But if some company named their product "Office Software", there would be confusion.
Uh, actually, that is exactly what other companies do. Ever hear of open office? Then there's Corel Office (corel bought word perfect and now has their own office suite). Microsoft doesn't try to claim that office is a trademark, however Microsoft Office is. The only reason people assume someone is talking about Microsoft Office when the generic term Office is used is because Microsoft Office is so dominant.
The same is true for the app store. Although apple has a trademark on it, for now, the term is generic, and really can't be protected. The reason there is confusion in the marketplace now is because App Store is too generic of a term, and people don't know if someone really means Apple's iOS App Store. It's not only that Amazon's App Store is confused with it, but even Android marketplace. People just refer to the place on a phone where they buy apps as an app store. Just like people referred to the local shops where they bought computers as computer stores, the place where they bought records as record or music stores, and the big stores that had multiple departments selling different items as department stores etc. Hopefully the judge has some sense and shoots Apple down. Just because Apple was first doesn't give them a monopoly on the word.
Hopefully the judge has some sense and shoots Apple down. Just because Apple was first doesn't give them a monopoly on the word.
It's been said before, and it will be said again, just because the phrase is rapidly genericizing doesn't automatically render the TM invalid. Rollerblade is the obvious counter-example.
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.
Way to slyly make the questions point to Apple . Regardless, while I think MANY people (and not all) would say Apple for the second one, I really don't think most people would say Apple for the first one.
Edit: I did a very small sample survey. Apple may have once owned the world "app store," but it appears pretty generic to me now.
Just texted 5 different people with smartphones (well, 6, but one didn't answer haha). Here are the results to their questions:
1)
"Android"
"Android? I don't really know what you're asking"
"People who make phones?"
"Apple"
"As in, apps for phone?"
2)
"The App Store? There's one for the iPhone and Android"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Doesn't it depend? Doesn't [name removed] have an app store for Android too?"
Interpret this however you want, but I think my point is proven
It's been said before, and it will be said again, just because the phrase is rapidly genericizing doesn't automatically render the TM invalid. Rollerblade is the obvious counter-example.
rollerblade is a separate thing altogether. They created a new product that didn't exist who's generic term was inline skate. The word app had been in use to describe applications long before apple popularized its use for mobile applications. That is the big difference. If many people previously had called inline skates rollerblades, and someone came in trademarketing rollerblades, they'd also be shot down. In this case, the two are nothing alike. The term roller and blade are both generic, but not really the first thing someone would think of when they saw the device (skate is the generic term people would think of due to their similarity with rollerskates and ice skates). If they tried to trademark their name as road skate or something along those lines, they also wouldn't be protected by trademark law.
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"
If you ask a random person what they use to blow their nose, they'll likely say "Kleenex".
Just because a word enters common use doesn't mean the term is generic. It's whether it was in common use BEFORE the mark was made popular.
In the case of "apps", it's debatable because I know tech-people used the term as an abbreviation. However, I don't recall any companies selling software referring to them as apps, or it being a common household term. Even Handango, the largest "app store" predating the App Store referred to their products as "applications/games" or "software".
rollerblade is a separate thing altogether. They created a new product that didn't exist who's generic term was inline skate. The word app had been in use to describe applications long before apple popularized its use for mobile applications. That is the big difference. If many people previously had called inline skates rollerblades, and someone came in trademarketing rollerblades, they'd also be shot down. In this case, the two are nothing alike. The term roller and blade are both generic, but not really the first thing someone would think of when they saw the device (skate is the generic term people would think of due to their similarity with rollerskates and ice skates). If they tried to trademark their name as road skate or something along those lines, they also wouldn't be protected by trademark law.
Phil
While I agree that rollerblade is not similar, I disagree with your reasoning. Rollerblade could arguably called a generic term. The difference is is that it has never been taken to court (from my knowledge) about it. Trademarks still stand for even the most generic terms imaginable until they're removed in court. No one has taken up "rollerblade" in court from what I've found.
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.
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.
This post is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
This case sets no precedent, as nothing has been decided; it will not proceed to actual court.
Second, Apple's lawsuit against Samsung hinges on a variety of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. At its core, it is a look-and-feel lawsuit, which of course requires some subjectivity.
Third, even if it was a trademark vs. trademark, losing one trademark does not impact other, unrelated trademarks at all. Apple isn't suing Samsung over the App Store. It has no bearing at all.
Way to slyly make the questions point to Apple . Regardless, while I think MANY people (and not all) would say Apple for the second one, I really don't think most people would say Apple for the first one.
Edit: I did a very small sample survey. Apple may have once owned the world "app store," but it appears pretty generic to me now.
Just texted 5 different people with smartphones (well, 6, but one didn't answer haha). Here are the results to their questions:
1)
"Android"
"Android? I don't really know what you're asking"
"People who make phones?"
