Nothing you have said is evidence that they should no longer have the trademark.
So is Kleenex. Why can't they have the trademark? Why should they be punished, allowing their brand and their system to have its reputation destroyed, simply because they were successful? That's not how it works.
Because Kleenex the name does not describe tissue. App is short for application and generally used to describe software regardless of platform. Shoot I've been calling appetizers apps for over 15 years.
Because Kleenex the name does not describe tissue. App is short for application and generally used to describe software regardless of platform. Shoot I've been calling appetizers apps for over 15 years.
They're not trademarking "app". They're trademarking "App Store".
I saw a video a couple of years ago where the Salesforce CEO discussed when he gave the then few years old - at the time - trademark "App Store" to Apple.
Yes, he said he was as surprised as anyone, since he had a trademark on "AppStore"... and Apple didn't consult him before before using "App Store" (with a space).
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
When you're on a Kindle you're not going to confuse an App Store with an Apple one.
Where you're on an iPad you're not going to confuse an App Store with an Amazon one.
That's exactly what the judge has been saying since this started.
She was like, hey if I have an Apple device I know to go to the Apple App Store. If I have an Amazon device, I know to go to the Amazon Appstore. She was not confused, and she thinks that anyone who is confused, has user problems unrelated to similar names.
It's like having buying something from the "A&P Grocery Store" and trying to return it to the "Stop'n'Shop Grocery Store". Anyone with common sense knows they're not the same thing just because they're both a "Grocery Store".
Wow. They're not trademarking "Store" either. Why do people insist on separating "App Store" into "App" and "Store" then arguing why those individual words can't be trademarked? And then making the ridiculous conclusion that since they can't be individually trademarked that a phrase made up of those words also can't.
I guess I can't start a company called "The Golf Shack" because the words "The", "Golf" and "Shack" are too generic.
Waste of money that could be being focused on R&D and coming up with something good for the next gen phones.
Apple's legal team has made or saved the company hundreds of millions of dollars in judgements awarded or overturned, soon it will move into the billions.
Coke is as generic as you can get for cola. So there's no problem with me using Coke on my soda cans, is there?
It must really bother the haters who thought this case was over because the false advertising aspect was ruled in Anazons favor only to find out that was by far the weakest part of the case.
It'll be hilarious when Apple wins this and the usual excuses of Apple bribing judges come out.
Google, Blackberry and Windows were all able to come up with unique names for their App stores. Amazon takes App Store and removes the space and thinks its OK? That's all they can come up with? How about:
Amazon Apps
Apps by Amazon
Kindle Apps
Does anyone over there have the slightest bit of creativity?
They should all be forced to put something in front (or behind) AppStore. AppStore is too generic.
If everyone but Apple do it - say "Amazon AppStore", "Windows AppStore"... people TS is talking about will still (theoretically) think that entity called only "App Store" is selling apps for everyone, thus no precise distinction. Or they will fail to find App Store for Apple as it is not marked correctly (and other stores with distinction will set their expectation that there is entity called Apple App Store)
"Coke" is like "Google" and "Bandaid", misused as generic in colloquial speech only because of the success of the brand, but are not inherently generic.
"Coke" is not a synonym for "cola", but a unique permutation of "coca", the plant once used in Coke to give it its pep (later replaced with caffeine). If the Coca-Cola Bottling Company sold cocaine, their trademark may risk being seen as generic. But among colas, it's not at all generic.
Coke is refined coal, it's been a generic term for hundreds of years.
Wow. They're not trademarking "Store" either. Why do people insist on separating "App Store" into "App" and "Store" then arguing why those individual words can't be trademarked? And then making the ridiculous conclusion that since they can't be individually trademarked that a phrase made up of those words also can't.
I guess I can't start a company called "The Golf Shack" because the words "The", "Golf" and "Shack" are too generic.
Again, wow. Just wow.
You do make a valid point but right now I can't think of any trademarks the consist of 2 generic terms. I'll do some research.
Comments
Ummm because there's more cases that need to be heard as well.
Because Kleenex the name does not describe tissue. App is short for application and generally used to describe software regardless of platform. Shoot I've been calling appetizers apps for over 15 years.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Because Kleenex the name does not describe tissue. App is short for application and generally used to describe software regardless of platform. Shoot I've been calling appetizers apps for over 15 years.
