Those cartel have a HUGE industry in Europe, and its players are influential in police making in Europe.
When protectionism collides with fair market values, protectionism wins, invariably.
Not a winnable fight for apple.
That is obvious!
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
The reason MS and all the others want to use the term "AppStore" that Apple invented is just because it solely refers to the Apple's very successful AppStore for all things iOS, iPad, iPodTouch, iPhone.
The fact that MS used that term to refer to a rectangular box on a computer screen is a unique use of the word.
As you've been told, that's not true. 'Windows' to describe a rectangular box on a computer screen was well established before Microsoft started using the word Windows. In fact, the use of Windows to describe the operating system was in use for years before they ever applied for a trademark registration - which weakens their position further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Not really. It's just that none of MS's competitors were childish enough to get all pissy over the name because they were getting beat like a red-headed stepchild in the market.
You can look at Digital, Apple, IBM, Commodore, Atari, Acorn, Radio Shack amongst others that were all getting slaughtered by MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, and didn't sue over an obviously generic word being capitalized and used for a product name.
I agree that Windows is also generic is irrelevant though. What is relevant is that laws exist specifically to describe how generic words are to be used in trademarks and Apple seems to have hit all those wickets. Hmmmm, just like MS hit those same wickets in the early 1990's.
Actually, it's not clear that MS hit those wickets. They sued Lindows in the 90's and Lindows apparently had a pretty good case - because Microsoft paid then tens of millions of dollars to settle the case. Analysis at the point was that there was such a good chance that Microsoft's trademark would be invalidated that Microsoft really had no choice but to settle before it went to trial.
The reason MS and all the others want to use the term "AppStore" that Apple invented is just because it solely refers to the Apple's very successful AppStore for all things iOS, iPad, iPodTouch, iPhone.
Like MS's and others' phone and tablet, which must copy everything Apple in order to compete at all (or they have no idea how to create similar products with more value than Apple's products), these companies cannot compete with Apple's AppStore unless they copy the same functionality and use the same name, in addition to trying ride Apple's coattails, wants to decrease the value of Apple "AppStore" term.
"......companies cannot compete with Apple's AppStore unless they copy the same functionality and use the same name....."
Is that why apple copied the name from salesforce's "AppStore"
As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name.
Today, "aspirin" is a generic word in Australia, France, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, Jamaica, the Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. Aspirin, with a capital "A", remains a registered trademark of Bayer in Germany, Canada, Mexico, and in over 80 other countries, where the trademark is owned by Bayer, using acetylsalicylic acid in all markets, but using different packaging and physical aspects for each
Because it has happened doesn't mean it always must or should happen. Unless Apple goes to war against the world and loses. Gratuitous smiley.
Windows is a generic word but it is unique in being used to describe an operating system. You don't say "Windows" to refer in general to GUIs or Operating Systems. If you say "Windows" everyone knows you are talking about the Microsoft product.
However, people use AppStore very generically to describe all of the different app stores. Say AppStore and people might think you are talking about Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. I find most people say iOS or iPhone AppStore so others know they are talking about the Apple one.
Huh? No they don't. People have said and continue to say app store when referring to the place where they buy applications for their iOS device. I have several friends who own android phones and they all say Android market. And isn't app an abbreviation for application? Which seems to make it more unique. Wide spread use of the word app is directly connected with apples marketing efforts and there simply is no denying this. Sure apple didn't create "app" and people were using the word but not like it is today. In fact my old black berry had an icon and underneath it was written "applications". That's where I bought apps for it. I believe this is more of an attempt by Microsoft and others to leap frog all of the hard work and marketing apple has put into "app store" and just ride the popularity that comes from the term. Honestly why do they want a "generic" term to describe them anyways? Wouldn't it be better to create a unique brand name and gain all the consumer association that way? But no because this is about containing an immediate consumer recognition (recognition that apple has spent millions, maybe billions, to establish) without having to do any leg work.
1) I understand it?s easy to forget something as simple as space between name, but why not do a quick search before you post? Orlando already took care of it so I won?t go into it any further.
I had done the search in the past, posts shown below. Whoop-de-whorl me for spacing the detail two months out. You didn't participate in those threads, so I won't hold you for not remembering them. The salient point is the same. Distinctiveness plus use and and applicability to a specific market segment are what makes it trade-markable under Unitary Marks. I also didn't include the SM notation, but that is also part of the trademark (yes I know SM is Service Mark, but they are the same thing only SM is not on a single physical product).