"Apple"
"As in, apps for phone?"
2)
"The App Store? There's one for the iPhone and Android"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Doesn't it depend? Doesn't [name removed] have an app store for Android too?"
Interpret this however you want, but I think my point is proven
Your "survey" is flawed, besides the small sample size. Your survey was conducted after Amazon launched their "Appstore" which invalidates the results and actually supports Apple's argument that their brand is harmed and consumers confused. Before the Amazon Appstore, how many people associated "App Store" with Apple? That's the real question.
Your "survey" is flawed, besides the small sample size. Your survey was conducted after Amazon launched their "Appstore" which invalidates the results and actually supports Apple's argument that their brand is harmed and consumers confused. Before the Amazon Appstore, how many people associated "App Store" with Apple? That's the real question.
I'm aware that my survey is very small, I even alluded to that, but thank you jk. But seriously, I know this is not a scientific survey, but it does lead me to believe that App Store really is pretty generic (I only did this because I know from my daily life that people don't associate app store with Apple, but saying "all of my friends" on the internet is a very poor basis for a point )
ANYHOW, I think you're confused on what Apple has to prove here. Despite what many people on the internet think (and even on here), the timing for Apple using App store and the timing for Amazon using the name app store have absolutely nothing to do with this. Apple has to prove that people associate the phrase "app store" with Apple above anything else, regardless of competitors. While I understand what you're getting at (the idea that Amazon's app store was introduced and is therefor hurting Apple's brand) is not actually what this lawsuit is about anymore. Apple took Amazon to court for that and the preliminary injunction means that that is no longer the issue. The issue now is should Amazon (and everyone else) be allowed to use the phrase "app store." Apple has to show that when the a commercial saying App Store shows up, everyone immediately thinks of Apple's. If they can't do that, they will lose this case (and now that the judge has stated she doesn't think it's generic, I really don't know what will happen ). So I see what you're saying, but that is simply something people on the internet have been preaching that just isn't correct. Apple's attempt to prove that Amazon is depreciating their name has failed. They are (and have been) protecting their trademark for some time now
That being said, my survey wouldn't aid Apple at all. The people I asked seemed to believe app store was just used to describe where they got Apps from. Even more interesting is that some of the said "android"...Not one of them even mentioned Amazon who actually uses the phrase Appstore. I wish my WP7 friend would have responded (my ONLY one ), I kind of want to know what he would think...for once
This morning the EU patent authorities demonstrated some common sense even if the US doesn't. They've rejected a patent for Amazon's "1-click", saying it was too obvious to be patentable. That may indicate that the EU will be less friendly to some other obvious "inventions" currently claimed by other tech players, no names to be mentioned.
Comments
But if some company named their product "Office Software", there would be confusion.
Uh, actually, that is exactly what other companies do. Ever hear of open office? Then there's Corel Office (corel bought word perfect and now has their own office suite). Microsoft doesn't try to claim that office is a trademark, however Microsoft Office is. The only reason people assume someone is talking about Microsoft Office when the generic term Office is used is because Microsoft Office is so dominant.
The same is true for the app store. Although apple has a trademark on it, for now, the term is generic, and really can't be protected. The reason there is confusion in the marketplace now is because App Store is too generic of a term, and people don't know if someone really means Apple's iOS App Store. It's not only that Amazon's App Store is confused with it, but even Android marketplace. People just refer to the place on a phone where they buy apps as an app store. Just like people referred to the local shops where they bought computers as computer stores, the place where they bought records as record or music stores, and the big stores that had multiple departments selling different items as department stores etc. Hopefully the judge has some sense and shoots Apple down. Just because Apple was first doesn't give them a monopoly on the word.
Phil
Hopefully the judge has some sense and shoots Apple down. Just because Apple was first doesn't give them a monopoly on the word.
It's been said before, and it will be said again, just because the phrase is rapidly genericizing doesn't automatically render the TM invalid. Rollerblade is the obvious counter-example.
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?
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.
Way to slyly make the questions point to Apple
Edit: I did a very small sample survey. Apple may have once owned the world "app store," but it appears pretty generic to me now.
Just texted 5 different people with smartphones (well, 6, but one didn't answer haha). Here are the results to their questions:
1)
"Android"
"Android? I don't really know what you're asking"
"People who make phones?"
"Apple"
"As in, apps for phone?"
2)
"The App Store? There's one for the iPhone and Android"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Doesn't it depend? Doesn't [name removed] have an app store for Android too?"
