Apple loses appeal for 'App Store' trademark in Australia
An Australian court on Wednesday local time tossed Apple's appeal of a prior ruling that found the "app store" moniker not available for trademark because the term is too descriptive.
Federal Court of Australia Justice David Yates dismissed Apple's appeal of a decision handed down by the country's Registrar of Trade Marks denying rights to the term "app store," and ordered the company to pay resultant legal costs associated with the case, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.
"Apple has not established that, because of the extent to which it has used the mark before the filing date, it does distinguish the designated services as being Apple's services," Justice Yates said. "It follows that APP STORE must be taken as not being capable of distinguishing the designated services as Apple's services. The application must, therefore, be rejected."
This is not the first time Apple ran into trouble over the "app store" name, which some argue is a vague or descriptive term that should not be protected. In 2011, Apple filed suit against Amazon for violating an "App Store" trademark, which at the time was under review. Competing companies like Microsoft balked at Apple's application and sought to block approval from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Apple's first use of the now ubiquitous term appeared in 2008, when the App Store launched as a means of distributing third-party software crafted for the iPhone 3G. The iTunes-based digital storefront has grown to include hundreds since been split into iOS and Mac variations, with the iOS version recently reaching a record 7.8 million daily downloads.
Apple is known to apply for trademarks in foreign countries, usually as a way of securing marks while at the same time keeping upcoming products secret prior to launch. For example, a pair of filings in Trinidad and Tobago Intellectual Property Office discovered in May revealed the "Healthbook" -- debuted in iOS 8 as the "Health" app -- and "HealthKit" names. Following a successful application, Apple usually proceeds to cover the mark in more significant markets, which in HealthKit's case included the U.S. and Europe.
Federal Court of Australia Justice David Yates dismissed Apple's appeal of a decision handed down by the country's Registrar of Trade Marks denying rights to the term "app store," and ordered the company to pay resultant legal costs associated with the case, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.
"Apple has not established that, because of the extent to which it has used the mark before the filing date, it does distinguish the designated services as being Apple's services," Justice Yates said. "It follows that APP STORE must be taken as not being capable of distinguishing the designated services as Apple's services. The application must, therefore, be rejected."
This is not the first time Apple ran into trouble over the "app store" name, which some argue is a vague or descriptive term that should not be protected. In 2011, Apple filed suit against Amazon for violating an "App Store" trademark, which at the time was under review. Competing companies like Microsoft balked at Apple's application and sought to block approval from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Apple's first use of the now ubiquitous term appeared in 2008, when the App Store launched as a means of distributing third-party software crafted for the iPhone 3G. The iTunes-based digital storefront has grown to include hundreds since been split into iOS and Mac variations, with the iOS version recently reaching a record 7.8 million daily downloads.
Apple is known to apply for trademarks in foreign countries, usually as a way of securing marks while at the same time keeping upcoming products secret prior to launch. For example, a pair of filings in Trinidad and Tobago Intellectual Property Office discovered in May revealed the "Healthbook" -- debuted in iOS 8 as the "Health" app -- and "HealthKit" names. Following a successful application, Apple usually proceeds to cover the mark in more significant markets, which in HealthKit's case included the U.S. and Europe.
Comments
Okay, when did Apple file for it in Australia? A~nd how many times did they use it before that?
No-one widely used the word 'app' before the App Store. Therefore, it should be a protected term in conjunction with the word 'Store'.
Judges are too blinkered to protect words that start off unique, but through their popularity, become commonplace.
I presume this same judge will allow anyone to start another search engine called Google, as it simply means search now. Can't imagine Google objecting.
Meh, just change it to iTunes Store.
Actually iTunes is a bit of a misnomer now as it manages movies, TV shows, eBooks and apps...
Yet online software sales have existed for years prior and no one ever called them "App Store", or anything similar. Indeed "app" as a word only became popular because of OSX and iPhone OS.
Hmmm...
How about, " The App(le) Store"?
This is dumb. Apple is the reason why "app store" is what it is today.
"App" isn't new, not by a long shot.
"App" isn't new, not by a long shot.
You may have a short memory and forgotten that, although not new, the term 'app' was barely used by the general public until after the introduction of the relevant app store on the iPhone. Before then, if you installed anything on a computer-related device, then you were installing 'software', 'programs', or, if you were really geeky, 'applications'. The term 'app' was barely used, especially among the public, hence Apple's attempt at protecting their association with the term.
But this loss is no big deal. Companies introducing 'app stores' are attempting to cash in on consumer ignorance but, as we have seen, this strategy will just not work in the long run.
Apple almost no longer needs to defend themselves legally anymore. Their technical prowess is doing enough damage to their competitors as it is.
Copy the hardware design of phones, copy the software design, bring out your MacBook Air clones, and your iPad replicas, your 'app stores', your Apple TV's, and all the other accessories.
