Wasn't there an article the other day that the term/terms App Store didn't exist in Google searches prior to Apple opening it's App Store? That alone should be enough to side with Apple. Same as Coca-Cola owning the trademark to Coke. Yet when you order a Coke at a restaurant, you tend to get the brown caffeinated beverage (what ever brand) that restaurant sells.
In this instance, if Apple is awarded the trademark, Amazon would, in theory, have the opportunity to license the use from Apple. Not that I think Apple would license it to anyone...
You don't license trademarks to anyone. Licensing a trademark would undermine its very purpose, and your claim to it.
I support Apple completely. Apple does a lot of proper planning for their projects before pushing them to the market. Others just follow Apple in order to compete with them.
I just don't understand how others can copy technology down to the name and claim it is a generic name. Think different and then compete with your original ideas.
And exactly what did Apple did with the App Store that was new?
You could buy applications/apps/programs/executables (pick your poison for the name) online long before the iPhone/App Store existed. You could purchase apps for phones long before the iPhone/App Store existed.
Is there an instance when Apple actually did anything new? They might have integrated and implemented everything better, but when you break it down into the individual components, there's nothing new there.
...but when you break it down into the individual components, there's nothing new there.
You can say that about anything. Carbon-based lifeforms, stronger metal alloys, cooking recipes. All have the same basic components but it?s the minute differences, not the individual components, that makes all the difference.
What might be Amazon's saving grace is that it is not in direct competition with Apple, meaning that no one with a iOS device will ever come across its "app store". Your example for burgerking is somewhat flawed since customers will come across both. A more fitting example would be if you decided to open burgerstore where there aren't any Burger Stores.
I get what you're saying but I could use that logic to justify starting a software company named Burgerking. My company wouldn't be in direct competition with Burger King but I doubt I could get away with that. Consider this particular case, where the name was only vaguely similar:
I don't think trademarks have anything to do with direct competition or one company's proximity to another. If I understand it correctly, a trademark is considered owned and controlled by the company that holds it and cannot be used or closely imitated by anyone else.
Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps
So what do these words together denote, then?
I mean, people were using it before Apple, so I'm not sure what this is all about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Didn't Amazon patent "One Click" or something like that? That's pretty generic. It's just a first mover advantage that you get the generic name. I don't think people are so stupid they can't tell what store they're at.
It's not enough that it is generic. It needs to be generic in a specific way.
"1-Click" (Amazon's patent) is not a generic term that describes purchases, while "app store" is a generic term that describes app stores.
Also, when licensing 1-Click, did Apple license the right to use the term, or the right to allow single click purchases?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
But this isn't about today. It's about when Apple applied for the trademark, and 'app', and particularly 'app store' weren't widely or generically used back then.
They were. There are several links in this thread, even back from 2001 referring to the "Palm app store."
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird
Wasn't there an article the other day that the term/terms App Store didn't exist in Google searches prior to Apple opening it's App Store?
That is wrong, of course, considering that the specific term "app store" was in use many years before Apple started using it.
What about sites like GetJar, that existed long before Apple's app store? They were referred to as app stores before Apple started using the term, and had billions upon billions of downloads.
There were billions of feature phones out there that relied on these app stores for downloads.
Quote:
Most people will think of Apple when they hear "App store." As such, Apple should get the Trademark.
1) Who created the value associated with App Store? ...Apple
Irrelevant. They stole an existing generic term and tried to monopolize it. You can't do that.
Quote:
3) Is it a generic term? ...Iffy. In my opinion, it's not generic because "app" isn't a word; it's slang.
It is a generic term. Slang or not is irrelevant. It's a word. It was being used way, way before Apple's app store. Even the term app store was used before Apple came around. App stores like GetJar have existed for many years.
Quote:
The goal of a trademark is to protect a company's trade value. If Amazon is piggy-backing off of Apple's trade value, then they should be stopped and forced to come up with their own brand identity.
No. It is Apple which needs to come up with a term that is not a generic term for app stores, and which they didn't steal from someone else.
... There are several links in this thread, even back from 2001 referring to the "Palm app store." ...
The issue isn't whether there are several links in this thread showing some past usage, the issue is whether it was widely and generically used at the time of Apple's application, and it wasn't.
Irrelevant. They stole an existing generic term and tried to monopolize it. You can't do that.
It is a generic term. Slang or not is irrelevant. It's a word. It was being used way, way before Apple's app store. Even the term app store was used before Apple came around. App stores like GetJar have existed for many years.
No. It is Apple which needs to come up with a term that is not a generic term for app stores, and which they didn't steal from someone else.
