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?
Because "amazon" is not a generic term for a book store. The only reason we think of a bookstore in association with that word, is because of a famous book seller named Amazon. Otherwise, we'd never put the two together.
OTOH, "app store" clearly denotes a store for apps. If someone at the turn of the century said, "Hey check out this neat Palm tool I got from an online app store", the other person would have immediately known what was meant. e.g.
So, Apple is not claiming so much that they invented "app store", as they are claiming that if others use it, they're trading off the "good reputation" that Apple has given the phrase (according to Apple).
But you "lose the trademark" if you "talk about it generically", which "Apple's executives did".
Completely wrong.
Then why do I always get people asking me why "my stuff from iTunes doesn't work on here"? Maybe because people confuse them.
Here's some Iams. Enjoy. What's that? Oh, I went to the food store. Well, it was called "Dog FoodStore". What do you mean that's different from "Human FoodStore"?! They both say "FoodStore!" They MUST be the same! I wouldn't be able to buy from there if it didn't work here!
I don't really know how companies work beyond knowing that this isn't at all how companies work.
I'm curious if the real issue is that Apple feels they own the word "App".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
How about a little trademark levity. Gotta admire her attempt to protect her product.
"Since 1979, Ms. Fox has been selling rooster-shaped chocolate lollypops. These sell well in my birthplace of Columbia South Carolina - home of the Gamecocks. Naturally, Fox calls her lollypops "Cock Suckers."
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?
The term "Coke" originated with the brand if I'm not mistaken. "App" is merely descriptive. Beyond that would Apple have sued for anything with the name App in it?
(Reuters) - Apple, fresh from a patent victory against South Korean rival Samsung, has turned its sights on a smaller target - Polish online grocery website A.pl.
Apple filed a federal challenge to New York's trademark application for a new "Big Apple" logo, saying it's too similar to the stylized emblem found on iPhones, iPods and iMac computers.
Macdailynews also covered that one. I'm not convinced your suggestions would have diffused the conflict. They clearly state "Amazon" in front of it. There isn't any confusion there.
I'm curious if the real issue is that Apple feels they own the word "App".
I sure hope they don't. I can't imagine that being the case.
It seems that Apple is simply exerting their legal right to the name "App Store", since they have the trademark for it. Otherwise they'd be going after "App Marketplace", et. al.
Question is could one trademark Radio Store? Shack isn't generally known for a place one can purchase things. Airshow is trademarked, does that mean that air shows can't be called that anymore?
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.
[SIZE=9px]*They're a pizza company, of course.[/SIZE]
The problem with those is that they don't exactly describe what they are. For all I know Taco Bell could be a Mexican phone company. Can you buy a home in Home Depot? Riddle me this Batman, could I open a store that only sells apples and call it Apple Store?
The problem with those is that they don't exactly describe what they are. For all I know Taco Bell could be a Mexican phone company. Can you buy a home in Home Depot? Riddle me this Batman, could I open a store that only sells apples and call it Apple Store?
Thanks for doing exactly what I preempted. Now how about any of the others?
I sure hope they don't. I can't imagine that being the case.
It seems that Apple is simply exerting their legal right to the name "App Store", since they have the trademark for it. Otherwise they'd be going after "App Marketplace", et. al.
I understand that. Looking at the overall, they try to keep everything they use distinctively Apple. They seem to want a very wide invisible wall around everything that relates to them. I'm admittedly surprised that they were granted a trademark on "App Store" much like I'm surprised one was granted for xMac. The latter there makes me laugh every time I look at it. I should set it as my desktop wallpaper.
It seems that Apple is simply exerting their legal right to the name "App Store", since they have the trademark for it.
Apple does NOT have official registration for the trademark for "App Store" yet. They only have an application for it, which is still pending being opposed.
Interestingly, their application was initially denied for being too obvious. From the USPTO database, here's the history:
2008 Jul - Apple applies for trademark
2009 Mar - USPTO denies trademark, stating: "REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE". You can read the refusal here.
2009 Sep - Apple switches tactics and amends application, now claiming Acquired Distinctiveness due to public perception.
2009 Dec - use approved pending opposition
2010 Jan - published for opposition
2010 Jul - Microsoft files opposition
2011 ... evidence presented by both sides
2011 Nov - opposition hearing suspended pending outcome of Apple v. Amazon trial
And here we are, over a year later, still waiting. You can view the opposition history here.
After the trial is over and done, then the USPTO will go back to their internal Apple and Microsoft debate and make a final decision.
