Judge denies Apple motion for preliminary injunction against Amazon Appstore
A federal judge has rejected Apple's request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked Amazon from using the "App Store" name.
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said in a court document that Apple had not established "a likelihood of confusion" with Amazon's Appstore for Android, though she did partially side with Apple in noting that the "App Store" term is not purely generic, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Also on Wednesday, Hamilton set a trial date of October 2012 for the case. She had previously warned Apple that its lack of evidence of actual customer confusion was a "stumbling block" to its efforts to prevent Amazon from using the mark.
Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet responded to the decision by reiterating the company's position that Amazon's application store will "confuse and mislead customers."
Prior to the launch of Amazon's store, Apple sued the online retailer in March for "improperly using" the App Store trademark with the online retailer's software developer program. Days later, Amazon went ahead and launched its "Appstore for Android" in spite of the suit.
Subsequent filings from Apple have described Amazon's digital storefront as "inferior" and a "security threat" because it provided software for rooted Android phones, which are more vulnerable to security breaches.
Apple's "App Store" trademark has been hotly contested, with long-time rival Microsoft remaining one of its most vocal opponents. Earlier this year, the Redmond, Wash., software giant filed an objection to Apple's trademark filing on the grounds that "app" and "store" are generic terms. Apple countered by noting that Microsoft should know a thing or two about trademark terms since it had faced a "decades-long genericness challenge" to the Windows trademark.
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said in a court document that Apple had not established "a likelihood of confusion" with Amazon's Appstore for Android, though she did partially side with Apple in noting that the "App Store" term is not purely generic, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Also on Wednesday, Hamilton set a trial date of October 2012 for the case. She had previously warned Apple that its lack of evidence of actual customer confusion was a "stumbling block" to its efforts to prevent Amazon from using the mark.
Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet responded to the decision by reiterating the company's position that Amazon's application store will "confuse and mislead customers."
Prior to the launch of Amazon's store, Apple sued the online retailer in March for "improperly using" the App Store trademark with the online retailer's software developer program. Days later, Amazon went ahead and launched its "Appstore for Android" in spite of the suit.
Subsequent filings from Apple have described Amazon's digital storefront as "inferior" and a "security threat" because it provided software for rooted Android phones, which are more vulnerable to security breaches.
Apple's "App Store" trademark has been hotly contested, with long-time rival Microsoft remaining one of its most vocal opponents. Earlier this year, the Redmond, Wash., software giant filed an objection to Apple's trademark filing on the grounds that "app" and "store" are generic terms. Apple countered by noting that Microsoft should know a thing or two about trademark terms since it had faced a "decades-long genericness challenge" to the Windows trademark.
Comments
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said in a court document that Apple had not established "a likelihood of confusion" with Amazon's Appstore for Android, though she did partially side with Apple in noting that the "App Store" term is not purely generic...
I agree with this.
I agree with this.
Really ??I mean like wow .
I have to re think all this law suit by the bushel thing >> I guess
or re watch the blob with young steve McQueen
9
Google could have called their store "Android App Store" but they went with "Market" instead.
Palm chose App Catalog... RIM went with App World... and Microsoft used Marketplace.
Did these companies do that to avoid any potential problems with Apple? Or were they really trying to be creative?
And is Amazon removing a space and making the word "Appstore" just a lack of creativity?
Samsung's lawyers will use this as a precedent.
It will require Apple's lawyers to provide further proof.
Well this is going to hurt Apple's case against Samsung.
Samsung's lawyers will use this as a precedent.
It will require Apple's lawyers to provide further proof.
Really? Someone bringing a lawsuit needs proof?
That's bit of whack, isn't it?
Well this is going to hurt Apple's case against Samsung.
Samsung's lawyers will use this as a precedent.
It will require Apple's lawyers to provide further proof.
Not at all. A name is not equal to trade dress via similar shape, UI etc.
And this isn't a win for Amazon. All the judge said is that this will have to go to the full trial, and presumably until the end of that trial, Amazon can keep using the name. But in the end, the trial could turn in favor of Apple. Especially since the judge didn't agree with Amazon on the generic issue
Not at all. A name is not equal to trade dress via similar shape, UI etc.
And this isn't a win for Amazon. All the judge said is that this will have to go to the full trial, and presumably until the end of that trial, Amazon can keep using the name. But in the end, the trial could turn in favor of Apple. Especially since the judge didn't agree with Amazon on the generic issue
Put another way, Apple lost the bid for an injunction. Probably boilerplate tactics in this kind of case anyway but this is a loss to Apple.
Q1. When you think of Apps, what company do you think of?
Q2. What company owns the App Store?
If you ask the everyday consumer these two questions, I wonder how many would say Apple? I also wonder how much the answer would change if you target a specific age group? For example, if you ask a thousand teenagers these two questions, how many would respond by saying Apple?
Ever since the dawn of the original iPhone, Apple single-handedly revived the word App. Moreover, they made it a household name. Thanks to their infamous marketing engine, they got everyone thinking/talking about Apps. As a matter of fact, there was a time when everyone was saying, "There's an App for that."
It makes you wonder if Amazon needed to use the name "App Store" to generate interest/buzz/sales. After all, I find it hard to believe the creative team over at Amazon couldn't find another store name to sell their Apps.