Tell me when GetJar or anyone else began using the term "app store" before Apple did. Even today GetJar refers to itself as an application store, which is not the same, just like Burger King and Burger Chef are not the same. BTW you also don't have to be first to trademark something and besides until Apple coined the term it was seldom if ever used.
What concerning is that "app store" can also be a description. If I told someone who had never heard of McDonald's "lets go eat at McDonald's" they would not know what I was talking about, but is I said "you can get in the App Store" they would know its obviously a store for apps. Was the term widely used? It depends on your definition, it was widely used by people with smartphones specifically Palm devices but not the general public, the reason everyone knows the Apple uses it is because the run ads ad naseum about it. The outcome is gonna be interesting.
Windows is a bad example because its a name, and Microsoft has not sued every company that uses windows in it's name. You'll be pretty safe if you opened up a store selling glass panes put in walls and call it anonymouse windows.
Amazon can just use something like AppZon or AmazApp and stop using the annoying marketing tactic. There are so many different terms of the similar meaning for 'Store', why must they follow Apple?
Windows is a bad example because its a name, and Microsoft has not sued every company that uses windows in it's name. You'll be pretty safe if you opened up a store selling glass panes put in walls and call it anonymouse windows.
App Store is a name too, and the reason that Mictosoft doesn't sue glass dealers or Anderson is that their trademark is specific to computer systems (roughly). After Apple is granted the 'app store' trademark, orchard owners will probably not be sued if they open a "McIntosh App Store" to sell their fruit.
Those, like Amazon and Microsoft, opposing this trademark are being disingenuous and rewriting history to achieve their ends, and in Microsoft's case, the hypocrisy would be staggering, if we hadn't already come to expect that from Redmond.
App Store is a name too, and the reason that Mictosoft doesn't sue glass dealers or Anderson is that their trademark is specific to computer systems (roughly). After Apple is granted the 'app store' trademark, orchard owners will probably not be sued if they open a "McIntosh App Store" to sell their fruit.
Those, like Amazon and Microsoft, opposing this trademark are being disingenuous and rewriting history to achieve their ends, and in Microsoft's case, the hypocrisy would be staggering, if we hadn't already come to expect that from Redmond.
It doesn't always need to be a similar business, I remember a few years ago that the Olympics committee sued a diner in NY because it used the name Olympic plus the 5 ring symbol, the final outcome was that it could keep the name but had to stop using the Olympic symbol.
Yes app store is a name but its also very generic just like androids the market is generic. Personally I feel Amazon could've been more creative and saved themselves the trouble.
Was "app" in common usage until recent years when Apple made it popular?
I know Windows uses "Program" everywhere, e.g. c : \\ Program Files. And Application is a long-standing term for a computer program. But the shortening "App" - was that Apple just using an existing abbreviation, or did they deliberately shorten the word application, to make something unique to them and something they could trademark?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but shortening generic English words to make product names is not uncommon. And then society starts using that trademark as a general concept (e.g. Xerox), forgetting that it was an invention. Could that be what they are complaining about.
Actually a hidden folder in wonders that stores program settings is call App Data.
Asking whether the word "app" existed or was in regular use before Apple used it for the App Store is a great question. You've seem to find that it was indeed a word and was used. That doesn't mean it cannot be trademarked.
While the word "app" may have already existed, it was not in common usage and was never used in association with any store or marketplace for software. It was also never used to refer to applications, programs, or software for portable devices or phones before Apple started using it.
The PC culture has almost always used the words "software" and "program" to refer to applications. This terminology was carried over into most other technology areas because Windows dominated in culture as well as operating systems. The Unix and Linux devotees are an exception, but they commonly use the words "software" and "application."
Apple has on at least one occasion said that they shortened the word "application," which they predominately use to refer to software that can be installed on Macs, to associate it with Apple because Apple starts with "app." I'm sure that the shortening of the word "application" was also an attempt to show that iOS apps were smaller in size to computer apps. Since it was not in common usage, Apple use of the word "app" was also a direct attempt to market the iPhone and iPod touch as something completely new and different.
Again, just because it was a word that had already existed or had been used doesn't make it so that it cannot be trademarked. What matters is its usage prior to the trademark application and in what context it is being trademarked.
Comments
Wasn't there an article the other day that the term/terms App Store didn't exist in Google searches prior to Apple opening it's App Store? That alone should be enough to side with Apple. Same as Coca-Cola owning the trademark to Coke. Yet when you order a Coke at a restaurant, you tend to get the brown caffeinated beverage (what ever brand) that restaurant sells.
In this instance, if Apple is awarded the trademark, Amazon would, in theory, have the opportunity to license the use from Apple. Not that I think Apple would license it to anyone...
You don't license trademarks to anyone. Licensing a trademark would undermine its very purpose, and your claim to it.
