Apple, Amazon can't settle 'Appstore' issue as August trial looms
Discussions between Apple and Amazon have so far failed to resolve the two companies' dispute over Amazon's use of the term "Appstore," and the tech giants appear more likely than ever to face each other in court come August.
Lawyers for the two firms have been in discussions to resolve the dispute since a judge ordered them to do so in January. Those discussions include a 45-minute phone call on June 14 and an all-day meeting on May 1.
Involved in the talks have been B.J. Watrous, Apple's chief intellectual property attorney, and Andrew DeVore, Amazon's assistant general counsel. Talks between the parties have so far proved unfruitful.
At issue is Amazon's use of the term Appstore, which Apple says is too close its own App Store. Apple filed suit in 2011, asserting that Amazon's term violated Apple's trademark.
Amazon argued that the term had become generic, saying that it only signifies a digital repository for apps and doesn't specifically call Apple to mind. Other companies, including Microsoft, have petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to block Apple's attempts to secure a trademark on the term.
With the matter unresolved so far, it appears likely that the conflict will eventually be settled in court. A trial has been set for August 19.
Lawyers for the two firms have been in discussions to resolve the dispute since a judge ordered them to do so in January. Those discussions include a 45-minute phone call on June 14 and an all-day meeting on May 1.
Involved in the talks have been B.J. Watrous, Apple's chief intellectual property attorney, and Andrew DeVore, Amazon's assistant general counsel. Talks between the parties have so far proved unfruitful.
At issue is Amazon's use of the term Appstore, which Apple says is too close its own App Store. Apple filed suit in 2011, asserting that Amazon's term violated Apple's trademark.
Amazon argued that the term had become generic, saying that it only signifies a digital repository for apps and doesn't specifically call Apple to mind. Other companies, including Microsoft, have petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to block Apple's attempts to secure a trademark on the term.
With the matter unresolved so far, it appears likely that the conflict will eventually be settled in court. A trial has been set for August 19.
Comments
Apple has said, and sued. So the only way this term has 'become generic' is the courts not agreeing to force Amazon to stop until the trial was over. That can't be held against Apple as failure to protect.
Prior to Apple using the term it didn't exist so how in a general sense was it generic.
Apple fighting with Idiots (amazon) :
1. Can't really fight because of self dignity
2. Can't really lose because of self dignity.
Idiots fight with Big Guys (Apple):
1. Win: Wow. I won a big guy (good way or bad way)
2. Lose: Hhhhmm, they are big. So they won. Increases your stature (idiots think like that)
I hope that the correct finding will include a painful financial penalty to punish Amazon for their hubris in thinking they are above the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I'd like to see anything called AppStore prior to Apple's use of it. I stand by to be shown I am wrong in thinking Apple coined the name as used.
Saleforce.com (2006) and Sage Networks (1998) filed for trademarks on "appstore" before Apple made filed for "app store".
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
From the company that steadfastly fought over (and won the battle for) the IP for 'one click', it is a bit hilarious -- and hypocritical -- to say the least.
Yes, and Apple actually pays Amazon a licensing fee to use that patent. Apple could have easily fought that patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
Saleforce.com (2006) and Sage Networks (1998) filed for trademarks on "appstore" before Apple made filed for "app store".
Trademarks have to actually be used to be protected. According to the Trademarks Office, both marks were abandoned by those applicants. Moreover, the Salesforce CEO and Jobs were good friends. The Salesforce CEO gifted Apple the App Store the mark.
http://bit.ly/qTUy2t
A good opportunity to review the timeline:
2006 xxx - Salesforce applies for trademark on "AppStore".
2008 Jul - Apple applies for trademark on "App Store".
2008 Aug - Salesforce application approved, pending any opposition.
2008 Nov - Apple files opposition to Salesforce trademark.
2008 Dec - Salesforce abandons trademark. (It was NOT transferred to Apple.)
2009 Mar - USPTO turns down App Store as being "merely descriptive."
2009 Sep - Apple refiles, this time claiming acquired distinctiveness.
2009 Dec - USPTO approves Apple, pending any opposition.
2010 Jul - Microsoft files opposition.
2011 Mar - Apple sues Amazon, claiming "App Store" is not generic.
2011 Jul - Tim Cook refers to "app stores" in the generic sense in a quarterly call.
Because of the Microsoft opposition, Apple's final trademark registration is still pending. With Apple and Microsoft consent, the USPTO has deferred their trademark decision until the Amazon trial is over.
So I guess their own CEO is mistaken, huh? :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Trademarks have to actually be used to be protected. According to the Trademarks Office, both marks were abandoned by those applicants. Moreover, the Salesforce CEO and Jobs were good friends. The Salesforce CEO gifted Apple the App Store the mark.
I was answering the question, not making any statement on current validity...
Textbook Tallest.
I'll save everyone a fortune.
Just call it "AMPSTORE" and be done with it. Nobody has the name, you can register it now Amazon and you can all go home for the evening.
There now, I'll take 50% for my favorite charity of whatever those fat-cat lawyers were going to take in lieu of my time and uh, creative prowess.
Next case...
Judge Surge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So I guess their own CEO is mistaken, huh?
Reading comprehension is important. He never said he actually gave it away. He said he was willing to.
Mr. Benioff said, “and I went up to (Jobs) and said, ‘I have a gift for you. I’m going to give you the trademark and the URL because of the help you gave me in 2003.’”
Perhaps Jobs ignored him. Perhaps Apple's lawyers thought they needed a history of fighting for the mark. Whatever the reason, Apple filed an opposition anyway.
My source is the USPTO, not some blog site or internet myth. If you're not too lazy, you can check it yourself.
Amazon is running a store that sells apps. Perhaps US law differs greatly from English law but the phrase definitely falls foul of what's unacceptable as a trademark over here.