I think they don't mind there because it's just an accessory for one of their own products. You have to buy a Mac Mini for this thing to do anything.
Were it a standalone computer, I imagine their response would be… existent.
It's kind of a joke of mine. When people talk about the desire for an "xmac" type of machine, I say it already exists. I know that might seem like I'm trolling them, but the nomenclature just works too well. The device itself is a pretty cool concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Apple does NOT have official registration for the trademark for "App Store" yet. They only have an application for it, which is still pending being opposed.
Interestingly, their application was initially denied for being too obvious. From the USPTO database, here's the history:
2008 Jul - Apple applies for trademark
2009 Mar - USPTO denies trademark, stating: "REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE". You can read the refusal here.
2009 Sep - Apple switches tactics and amends application, now claiming Acquired Distinctiveness due to public perception.
2009 Dec - use approved pending opposition
2010 Jan - published for opposition
2010 Jul - Microsoft files opposition
2011 ... evidence presented by both sides
2011 Nov - opposition hearing suspended pending outcome of Apple v. Amazon trial
And here we are, over a year later, still waiting. You can view the opposition history here.
After the trial is over and done, then the USPTO will go back to their internal Apple and Microsoft debate and make a final decision.
I wasn't aware of that. Apple lists it as one of their trademarks. I thought it was already granted.
Everyone's heard the recent story about the CEO of Salesforce offering his "AppStore" trademark to Steve Jobs, right?
A search of the USPTO trademark database reveals that they applied for the trademark in 2006, got denied for being descriptive (just as happened to Apple years later), and they appealed.
Salesforce finally got an approval in Aug 2008, pending publishing for opposition.
Guess who immediately opposed their trademark? Yep, Apple did. Apparently they thought Salesforce didn't deserve "AppStore", even though they had applied for the trademark years before Apple came out with their store.
Shortly afterwards, Salesforce did abandon their trademark without a fight. It was never transferred to Apple, who preferred to start their own application for "App Store" while opposing Salesforce's trademark.
Let us not forget Amazon settled with Apple for Apple to license "1-Click" from Amazon...
I don't get that. Anyone can have a one-click purchase system as long as it's not built the same way as Amazon's. They can't own single-click shopping; they can only own an implementation of a system that allows it.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Apparently they thought Salesforce didn't deserve "AppStore", even though they had applied for the trademark years before Apple came out with their store.
Everyone's heard the recent story about the CEO of Salesforce offering his "AppStore" trademark to Steve Jobs, right?
A search of the USPTO trademark database reveals that they applied for the trademark in 2006, got denied for being descriptive (just as happened to Apple years later), and they appealed.
Salesforce finally got an approval in Aug 2008, pending publishing for opposition.
Guess who immediately opposed their trademark? Yep, Apple did. Apparently they thought Salesforce didn't deserve "AppStore", even though they had applied for the trademark years before Apple came out with their store.
Shortly afterwards, Salesforce did abandon their trademark without a fight. It was never transferred to Apple, who preferred to start their own application for "App Store" while opposing Salesforce's trademark.
Wow, what a two-faced, backstabbing CEO and company.
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. Amazon not losing this case is a disgrace to trademark law IMO. My soon to be granted trademark for "Tea" doesn't feel as strong as I had imagined.
He never gave Apple the trademark in legal terms. It wouldn't even be legally possible to do so unless Salesforce had an Appstore as a product or a service which they then would pass on to Apple, and the trademark with it.
What happened was, Salesforce abandoned their single-word "APPSTORE" trademark and Apple filed a new application for "APP STORE", a two-word mark, which is still pending opposition — as described above in this thread.
There is no Salesforce-Apple continuity in trademark ownership here, other than Apple and Salesforce possibly having a gentlemanly exchange of favours (for instance, Salesforce.com app was one of the apps featured on stage by Jobs when Apple App Store launched).
When announcing their App Store, Apple not only didn't have the TM, they only applied for it 4 months later, a week after launching the actual App Store.
In Europe, the trademark is pending opposition from a few companies as well.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
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?
Because "amazon" is not a generic term for a book store. The only reason we think of a bookstore in association with that word, is because of a famous book seller named Amazon. Otherwise, we'd never put the two together.
OTOH, "app store" clearly denotes a store for apps. If someone at the turn of the century said, "Hey check out this neat Palm tool I got from an online app store", the other person would have immediately known what was meant. e.g.