I support Apple completely. Apple does a lot of proper planning for their projects before pushing them to the market. Others just follow Apple in order to compete with them.
I just don't understand how others can copy technology down to the name and claim it is a generic name. Think different and then compete with your original ideas.
And exactly what did Apple did with the App Store that was new?
You could buy applications/apps/programs/executables (pick your poison for the name) online long before the iPhone/App Store existed. You could purchase apps for phones long before the iPhone/App Store existed.
Is there an instance when Apple actually did anything new? They might have integrated and implemented everything better, but when you break it down into the individual components, there's nothing new there.
...but when you break it down into the individual components, there's nothing new there.
You can say that about anything. Carbon-based lifeforms, stronger metal alloys, cooking recipes. All have the same basic components but it?s the minute differences, not the individual components, that makes all the difference.
What might be Amazon's saving grace is that it is not in direct competition with Apple, meaning that no one with a iOS device will ever come across its "app store". Your example for burgerking is somewhat flawed since customers will come across both. A more fitting example would be if you decided to open burgerstore where there aren't any Burger Stores.
I get what you're saying but I could use that logic to justify starting a software company named Burgerking. My company wouldn't be in direct competition with Burger King but I doubt I could get away with that. Consider this particular case, where the name was only vaguely similar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft
I don't think trademarks have anything to do with direct competition or one company's proximity to another. If I understand it correctly, a trademark is considered owned and controlled by the company that holds it and cannot be used or closely imitated by anyone else.
Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words 'app store' together denote a store for apps
So what do these words together denote, then?
I mean, people were using it before Apple, so I'm not sure what this is all about.
Didn't Amazon patent "One Click" or something like that? That's pretty generic. It's just a first mover advantage that you get the generic name. I don't think people are so stupid they can't tell what store they're at.
It's not enough that it is generic. It needs to be generic in a specific way.
"1-Click" (Amazon's patent) is not a generic term that describes purchases, while "app store" is a generic term that describes app stores.
Also, when licensing 1-Click, did Apple license the right to use the term, or the right to allow single click purchases?
But this isn't about today. It's about when Apple applied for the trademark, and 'app', and particularly 'app store' weren't widely or generically used back then.
They were. There are several links in this thread, even back from 2001 referring to the "Palm app store."
Wasn't there an article the other day that the term/terms App Store didn't exist in Google searches prior to Apple opening it's App Store?
That is wrong, of course, considering that the specific term "app store" was in use many years before Apple started using it.
Apple made the concept of an app store popular.
What about sites like GetJar, that existed long before Apple's app store? They were referred to as app stores before Apple started using the term, and had billions upon billions of downloads.
There were billions of feature phones out there that relied on these app stores for downloads.
Most people will think of Apple when they hear "App store." As such, Apple should get the Trademark.
Please define "most people."
1) Who created the value associated with App Store? ...Apple
Irrelevant. They stole an existing generic term and tried to monopolize it. You can't do that.
3) Is it a generic term? ...Iffy. In my opinion, it's not generic because "app" isn't a word; it's slang.
It is a generic term. Slang or not is irrelevant. It's a word. It was being used way, way before Apple's app store. Even the term app store was used before Apple came around. App stores like GetJar have existed for many years.
The goal of a trademark is to protect a company's trade value. If Amazon is piggy-backing off of Apple's trade value, then they should be stopped and forced to come up with their own brand identity.
No. It is Apple which needs to come up with a term that is not a generic term for app stores, and which they didn't steal from someone else.
... There are several links in this thread, even back from 2001 referring to the "Palm app store." ...
The issue isn't whether there are several links in this thread showing some past usage, the issue is whether it was widely and generically used at the time of Apple's application, and it wasn't.
Irrelevant. They stole an existing generic term and tried to monopolize it. You can't do that.
It is a generic term. Slang or not is irrelevant. It's a word. It was being used way, way before Apple's app store. Even the term app store was used before Apple came around. App stores like GetJar have existed for many years.
No. It is Apple which needs to come up with a term that is not a generic term for app stores, and which they didn't steal from someone else.
Tell me when GetJar or anyone else began using the term "app store" before Apple did. Even today GetJar refers to itself as an application store, which is not the same, just like Burger King and Burger Chef are not the same. BTW you also don't have to be first to trademark something and besides until Apple coined the term it was seldom if ever used.
What concerning is that "app store" can also be a description. ...
You mean, like 'windows'?
You mean, like 'windows'?
Windows is a bad example because its a name, and Microsoft has not sued every company that uses windows in it's name. You'll be pretty safe if you opened up a store selling glass panes put in walls and call it anonymouse windows.