Quote:
2) Are you claiming that a space difference between the name would allow another company to use it? If not, then why mention it. If so, then Amazon?s AppStore isn?t stepping on Apple?s App Store trademark, according to you. Note the point of trademarks are to prevent confusion between brands. You can?t use anything that is deemed confusion to the buyer.
No first use in the specifically registered market space is only necessary factor to make it Apple's. Because it seems Apple has met the other needs for TM/SM under both Unitary Marks and Distinctiveness (which has nothing to do with dictionary word similarities). Here's my post from March where the specific USPTO sections are cited: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=71
I'm not posting off the cuff or making shit up. It is what it is on sound research. Yeah, I goofed a space two months later, wow, world is coming to an end -- Hiro actually isn't an infallible perfect machine . I dare anyone to try to use that to go up against the USPTO rules. It won't work.
Quote:
PS: X Window System is the trademark for it, not Windows.
Umm, so? I wasn't saying they were the same thing. You are really trying hard to change the landscape and reshape the playing field by cherry-picking context. But you can't do that, this is all very settled law, it doesn't matter if laypersons don't know it inside out or not, the rules are the rules. Read the above linked USPTO stuff and you will be conversant enough to understand what lawyers will tell you about your business logos and rights, and how they will execute the paperwork.
X Window System used the term Window in a product name years before Microsoft did. Did anyone get bent out of shape, or sue? I don't remember any suits, someone with access to a legal database could give a definitive answer, but I really don't think so.
So we have precedent for TWO products using single letter different variations of the same generic capitalized word. Once somebody is first to use and TM/SM, the process limits the ability of a competitor to claim a trivial difference like appstore, or my mistaken AppStore, as valid. If the differences are larger and obvious the second user can use it too. But this case isn't about a second user wanting to share, it is about a company, Microsoft, trying to completely invalidate an established trademark pre-emptively to some other MS use of something similar.
My guess from reading the USPTO stuff is the MS could have used something like the "Microsoft Mobile Apps"sm store and been perfectly fine. But they picked a fight that in all probability they will lose.
X Window System has the word ?window? in it, but it?s not Windows. X Window System would have to sue MS if they felt it confusing to the customer. They made their name long and unique enough that I think it would be hard for X Window System to be confused with Windows trademark.
I know you guys want Apple to win, but if you look at objectively there is no way to know. All we can do is look at the evidence and note aspects that could work for or against the companies. This is not as cut and dry as you guys want to believe.
Go with it.
As much as I indeed want an Apple win here, You've logically chopped up all the "if Windows can be TM'd, so should AppStore (and its variants)" arguments. QED.
Over the past 20+ years I've so detested the "windows this," the "win that," and all else associated with that name, so I'm really wishing against all logic that Apple "wins" this one. But it ain't gonna happen.
It's interesting that both sides have been trying to get help for their arguments from so-called "linguistic experts."
Well if apple loses this trademark war I vote they rename it iApps or iStore? What do y'all think?
Then Apple will have to trademark the "i-" prefix to protect all its iDevices, apps, and services. that's as bad as when MS tried to trademark the letter "e" to keep other outfits from using it in their names.
"Mac OS - the original Windows OS - and still the best!"
Or that iPads are "fingerlickin' good". According to Amazon, if you remove the space, it's ok.
There's a fine line between a generic phrase and a phrase that's unique enough to be trademarked. Trademarked phrases can become generic too like photoshopped. You'd say that about any digitally modified image. Nobody says 'is that photo GIMP'd', unless it was badly photoshopped perhaps.
In the case of the App Store, I don't recall companies popularising the word App before Apple's/AT&T's 'there's an App for that' advertising. Similarly with Windows, Office, Access, Works in relation to software regarding Microsoft.
It may fall down on the fact it's just an abbreviation of a generic word - you couldn't trademark Application Store for example but who knows. Ultimately it's up to the lawyers to debate the mundane aspects of this. It's funny how parents reprimand kids when they argue over petty things like who owns what and who got their first and grown ups pay people to do exactly the same thing. But hey, that's just my violenttorpedo of truth.
Comments
When protectionism collides with fair market values, protectionism wins, invariably.
Not a winnable fight for apple.
That is obvious!
The reason MS and all the others want to use the term "AppStore" that Apple invented is just because it solely refers to the Apple's very successful AppStore for all things iOS, iPad, iPodTouch, iPhone.
This is a window:
The fact that MS used that term to refer to a rectangular box on a computer screen is a unique use of the word.