So, Apple is not claiming so much that they invented "app store", as they are claiming that if others use it, they're trading off the "good reputation" that Apple has given the phrase (according to Apple).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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.
Radio Shack and RadioShack are trademarks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
But you "lose the trademark" if you "talk about it generically", which "Apple's executives did".
Completely wrong.
Then why do I always get people asking me why "my stuff from iTunes doesn't work on here"? Maybe because people confuse them.
Here's some Iams. Enjoy. What's that? Oh, I went to the food store. Well, it was called "Dog FoodStore". What do you mean that's different from "Human FoodStore"?! They both say "FoodStore!" They MUST be the same! I wouldn't be able to buy from there if it didn't work here!
I don't really know how companies work beyond knowing that this isn't at all how companies work.
I'm curious if the real issue is that Apple feels they own the word "App".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
How about a little trademark levity.
"Since 1979, Ms. Fox has been selling rooster-shaped chocolate lollypops. These sell well in my birthplace of Columbia South Carolina - home of the Gamecocks. Naturally, Fox calls her lollypops "Cock Suckers."
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/something-can-be-both-funny-and-improperly-scandalous-even-a-federal-circuit-opinion.html
Why on earth shouldn't this one be approved too!
/s
That is extremely funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
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?
The term "Coke" originated with the brand if I'm not mistaken. "App" is merely descriptive. Beyond that would Apple have sued for anything with the name App in it?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-apple-trademark-idUSBRE88A0IW20120911
Quote:
(Reuters) - Apple, fresh from a patent victory against South Korean rival Samsung, has turned its sights on a smaller target - Polish online grocery website A.pl.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/04/business/fi-apple4
Quote:
Apple filed a federal challenge to New York's trademark application for a new "Big Apple" logo, saying it's too similar to the stylized emblem found on iPhones, iPods and iMac computers.
Macdailynews also covered that one. I'm not convinced your suggestions would have diffused the conflict. They clearly state "Amazon" in front of it. There isn't any confusion there.
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm curious if the real issue is that Apple feels they own the word "App".
I sure hope they don't. I can't imagine that being the case.
It seems that Apple is simply exerting their legal right to the name "App Store", since they have the trademark for it. Otherwise they'd be going after "App Marketplace", et. al.
Question is could one trademark Radio Store? Shack isn't generally known for a place one can purchase things. Airshow is trademarked, does that mean that air shows can't be called that anymore?
The problem with those is that they don't exactly describe what they are. For all I know Taco Bell could be a Mexican phone company. Can you buy a home in Home Depot? Riddle me this Batman, could I open a store that only sells apples and call it Apple Store?
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The problem with those is that they don't exactly describe what they are. For all I know Taco Bell could be a Mexican phone company. Can you buy a home in Home Depot? Riddle me this Batman, could I open a store that only sells apples and call it Apple Store?
Thanks for doing exactly what I preempted. Now how about any of the others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I sure hope they don't. I can't imagine that being the case.
It seems that Apple is simply exerting their legal right to the name "App Store", since they have the trademark for it. Otherwise they'd be going after "App Marketplace", et. al.
I understand that. Looking at the overall, they try to keep everything they use distinctively Apple. They seem to want a very wide invisible wall around everything that relates to them. I'm admittedly surprised that they were granted a trademark on "App Store" much like I'm surprised one was granted for xMac. The latter there makes me laugh every time I look at it. I should set it as my desktop wallpaper.
Originally Posted by hmm
I'm admittedly surprised that they were granted a trademark on "App Store" much like I'm surprised one was granted for xMac.
I think they don't mind there because it's just an accessory for one of their own products. You have to buy a Mac Mini for this thing to do anything.
Were it a standalone computer, I imagine their response would be… existent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It seems that Apple is simply exerting their legal right to the name "App Store", since they have the trademark for it.
Apple does NOT have official registration for the trademark for "App Store" yet. They only have an application for it, which is still pending being opposed.
Interestingly, their application was initially denied for being too obvious. From the USPTO database, here's the history:
2008 Jul - Apple applies for trademark
2009 Mar - USPTO denies trademark, stating: "REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE". You can read the refusal here.
2009 Sep - Apple switches tactics and amends application, now claiming Acquired Distinctiveness due to public perception.
2009 Dec - use approved pending opposition
2010 Jan - published for opposition
2010 Jul - Microsoft files opposition
2011 ... evidence presented by both sides
2011 Nov - opposition hearing suspended pending outcome of Apple v. Amazon trial
And here we are, over a year later, still waiting. You can view the opposition history here.
