How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Is there anyone at the PTO who even knows what the fuck a computer is? are the PTO reviewers living in the dark ages?
I find it interesting none of you notice that Apple plan to use the "App Store" trademark without having ownership over it. Do not kid yourself that Apple did not know someone trademark it and had the URL for it. I bet when they did the normal trademark search they found salesforce.com owned it and when Steve was told he either called and asked for it or personally invited Marc Benioff to come to the announcement knowing full well they owned it and Steve figure Marc would react the way he did.
This is not the first time Apple took a product public without having the ownership of the trade name.
By the way, tradenames and trademarks are bought and sold all the time without selling the underlining business. Many times there is no underlining business what so ever, someone pulls a trademark registers it and does nothing with it and then turns around and sell it later, it happens more times than you think.
I find it interesting none of you notice that Apple plan to use the "App Store" trademark without having ownership over it. Do not kid yourself that Apple did not know someone trademark it and had the URL for it. I bet when they did the normal trademark search they found salesforce.com owned it and when Steve was told he either called and asked for it or personally invited Marc Benioff to come to the announcement knowing full well they owned it and Steve figure Marc would react the way he did.
This is not the first time Apple took a product public without having the ownership of the trade name.
By the way, tradenames and trademarks are bought and sold all the time without selling the underlining business. Many times there is no underlining business what so ever, someone pulls a trademark registers it and does nothing with it and then turns around and sell it later, it happens more times than you think.
You need to understand how trademarks work. They are not like copyrights or patents, you have to actively be using them or you risk losing them. You also don't have to register a trademark before use, which is why ?, ℠, and ® are distinct.
At the end of the day it seems that this is the most important point. The application of trademark "rules" is inconsistent and almost seems to rely on complaints.
Did the shareholders get together and offer to pay Steve Jobs for his guidance?
It's a valid question.
While it was a nice thing to do, it was also a strategic asset with monetary value owned by Salesforce.com, and Marc Benioff has a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of CRM shareholders.
It's the sort of thing shareholder lawsuits are made of, and more than one startup CEO has lost control of "their" company by running it like a personal asset instead of a going concern.
Steve, of course, is free to give away his own personal time as he sees fit.
That is incorrect. A trademark is property like any other.
The only complexity is that you can not force the USPTO to recognize it in the hands of the new owner. Thus, it would typically only be sold without the underlying business to someone who wanted to use it for exactly the items covered by the original trademark.
When I said that you can't sell it, I meant that if you own a registered trademark, you cannot sell it (without the underlying business) such that that the entity you sell it to then owns the registered trademark. That seems like a bit more than just a complexity. It's not worth much if it is not USPTO-recognized and no longer registered. I guess I don't quite understand the point you are making. Am I missing something here?
So App Store couldn't be another name for an Appliance Store?
Given that the phrase "App Store" wasn't in use by anyone anywhere for any purpose before Apple used it, no, it couldn't be used for "Appliance Store". Because no one calls appliances "apps".
The name App Store would not be in our collective consciousness if Jobs and Apple had not put it there. Nobody would be fighting to market their own App Store except that Apple made the term popular.
Also Windows has nothing to do with windows. Has everything to do with computers/software
if windows was a windows store and tried to sue "Sally's Window Store" for using windows in the name then you'd probably understand how ridiculous a notion it is outside of Apple land.
PS I was calling apps apps before the iPhone even existed. I'm sure others were as well.
So App Store couldn't be another name for an Appliance Store?
Sure, it could. Trademarks are industry specific. As long as they don't create "consumer confusion", you should be fine (i.e. those "appliances" probably shouldn't include computers or smartphones).
The prototypical example used to demonstrate this is Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets.
That said, a team of lawyers can pretty much ruin anyone's day, even with the law on your side...
Comments
How on earth is this even a valid trademark? you cannot trademark generic terms, No one could get a trademark for shoe store, book store, or computer store - so why App Store?
Is there anyone at the PTO who even knows what the fuck a computer is? are the PTO reviewers living in the dark ages?
You can pretty much trademark anything as long as
(1) not used by anyone else yet.
(2) until some people complain
That's how it works
This is not the first time Apple took a product public without having the ownership of the trade name.
By the way, tradenames and trademarks are bought and sold all the time without selling the underlining business. Many times there is no underlining business what so ever, someone pulls a trademark registers it and does nothing with it and then turns around and sell it later, it happens more times than you think.
I find it interesting none of you notice that Apple plan to use the "App Store" trademark without having ownership over it. Do not kid yourself that Apple did not know someone trademark it and had the URL for it. I bet when they did the normal trademark search they found salesforce.com owned it and when Steve was told he either called and asked for it or personally invited Marc Benioff to come to the announcement knowing full well they owned it and Steve figure Marc would react the way he did.
This is not the first time Apple took a product public without having the ownership of the trade name.
By the way, tradenames and trademarks are bought and sold all the time without selling the underlining business. Many times there is no underlining business what so ever, someone pulls a trademark registers it and does nothing with it and then turns around and sell it later, it happens more times than you think.
You need to understand how trademarks work. They are not like copyrights or patents, you have to actively be using them or you risk losing them. You also don't have to register a trademark before use, which is why ?, ℠, and ® are distinct.
You can pretty much trademark anything as long as
(1) not used by anyone else yet.
(2) until some people complain
That's how it works
At the end of the day it seems that this is the most important point. The application of trademark "rules" is inconsistent and almost seems to rely on complaints.
TradeMarkEm.com has written an interesting four part history on the "App Store" mark. Part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4.
Did the shareholders get together and offer to pay Steve Jobs for his guidance?
It's a valid question.
While it was a nice thing to do, it was also a strategic asset with monetary value owned by Salesforce.com, and Marc Benioff has a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of CRM shareholders.
It's the sort of thing shareholder lawsuits are made of, and more than one startup CEO has lost control of "their" company by running it like a personal asset instead of a going concern.
Steve, of course, is free to give away his own personal time as he sees fit.
That is incorrect. A trademark is property like any other.
The only complexity is that you can not force the USPTO to recognize it in the hands of the new owner. Thus, it would typically only be sold without the underlying business to someone who wanted to use it for exactly the items covered by the original trademark.
When I said that you can't sell it, I meant that if you own a registered trademark, you cannot sell it (without the underlying business) such that that the entity you sell it to then owns the registered trademark. That seems like a bit more than just a complexity. It's not worth much if it is not USPTO-recognized and no longer registered. I guess I don't quite understand the point you are making. Am I missing something here?
Windows doesn't have a thing to do with computing (HAR!
So that's their argument.
So App Store couldn't be another name for an Appliance Store?
So App Store couldn't be another name for an Appliance Store?
Given that the phrase "App Store" wasn't in use by anyone anywhere for any purpose before Apple used it, no, it couldn't be used for "Appliance Store". Because no one calls appliances "apps".
Also Windows has nothing to do with windows. Has everything to do with computers/software
if windows was a windows store and tried to sue "Sally's Window Store" for using windows in the name then you'd probably understand how ridiculous a notion it is outside of Apple land.
PS I was calling apps apps before the iPhone even existed. I'm sure others were as well.
So App Store couldn't be another name for an Appliance Store?
Sure, it could. Trademarks are industry specific. As long as they don't create "consumer confusion", you should be fine (i.e. those "appliances" probably shouldn't include computers or smartphones).
The prototypical example used to demonstrate this is Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets.
That said, a team of lawyers can pretty much ruin anyone's day, even with the law on your side...