From thesaurus.com
Main Entry: store
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: place for keeping supply
Synonyms: arsenal, bank, barn, box, cache, conservatory, depository, depot, magazine, pantry, repository, reservoir, stable, storehouse, storeroom, tank, treasury, vault, warehouse
Why can't Amazon use App Bank or App Vault???
I believe 'App Store' stands for more than just App = Application. Remember App can also = Apple. That's why Apple stands strong for 'App Store'.
Windows is a bad example because its a name, and Microsoft has not sued every company that uses windows in it's name. You'll be pretty safe if you opened up a store selling glass panes put in walls and call it anonymouse windows.
App Store is a name too, and the reason that Mictosoft doesn't sue glass dealers or Anderson is that their trademark is specific to computer systems (roughly). After Apple is granted the 'app store' trademark, orchard owners will probably not be sued if they open a "McIntosh App Store" to sell their fruit.
Those, like Amazon and Microsoft, opposing this trademark are being disingenuous and rewriting history to achieve their ends, and in Microsoft's case, the hypocrisy would be staggering, if we hadn't already come to expect that from Redmond.
App Store is a name too, and the reason that Mictosoft doesn't sue glass dealers or Anderson is that their trademark is specific to computer systems (roughly). After Apple is granted the 'app store' trademark, orchard owners will probably not be sued if they open a "McIntosh App Store" to sell their fruit.
Those, like Amazon and Microsoft, opposing this trademark are being disingenuous and rewriting history to achieve their ends, and in Microsoft's case, the hypocrisy would be staggering, if we hadn't already come to expect that from Redmond.
It doesn't always need to be a similar business, I remember a few years ago that the Olympics committee sued a diner in NY because it used the name Olympic plus the 5 ring symbol, the final outcome was that it could keep the name but had to stop using the Olympic symbol.
Yes app store is a name but its also very generic just like androids the market is generic. Personally I feel Amazon could've been more creative and saved themselves the trouble.
Was "app" in common usage until recent years when Apple made it popular?
I know Windows uses "Program" everywhere, e.g. c : \\ Program Files. And Application is a long-standing term for a computer program. But the shortening "App" - was that Apple just using an existing abbreviation, or did they deliberately shorten the word application, to make something unique to them and something they could trademark?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but shortening generic English words to make product names is not uncommon. And then society starts using that trademark as a general concept (e.g. Xerox), forgetting that it was an invention. Could that be what they are complaining about.
Actually a hidden folder in wonders that stores program settings is call App Data.
Apple?s case can?t be about the word ?app? because that?s very old. Perhaps even predating NeXT?s clear and constant usage.
The earliest I can find is ?killer app? from a 1989 periodical on Google Books but I?d wager it goes back another decade. edit1: Dictionary.com states the origin of ?killer app? is between 1985 and 1990. Not exactly the OED. edit2: Etymology Online states the sole us of ?app? is attested to 1992 but they don?t cite any sources.
Asking whether the word "app" existed or was in regular use before Apple used it for the App Store is a great question. You've seem to find that it was indeed a word and was used. That doesn't mean it cannot be trademarked.
While the word "app" may have already existed, it was not in common usage and was never used in association with any store or marketplace for software. It was also never used to refer to applications, programs, or software for portable devices or phones before Apple started using it.
The PC culture has almost always used the words "software" and "program" to refer to applications. This terminology was carried over into most other technology areas because Windows dominated in culture as well as operating systems. The Unix and Linux devotees are an exception, but they commonly use the words "software" and "application."
Apple has on at least one occasion said that they shortened the word "application," which they predominately use to refer to software that can be installed on Macs, to associate it with Apple because Apple starts with "app." I'm sure that the shortening of the word "application" was also an attempt to show that iOS apps were smaller in size to computer apps. Since it was not in common usage, Apple use of the word "app" was also a direct attempt to market the iPhone and iPod touch as something completely new and different.
Again, just because it was a word that had already existed or had been used doesn't make it so that it cannot be trademarked. What matters is its usage prior to the trademark application and in what context it is being trademarked.
Visita mis webs:
http://zoraya.hol.es/
https://bitbucket.org/zoraya/videos-xxx-gratis/wiki/Home
https://bitbucket.org/zoraya/adultos/wiki/Home
http://moz.com/community/users/4173455
http://zoraya.my-php.net/
http://dreamact.info/node/328053
http://dreamact.info/node/328063
http://zoraya.zz.mu/
http://zoraya.pe.hu/
https://www.flickr.com/people/tarumcito/
http://mforum2.cari.com.my/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=879481
http://ttlink.com/zoraya
http://neighborgoods.net/people/zoraya
http://zoraya.890m.com/
http://blogs.uab.cat/zoraya/