As you've been told, that's not true. 'Windows' to describe a rectangular box on a computer screen was well established before Microsoft started using the word Windows. In fact, the use of Windows to describe the operating system was in use for years before they ever applied for a trademark registration - which weakens their position further.
Not really. It's just that none of MS's competitors were childish enough to get all pissy over the name because they were getting beat like a red-headed stepchild in the market.
You can look at Digital, Apple, IBM, Commodore, Atari, Acorn, Radio Shack amongst others that were all getting slaughtered by MS-DOS and Windows 3.1, and didn't sue over an obviously generic word being capitalized and used for a product name.
I agree that Windows is also generic is irrelevant though. What is relevant is that laws exist specifically to describe how generic words are to be used in trademarks and Apple seems to have hit all those wickets. Hmmmm, just like MS hit those same wickets in the early 1990's.
Actually, it's not clear that MS hit those wickets. They sued Lindows in the 90's and Lindows apparently had a pretty good case - because Microsoft paid then tens of millions of dollars to settle the case. Analysis at the point was that there was such a good chance that Microsoft's trademark would be invalidated that Microsoft really had no choice but to settle before it went to trial.
The reason MS and all the others want to use the term "AppStore" that Apple invented is just because it solely refers to the Apple's very successful AppStore for all things iOS, iPad, iPodTouch, iPhone.
Like MS's and others' phone and tablet, which must copy everything Apple in order to compete at all (or they have no idea how to create similar products with more value than Apple's products), these companies cannot compete with Apple's AppStore unless they copy the same functionality and use the same name, in addition to trying ride Apple's coattails, wants to decrease the value of Apple "AppStore" term.
"......companies cannot compete with Apple's AppStore unless they copy the same functionality and use the same name....."
Is that why apple copied the name from salesforce's "AppStore"
http://www.salesforce.com/company/ne...2/061212-1.jsp
"Mac OS - the original Windows OS - and still the best!"
Then let MS try to sue them! :P
Brand name becoming generic happens:
Because it has happened doesn't mean it always must or should happen. Unless Apple goes to war against the world and loses. Gratuitous smiley.
This is a window:
The fact that MS used that term to refer to a rectangular box on a computer screen is a unique use of the word.
Not so! Apple's original Mac OS referred to the screen display as windows long long before MS tried to copy them.
The term "PC" was also in use as a generic term for personal computer before IBM usurped it for their brand name.
1) I wish I could watch this be argued in court.
2) The argument here about the Windows trademark is irrelevant. Windows was a unique use for the name of an OS at the time.
False. X-Windows was out before Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System
Windows is a generic word but it is unique in being used to describe an operating system. You don't say "Windows" to refer in general to GUIs or Operating Systems. If you say "Windows" everyone knows you are talking about the Microsoft product.
However, people use AppStore very generically to describe all of the different app stores. Say AppStore and people might think you are talking about Apple, Google, Microsoft etc. I find most people say iOS or iPhone AppStore so others know they are talking about the Apple one.
Huh? No they don't. People have said and continue to say app store when referring to the place where they buy applications for their iOS device. I have several friends who own android phones and they all say Android market. And isn't app an abbreviation for application? Which seems to make it more unique. Wide spread use of the word app is directly connected with apples marketing efforts and there simply is no denying this. Sure apple didn't create "app" and people were using the word but not like it is today. In fact my old black berry had an icon and underneath it was written "applications". That's where I bought apps for it. I believe this is more of an attempt by Microsoft and others to leap frog all of the hard work and marketing apple has put into "app store" and just ride the popularity that comes from the term. Honestly why do they want a "generic" term to describe them anyways? Wouldn't it be better to create a unique brand name and gain all the consumer association that way? But no because this is about containing an immediate consumer recognition (recognition that apple has spent millions, maybe billions, to establish) without having to do any leg work.
1) I understand it?s easy to forget something as simple as space between name, but why not do a quick search before you post? Orlando already took care of it so I won?t go into it any further.
I had done the search in the past, posts shown below. Whoop-de-whorl me for spacing the detail two months out. You didn't participate in those threads, so I won't hold you for not remembering them. The salient point is the same. Distinctiveness plus use and and applicability to a specific market segment are what makes it trade-markable under Unitary Marks. I also didn't include the SM notation, but that is also part of the trademark (yes I know SM is Service Mark, but they are the same thing only SM is not on a single physical product).