After the trial is over and done, then the USPTO will go back to their internal Apple and Microsoft debate and make a final decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I think they don't mind there because it's just an accessory for one of their own products. You have to buy a Mac Mini for this thing to do anything.
Were it a standalone computer, I imagine their response would be… existent.
It's kind of a joke of mine. When people talk about the desire for an "xmac" type of machine, I say it already exists. I know that might seem like I'm trolling them, but the nomenclature just works too well. The device itself is a pretty cool concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Apple does NOT have official registration for the trademark for "App Store" yet. They only have an application for it, which is still pending being opposed.
Interestingly, their application was initially denied for being too obvious. From the USPTO database, here's the history:
2008 Jul - Apple applies for trademark
2009 Mar - USPTO denies trademark, stating: "REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE". You can read the refusal here.
2009 Sep - Apple switches tactics and amends application, now claiming Acquired Distinctiveness due to public perception.
2009 Dec - use approved pending opposition
2010 Jan - published for opposition
2010 Jul - Microsoft files opposition
2011 ... evidence presented by both sides
2011 Nov - opposition hearing suspended pending outcome of Apple v. Amazon trial
And here we are, over a year later, still waiting. You can view the opposition history here.
After the trial is over and done, then the USPTO will go back to their internal Apple and Microsoft debate and make a final decision.
I wasn't aware of that. Apple lists it as one of their trademarks. I thought it was already granted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I wasn't aware of that. Apple lists it as one of their trademarks. I thought it was already granted.
I think it's kind of like saying, "patent pending". It'll be their trademark unless the opposition wins.
Btw, I notice that Apple also still lists "Multi-Touch", even though it was denied after Jeff Han opposed it as being too generic.
Even more interestingly...
Everyone's heard the recent story about the CEO of Salesforce offering his "AppStore" trademark to Steve Jobs, right?
A search of the USPTO trademark database reveals that they applied for the trademark in 2006, got denied for being descriptive (just as happened to Apple years later), and they appealed.
Salesforce finally got an approval in Aug 2008, pending publishing for opposition.
Guess who immediately opposed their trademark? Yep, Apple did. Apparently they thought Salesforce didn't deserve "AppStore", even though they had applied for the trademark years before Apple came out with their store.
Shortly afterwards, Salesforce did abandon their trademark without a fight. It was never transferred to Apple, who preferred to start their own application for "App Store" while opposing Salesforce's trademark.
Originally Posted by dps098
Let us not forget Amazon settled with Apple for Apple to license "1-Click" from Amazon...
I don't get that. Anyone can have a one-click purchase system as long as it's not built the same way as Amazon's. They can't own single-click shopping; they can only own an implementation of a system that allows it.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Apparently they thought Salesforce didn't deserve "AppStore", even though they had applied for the trademark years before Apple came out with their store.
Yes, you have the entire story right here¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Even more interestingly...
Everyone's heard the recent story about the CEO of Salesforce offering his "AppStore" trademark to Steve Jobs, right?
A search of the USPTO trademark database reveals that they applied for the trademark in 2006, got denied for being descriptive (just as happened to Apple years later), and they appealed.
Salesforce finally got an approval in Aug 2008, pending publishing for opposition.
Guess who immediately opposed their trademark? Yep, Apple did. Apparently they thought Salesforce didn't deserve "AppStore", even though they had applied for the trademark years before Apple came out with their store.
Shortly afterwards, Salesforce did abandon their trademark without a fight. It was never transferred to Apple, who preferred to start their own application for "App Store" while opposing Salesforce's trademark.
Wow, what a two-faced, backstabbing CEO and company.
Amazon needs to research this.
He never gave Apple the trademark in legal terms. It wouldn't even be legally possible to do so unless Salesforce had an Appstore as a product or a service which they then would pass on to Apple, and the trademark with it.
What happened was, Salesforce abandoned their single-word "APPSTORE" trademark and Apple filed a new application for "APP STORE", a two-word mark, which is still pending opposition — as described above in this thread.
There is no Salesforce-Apple continuity in trademark ownership here, other than Apple and Salesforce possibly having a gentlemanly exchange of favours (for instance, Salesforce.com app was one of the apps featured on stage by Jobs when Apple App Store launched).
When announcing their App Store, Apple not only didn't have the TM, they only applied for it 4 months later, a week after launching the actual App Store.
In Europe, the trademark is pending opposition from a few companies as well.