They're not trademarking "app". They're trademarking "App Store".
deleted
"A E I O U Intellectual Property Corp." - Specializes in product naming. We will sue anyone with a e i o or u in their products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I saw a video a couple of years ago where the Salesforce CEO discussed when he gave the then few years old - at the time - trademark "App Store" to Apple.
Yes, he said he was as surprised as anyone, since he had a trademark on "AppStore"... and Apple didn't consult him before before using "App Store" (with a space).
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
When you're on a Kindle you're not going to confuse an App Store with an Apple one.
Where you're on an iPad you're not going to confuse an App Store with an Amazon one.
That's exactly what the judge has been saying since this started.
She was like, hey if I have an Apple device I know to go to the Apple App Store. If I have an Amazon device, I know to go to the Amazon Appstore. She was not confused, and she thinks that anyone who is confused, has user problems unrelated to similar names.
It's like having buying something from the "A&P Grocery Store" and trying to return it to the "Stop'n'Shop Grocery Store". Anyone with common sense knows they're not the same thing just because they're both a "Grocery Store".
Store is even less trademarkable
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Store is even less trademarkable
They're. Not. Trademarking. "Store". They're trademarking "App Store".
I guess I can't start a company called "The Golf Shack" because the words "The", "Golf" and "Shack" are too generic.
Again, wow. Just wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
This is one where users don't care.
When you're on a Kindle you're not going to confuse an App Store with an Apple one.
Where you're on an iPad you're not going to confuse an App Store with an Amazon one.
A food store is where I buy food, an app store is where I buy apps.
Waste of money that could be being focused on R&D and coming up with something good for the next gen phones.
Amazon is a generic geographical term and a generic mythological race of woman warriors, so why can't I open a bookstore using this generic term?
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
Waste of money that could be being focused on R&D and coming up with something good for the next gen phones.
Apple's legal team has made or saved the company hundreds of millions of dollars in judgements awarded or overturned, soon it will move into the billions.
Why don't you get a clue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Serious question: Who is "people", how many are they, and why are they asking you for Android help?
My Windows apps don't run on my Mac, but I don't ask random people to fix that for me, or expect that they could anyway.
I know of one person who downloaded iTunes.exe to an Android handset and wondered why it wasn't working.
Never underestimate human ignorance.
They should all be forced to put something in front (or behind) AppStore. AppStore is too generic.
If everyone but Apple do it - say "Amazon AppStore", "Windows AppStore"... people TS is talking about will still (theoretically) think that entity called only "App Store" is selling apps for everyone, thus no precise distinction. Or they will fail to find App Store for Apple as it is not marked correctly (and other stores with distinction will set their expectation that there is entity called Apple App Store)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
"Coke" is like "Google" and "Bandaid", misused as generic in colloquial speech only because of the success of the brand, but are not inherently generic.
"Coke" is not a synonym for "cola", but a unique permutation of "coca", the plant once used in Coke to give it its pep (later replaced with caffeine). If the Coca-Cola Bottling Company sold cocaine, their trademark may risk being seen as generic. But among colas, it's not at all generic.
Coke is refined coal, it's been a generic term for hundreds of years.
deleted
deleted
Point taken, but combining 2 untrademarkable words does not a trademarkable phrase make.
You do make a valid point but right now I can't think of any trademarks the consist of 2 generic terms. I'll do some research.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Point taken, but combining 2 untrademarkable words does not a trademarkable phrase make.
Home Depot. Red Lobster. Pizza Hut. Burger King. Taco Bell. But if we want to pretend we can write off half of each of these names, some more:
Analog Devices. They make analog devices. They're not the only ones, and yet it still works.
Best Buy. They sell things. And yet you can still buy things from other people, and in fact find better prices from them.
Dish Network. It's a satellite television company with a network of channels. And yet others manage to use said receivers without infringing.
Pizza Pizza. They mine for uranium*¡ A repeated word that you "can't trademark".
Western Ferries. Ferry service. Situated in the west of Scotland.
Yes. It does.
*They're a pizza company, of course.