In the end, it won't make any damn difference.
Apple has already won.
Don't see anyone complaining about "The Warehouse" by other similar stores.
Sometimes these guys are just babies. Be great if they actually got creative. Apple just got in first with was is a very obvious name.
Right. How stupid and arrogant can people get. Apple made it so widely accepted that when they try to trademark it they are told no this is SO popular now that we stupidly think this a common term.
Like most things Apple related, they seem so obvious *after* they're brought to market.
Yet online software sales have existed for years prior and no one ever called them "App Store", or anything similar. Indeed "app" as a word only became popular because of OSX and iPhone OS.
True. I remember the mockery and ridicule when Apple first referred to them as "apps". Maybe it had been mentioned somewhere before, but I had never heard of it.
"Application", which "app" is short for, has been used since at least 1984, as it's what the original Mac OS called an executable program. The extension for an application on OS X has been .app since 2001, and before that, it was the 'APPL' type code on the classic Mac OS. On other platforms, KDE-Apps, GTK-Apps, and Google Apps all predate the iOS App Store. In the mobile space, J2ME and BREW executables were often referred to as "apps." It was also used to refer to BlackBerry software. In the Windows world, the official name for an executable wasn't "application", but you still saw it used all the time before the iOS App Store. "Application" was also what Google was calling Android software before the iOS App Store came out. Also, the term "killer app" has been in use since 1987, and was used by Bill Gates to describe Internet Explorer in the 90s.
"App" isn't new, not by a long shot.
Your entire post is irrelevant bullshit. Yes, "application" existed, but I'd never heard "app" before in the context of mobile applications until Apple first mentioned it. It seems so obvious and normal now, but before 2008, it wasn't, nor was "appstore".
Google turns up 22 pages of hits for the word "app" on Apple's developer mailing lists, for the year 2004 alone:
https://www.google.com/search?q="app"+site:lists.apple.com&es_sm=119&biw=1545&bih=868&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&tbm=
For that same time period, "program" turns up only 12 pages (and some of those are using it as a verb).
https://www.google.com/search?q="program"+site:lists.apple.com&es_sm=119&biw=1545&bih=868&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&q="program"+site:lists.apple.com
"Software" gets you 12 pages:
https://www.google.com/search?q="software"+site:lists.apple.com&es_sm=119&biw=1545&bih=868&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&q="software"+site:lists.apple.com
"Application" is the overall winner, with 31 pages of hits.
https://www.google.com/search?q="application"+site:lists.apple.com&es_sm=119&biw=1545&bih=868&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&q="application"+site:lists.apple.com
What about outside the developer community? Well, let's search this very forum.
"App" during the year 2004: 12 pages.
https://www.google.com/search?q="app"+site:forums.appleinsider.com&es_sm=119&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005\&tbm=#q="app"+site:forums.appleinsider.com&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005\&start=0
"Program" (omitting "Program Feed" since it was in someone's signature and inflating the results) during the same year: 9 pages.
https://www.google.com/search?q="program"+-"program+feed"+site:forums.appleinsider.com&es_sm=119&biw=1545&bih=868&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/2004,cd_max:1/1/2005&tbm=
Unfortunately searching for "Software" doesn't give useful results, since the "Scannerz for Mac OS X by Software and Computer Systems Company" link in the "Recent Reviews" sidebar causes every single page to come up in that search, but I think the point is made.
The UI framework that was part of Cocoa in OS X starting in 2001, and in NeXTSTeP since sometime back in the 90s, that every NeXT and Cocoa app would link against to incorporate UI elements such as windows, buttons, menus, etc. into their application. What was it called? AppKit.
Steve Jobs used "app" constantly in his keynotes. Even in 1997:
And honestly, if you've never heard the term "killer app", you've never read any tech publications at all. It's the only explanation.
Everyone else seemed to:
Google Play Store (formerly Android Market)
BlackBerry World
Windows Phone Store (formerly Windows Phone Marketplace)
Palm App Catalog
Nokia Ovi Store
I'm sure there are others that didn't rely on "app" and "store" for their name.
And then there's Amazon... who combined those two words into "Appstore"
Clever...
.
TOO descriptive, after they coined the term, coined the market, coined the very idea of a mobile APP STORE.
Right. How stupid and arrogant can people get. Apple made it so widely accepted that when they try to trademark it they are told no this is SO popular now that we stupidly think this a common term.
Dumb
I live in Oz and I can tell you that App Store was simply not even a mark on the horizon until Apple coined it! To disallow it in Australia simply makes us look silly.
Dumber
Google Play Store (formerly Android Market)
BlackBerry World
Windows Phone Store (formerly Windows Phone Marketplace)
Palm App Catalog
Nokia Ovi Store
Those other companies have settled on their names now. I don't think they will change to App Store even in jurisdictions where Apple can't trademark it.