of "the public" is) hear "App Store" they think of a store that sells apps, they win.
If Apple can prove when "the public" hear "App Store" they think of the Apple App Store for iOS then they win.
Someone posted links to the definitions in previous threads on this topic. It was quite helpful
Actually, your list offers evidence Apple indeed can use App Store as a trademark. Your list contains VideoTape as a trademark that lost it's legal protection. But the fact that it was a trademark proves App Store is also trademarkable. In that case, Tape is alos descriptive, and Video wasn't owned by anyone. Yet the combination VideoTape was trademarked, until it becames generic.
You missed the point of my post. "App Store" is a trademark...right now. I doubt it will be after this case. The term "app store" wasn't allowed for a LONG time (federal courts kept striking it down) because they deemed it was too generic. After about the third appeal they gave Apple the trademark. So yes, it is a trademark. But only for now.
The point of my post was to say the fact that those were also once trademarks. However, a lot of those companies did the same thing Apple did: They tried to sue another company for using their brand. The court then stated that the name was too generic and they removed the trademark.
I don't think a lot of you understand how thin of a case Apple has here. The only thing they have is that they were granted the trademark. In a court case about whether that trademark should be removed or not, simply having it doesn't amount to a pile of beans. For those of you saying "no one really used the word 'app' before Apple," I agree with you 100% (more if I could). However, that is not a legal argument. Just because a company made it popular doesn't make it theirs. The ONLY thing Apple could argue is that there is a greater connection with App and Apple than there is with App and Application. Based on dictionary definitions and Steve Job's comment (which I REALLY think might be one of the deciding factors in this case), there is a lot of evidence that App is not associated with Apple.
Actually, that's not relevant since you're in Ireland. The "Frosted Flakes" trademark is for the US.
In the south (Florida) we have a chain of supermarkets called Publix. They sell their own brand of Frosted Flakes. The name "Publix" is in the black circle above the name Frosted Flakes.
I support Amazon's argument. Legal weenies might say Apple has a trademark. Indeed they might. Speech of generic terms strongly supercedes any trademark.
Absolutely, but that's the point. Nobody used the term "app store" until Apple announced the iPhone App Store. Yes, "app store" may be generic now, but it wasn't then.
Obviously "store" was used then, and people sometimes talked about "apps" (the more common term was applications or programs or applets or software) but never "app store" together.
Absolutely, but that's the point. Nobody used the term "app store" until Apple announced the iPhone App Store. Yes, "app store" may be generic now, but it wasn't then.
Obviously "store" was used then, and people sometimes talked about "apps" (the more common term was applications or programs or applets or software) but never "app store" together.
You are aware that if the term is considered "generic" NOW, Apple will lose the trademark, and by that this case. That's what Amazon is arguing.