Interpret this however you want, but I think my point is proven
It's been said before, and it will be said again, just because the phrase is rapidly genericizing doesn't automatically render the TM invalid. Rollerblade is the obvious counter-example.
rollerblade is a separate thing altogether. They created a new product that didn't exist who's generic term was inline skate. The word app had been in use to describe applications long before apple popularized its use for mobile applications. That is the big difference. If many people previously had called inline skates rollerblades, and someone came in trademarketing rollerblades, they'd also be shot down. In this case, the two are nothing alike. The term roller and blade are both generic, but not really the first thing someone would think of when they saw the device (skate is the generic term people would think of due to their similarity with rollerskates and ice skates). If they tried to trademark their name as road skate or something along those lines, they also wouldn't be protected by trademark law.
Phil
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"
If you ask a random person what they use to blow their nose, they'll likely say "Kleenex".
Just because a word enters common use doesn't mean the term is generic. It's whether it was in common use BEFORE the mark was made popular.
In the case of "apps", it's debatable because I know tech-people used the term as an abbreviation. However, I don't recall any companies selling software referring to them as apps, or it being a common household term. Even Handango, the largest "app store" predating the App Store referred to their products as "applications/games" or "software".
rollerblade is a separate thing altogether. They created a new product that didn't exist who's generic term was inline skate. The word app had been in use to describe applications long before apple popularized its use for mobile applications. That is the big difference. If many people previously had called inline skates rollerblades, and someone came in trademarketing rollerblades, they'd also be shot down. In this case, the two are nothing alike. The term roller and blade are both generic, but not really the first thing someone would think of when they saw the device (skate is the generic term people would think of due to their similarity with rollerskates and ice skates). If they tried to trademark their name as road skate or something along those lines, they also wouldn't be protected by trademark law.
Phil
While I agree that rollerblade is not similar, I disagree with your reasoning. Rollerblade could arguably called a generic term. The difference is is that it has never been taken to court (from my knowledge) about it. Trademarks still stand for even the most generic terms imaginable until they're removed in court. No one has taken up "rollerblade" in court from what I've found.
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.
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.
This post is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
This case sets no precedent, as nothing has been decided; it will not proceed to actual court.
Second, Apple's lawsuit against Samsung hinges on a variety of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. At its core, it is a look-and-feel lawsuit, which of course requires some subjectivity.
Third, even if it was a trademark vs. trademark, losing one trademark does not impact other, unrelated trademarks at all. Apple isn't suing Samsung over the App Store. It has no bearing at all.
Way to slyly make the questions point to Apple
Edit: I did a very small sample survey. Apple may have once owned the world "app store," but it appears pretty generic to me now.
Just texted 5 different people with smartphones (well, 6, but one didn't answer haha). Here are the results to their questions:
1)
"Android"
"Android? I don't really know what you're asking"
"People who make phones?"
"Apple"
"As in, apps for phone?"
2)
"The App Store? There's one for the iPhone and Android"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Apple"
"Doesn't it depend? Doesn't [name removed] have an app store for Android too?"
Interpret this however you want, but I think my point is proven
Your "survey" is flawed, besides the small sample size. Your survey was conducted after Amazon launched their "Appstore" which invalidates the results and actually supports Apple's argument that their brand is harmed and consumers confused. Before the Amazon Appstore, how many people associated "App Store" with Apple? That's the real question.
Your "survey" is flawed, besides the small sample size. Your survey was conducted after Amazon launched their "Appstore" which invalidates the results and actually supports Apple's argument that their brand is harmed and consumers confused. Before the Amazon Appstore, how many people associated "App Store" with Apple? That's the real question.
I'm aware that my survey is very small, I even alluded to that, but thank you
ANYHOW, I think you're confused on what Apple has to prove here. Despite what many people on the internet think (and even on here), the timing for Apple using App store and the timing for Amazon using the name app store have absolutely nothing to do with this. Apple has to prove that people associate the phrase "app store" with Apple above anything else, regardless of competitors. While I understand what you're getting at (the idea that Amazon's app store was introduced and is therefor hurting Apple's brand) is not actually what this lawsuit is about anymore. Apple took Amazon to court for that and the preliminary injunction means that that is no longer the issue. The issue now is should Amazon (and everyone else) be allowed to use the phrase "app store." Apple has to show that when the a commercial saying App Store shows up, everyone immediately thinks of Apple's. If they can't do that, they will lose this case (and now that the judge has stated she doesn't think it's generic, I really don't know what will happen
That being said, my survey wouldn't aid Apple at all. The people I asked seemed to believe app store was just used to describe where they got Apps from. Even more interesting is that some of the said "android"...Not one of them even mentioned Amazon who actually uses the phrase Appstore. I wish my WP7 friend would have responded (my ONLY one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...nks-newsbucket
https://itunes.apple.com/ru/app/hey-fox!/id860506068?mt=8
https://itunes.apple.com/ru/app/hey-fox!/id860506068?mt=8