2) Are you claiming that a space difference between the name would allow another company to use it? If not, then why mention it. If so, then Amazon?s AppStore isn?t stepping on Apple?s App Store trademark, according to you. Note the point of trademarks are to prevent confusion between brands. You can?t use anything that is deemed confusion to the buyer.
No first use in the specifically registered market space is only necessary factor to make it Apple's. Because it seems Apple has met the other needs for TM/SM under both Unitary Marks and Distinctiveness (which has nothing to do with dictionary word similarities). Here's my post from March where the specific USPTO sections are cited: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...6&postcount=71
An other post, different thread, which I self-cited the above and attacked the idea of generic words again; http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...3&postcount=79
I'm not posting off the cuff or making shit up. It is what it is on sound research. Yeah, I goofed a space two months later, wow, world is coming to an end -- Hiro actually isn't an infallible perfect machine
PS: X Window System is the trademark for it, not Windows.
Umm, so? I wasn't saying they were the same thing. You are really trying hard to change the landscape and reshape the playing field by cherry-picking context. But you can't do that, this is all very settled law, it doesn't matter if laypersons don't know it inside out or not, the rules are the rules. Read the above linked USPTO stuff and you will be conversant enough to understand what lawyers will tell you about your business logos and rights, and how they will execute the paperwork.
X Window System used the term Window in a product name years before Microsoft did. Did anyone get bent out of shape, or sue? I don't remember any suits, someone with access to a legal database could give a definitive answer, but I really don't think so.
So we have precedent for TWO products using single letter different variations of the same generic capitalized word. Once somebody is first to use and TM/SM, the process limits the ability of a competitor to claim a trivial difference like appstore, or my mistaken AppStore, as valid. If the differences are larger and obvious the second user can use it too. But this case isn't about a second user wanting to share, it is about a company, Microsoft, trying to completely invalidate an established trademark pre-emptively to some other MS use of something similar.
My guess from reading the USPTO stuff is the MS could have used something like the "Microsoft Mobile Apps"sm store and been perfectly fine. But they picked a fight that in all probability they will lose.
False. X-Windows was out before Windows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System
X Window System has the word ?window? in it, but it?s not Windows. X Window System would have to sue MS if they felt it confusing to the customer. They made their name long and unique enough that I think it would be hard for X Window System to be confused with Windows trademark.
I know you guys want Apple to win, but if you look at objectively there is no way to know. All we can do is look at the evidence and note aspects that could work for or against the companies. This is not as cut and dry as you guys want to believe.
Go with it.
As much as I indeed want an Apple win here, You've logically chopped up all the "if Windows can be TM'd, so should AppStore (and its variants)" arguments. QED.
Over the past 20+ years I've so detested the "windows this," the "win that," and all else associated with that name, so I'm really wishing against all logic that Apple "wins" this one. But it ain't gonna happen.
It's interesting that both sides have been trying to get help for their arguments from so-called "linguistic experts."
Well if apple loses this trademark war I vote they rename it iApps or iStore? What do y'all think?
Then Apple will have to trademark the "i-" prefix to protect all its iDevices, apps, and services. that's as bad as when MS tried to trademark the letter "e" to keep other outfits from using it in their names.
Don't ask for a source; it's a joke.
Didn't the use of the term windows, as in WIMPs ( windows, icons, menus, pointers ) precede Windows the OS?
Huh. In my line, WIMPs are weakly interacting massive particles. Go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_...sive_particles
You tell me what do I mean by this sentence: "I love using windows".
"As a philanderer, I love using windows when I need to escape a bedroom as I hear the husband coming in the front gate."
Apple should just start advertising:
"Mac OS - the original Windows OS - and still the best!"
Or that iPads are "fingerlickin' good". According to Amazon, if you remove the space, it's ok.
There's a fine line between a generic phrase and a phrase that's unique enough to be trademarked. Trademarked phrases can become generic too like photoshopped. You'd say that about any digitally modified image. Nobody says 'is that photo GIMP'd', unless it was badly photoshopped perhaps.
In the case of the App Store, I don't recall companies popularising the word App before Apple's/AT&T's 'there's an App for that' advertising. Similarly with Windows, Office, Access, Works in relation to software regarding Microsoft.
It may fall down on the fact it's just an abbreviation of a generic word - you couldn't trademark Application Store for example but who knows. Ultimately it's up to the lawyers to debate the mundane aspects of this. It's funny how parents reprimand kids when they argue over petty things like who owns what and who got their first and grown ups pay people to do exactly the same thing. But hey, that's just my violenttorpedo of truth.