If Amazon requires creative inspiration to find a new name, they should look at the dollar store industry. People in that industry are very creative for finding other ways to verbalize dollar store.
Well this is going to hurt Apple's case against Samsung.
Samsung's lawyers will use this as a precedent.
It will require Apple's lawyers to provide further proof.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
I do not think people are going to confuse "App Store" with "Amazon Appstore For <Platform>". Everyone knows the App Store as belonging to Apple, not Amazon. Its just like Microsoft and their Office Suite - if I was to say "I got new office software", pretty safe bet the vast majority will think "Microsoft Office".
But if some company named their product "Office Software", there would be confusion.
http://bithack.se/news/apparatus-ama...ly-4-2011.html
The post is an open letter from a developer that had a really bad experience with Amazon and concludes
From a developer perspective, I don't see why anyone would choose to publish an app on Amazon Appstore. Similarly, I have yet to figure out why any user would switch to Amazon Appstore from Android Market.
[FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="3"]Here are two simple questions:
Q1. When you think of Apps, what company do you think of?
Q2. What company owns the App Store?
If you ask the everyday consumer these two questions, I wonder how many would say Apple? I also wonder how much the answer would change if you target a specific age group? For example, if you ask a thousand teenagers these two questions, how many would respond by saying Apple?
Manipulating the the question, to have the answer fit your needs, nicely done.
Thus these question aren't simple.
While one may argue about whether Apple has right on the term "App store", the term "App" is generic. It's the only logical abbreviation to "Application". That's exactly why Apple - even though they used the term "App" first - do not own the trademark.
Just go out there and ask a random not-Apple-Smartphone user what he downloads in his devices Market/Shop/etc. The Answer will most likely be "App"
I do not think people are going to confuse "App Store" with "Amazon Appstore For <Platform>". Everyone knows the App Store as belonging to Apple, not Amazon. Its just like Microsoft and their Office Suite - if I was to say "I got new office software", pretty safe bet the vast majority will think "Microsoft Office".
I think it is difficult for those of us who follow tech trends and news stories to properly judge whether it is confusing. There is a huge market out there, full of people who don't give tech news and knowledge a second of their time.
As an example, I love Apple's customer service but I have met several people who tell me that the service stinks. When I ask them where they went for service they tell me the Apple Store. What they really mean is some reseller's store with a name that can be associated with Apple (i.e. Simply Mac). These are people who had no clue that the reseller wasn't a true Apple Store. These are people who could easily be confused by the Appstore and associate any bad experience they might have with The App Store.
I do not think people are going to confuse "App Store" with "Amazon Appstore For <Platform>". Everyone knows the App Store as belonging to Apple, not Amazon. Its just like Microsoft and their Office Suite - if I was to say "I got new office software", pretty safe bet the vast majority will think "Microsoft Office".
Funny because that has happened to me several times over the last few weeks. I've had to explain to less-than-tech-savvy people that Amazon's App Store is different than Apple's App Store and they have to go to Apple's App Store for their devices.
[FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="3"]Here are two simple questions:
Q1. When you think of Apps, what company do you think of?
Q2. What company owns the App Store?
Apple may have made app popular, but it doesn't give them the right to the name given that other people used it before.
Another question to ask though is:
Q3. Where do you get iPhone apps from?
See how many people say iTunes rather than App Store.
Apple say Amazon calling their App Store the Amaazon App Store is confusing, yet their own app store is called App Store but located in another store called iTunes Store which only has one checkout, so it isn't actualy a store called App Store it's a store department called App Store. But none of the other departments in the iTunes Store have store on the end of the name e.g. Music Store, so why isn't it just called Apps. Plus they have the Mac App Store which is quite clear that it's Apps for Mac, so shouldn't the iTunes Store App Store be called iOS App Store. Or instead of having a iTunes store why not an Apple Store, then they could have the Apple iOS Apps Store and Apple Mac App Store, or maybe just an Apple Store with iOS apps and Mac apps. If anything the Amazon App Store for Android is the least confusing of them all as it actuall says what it's for rather than not saying the device and half associating itself with music.
One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Actually, Apple considers its "design" of the iPhone a trademark in its recent filing.
Apple also considers the words "App store" a trademark as well.
Therefore, both fit in the same category under trademark.
Yes, this case does set a precedent.
Really? Someone bringing a lawsuit needs proof?
That's bit of whack, isn't it?
Read the judges summary about Apple's "lack of proof". The judge require not just any proof but EMPIRICAL proof as in figures and numbers to conclusively determine any ambiguity. Popularity and familiarity alone is not enough proof.
I suspect this case will ultimately lead to what a recent analyst claimed Apple settling out of court. Apple requires all of the patents that Samsung claims in its infringement case to sell their iPhones, iPods and iPads. In Samsung's lawsuit, you can objectively prove or disprove a patent infringement because quite frankly it is a REAL technology patent, an idea and not a design.
Funny because that has happened to me several times over the last few weeks. I've had to explain to less-than-tech-savvy people that Amazon's App Store is different than Apple's App Store and they have to go to Apple's App Store for their devices.
I think you should submit an Amicus Brief to the court on Apple's behalf detailing this experience.
Good thing that the judge is reasonable. For a moment there I was worried I might have to return plants vs zombies. Whew!
"They're coming..."