I have to agree with the ruling. Prohibiting App Store is like prohibiting Food Store or Shoe Store. However, "Apple's App Store" or similarly specific denominations should be protected.
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.
No they didn't, applications have been nick named apps since at least the early 90s probably earlier.
I don't mind apple getting the rights to the name, the modern known term app to the lay person is an application on your phone or tablet. Apple didn't coin the phrase though , I've always called applications apps for short.
If you Google for 'the app store', Google's own Play Store is ranked highly. What's strange is if you put it in double quotes in the search, meaning the exact phrase, Google Play still comes up and yet that text doesn't seem to appear on the page.
Apple's competitors are using the term to try and latch onto Apple's success. I think it doesn't make sense to give Apple exclusivity over it now but they should have back when it launched. Not many people use the term in their names so there's not really any confusion caused nor is there any harm being done to Apple.
Apple owns the Apple Store trademark yet apples were common before they came along. The decisions made around these names will be for what is considered the best outcome for the overall industry. If Apple's business was being harmed by other people using 'app store', they'd probably be granted it.
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.
Sheesh, overreact much? ;^) I think I'll open something called the Foodstuffs Store, or a Milk Store -- or perhaps it's cutting off the beginning of the word that made it trademarkable? Auto[mobile] Store! Cloth[ing] Store! Foot[wear] Store! Time[piece] Store! Barb[er] Shop! Con[venience] Store!
I'm happy there's a country with a good, reasonable alternative to the overly broad (imo, ob) swath of what's trademarkable in the US. Is it really that big a deal to make Apple be a little more creative with their naming if they want protection? Even "Apple App Store" is probably trademarkable.
But then I think adding things to and keeping things in the public domain has the possibility of adding social value. Wild belief, I know.
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.
I'm not talking about someone else swooping in and changing their name to "App Store" in places where Apple lost the trademark.
I'm saying Apple was stupid to give their app store a name like "App Store" in the first place.
Would you build a grocery store and name it "Grocery Store" ?
No. You'd name it "ASCII Foods" or something creative.
If you Google for 'the app store', Google's own Play Store is ranked highly. What's strange is if you put it in double quotes in the search, meaning the exact phrase, Google Play still comes up and yet that text doesn't seem to appear on the page.
Apple's competitors are using the term to try and latch onto Apple's success. I think it doesn't make sense to give Apple exclusivity over it now but they should have back when it launched. Not many people use the term in their names so there's not really any confusion caused nor is there any harm being done to Apple.
Apple owns the Apple Store trademark yet apples were common before they came along. The decisions made around these names will be for what is considered the best outcome for the overall industry. If Apple's business was being harmed by other people using 'app store', they'd probably be granted it.
No they didn't, applications have been nick named apps since at least the early 90s probably earlier.
I don't mind apple getting the rights to the name, the modern known term app to the lay person is an application on your phone or tablet. Apple didn't coin the phrase though , I've always called applications apps for short.
And you probably have always called shoes shoes ... care to complain about these guys?
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.
Actually, the judge was constrained by the law. You can read the judgment here.
"I am prepared to accept that, as part of the launch of the iPhone 3G in Australia, Apple’s App Storearoused significant interest, manifested by persons undertaking inquiries on the Internet usingapp store as a search term. I am also prepared to accept that, within the relevant period, a number of persons – perhaps many persons – associated the idea of the App Store service with Apple. But this is far from saying that, at the filing date, Apple’s use of “App Store” had been such that the mark distinguished the designated services as being Apple’s services and not those, also, of other persons."
That, in conjunction with the use of descriptive terms, which are not registrable, killed the application. Note my emphasis on 'filing date'. Basically, the judgment is saying something like:
If you invent a product called a metal sandwich, which is, in fact, a metal sandwich, you can't trademark the term 'metal sandwich', because the term is essentially descriptive. There's a reason why descriptive terms can't be trademarked, because if you could, everyone would be a walking infringement.
If you Google for 'the app store', Google's own Play Store is ranked highly. What's strange is if you put it in double quotes in the search, meaning the exact phrase, Google Play still comes up and yet that text doesn't seem to appear on the page.
Apple's competitors are using the term to try and latch onto Apple's success. I think it doesn't make sense to give Apple exclusivity over it now but they should have back when it launched. Not many people use the term in their names so there's not really any confusion caused nor is there any harm being done to Apple.
Apple owns the Apple Store trademark yet apples were common before they came along. The decisions made around these names will be for what is considered the best outcome for the overall industry. If Apple's business was being harmed by other people using 'app store', they'd probably be granted it.
Apple Store is unlikely to be problematic in Australia and Apple probably would have been given the mark. While Apple is a descriptive term, in the three categories in which Apple applied for the App Store mark, at least one of them it could be cogently argued that Apple is not descriptive. It would be if one were a green grocer, but Apple is not a green grocer. They already have Apple on its own as a mark. That has to tell you something.
The trademark application was for "App Store", not "App".
So you wasted all your time on those references for naught.
The argument was that no one used "app" before the iOS App Store came into existence, which I pretty handily disproved there. The fact is that "app" has been a generic term for an executable for some time, and that "app store" is too general of a term to trademark.
The important point to note here is that it's not just me saying this, but also the court system, because Apple lost its case when they tried to trademark "app store", not only in Australia but also in the US when they tried to sue Amazon. It is, quite simply, generic and not trademarkable.
They are perfectly free to name their business "The Shoe Company." What they are not able to do is prevent others from using "shoe company" in their names. As a result, there are lots of businesses that have "shoe company" in their names. Here are a few:
And that was only on the first page-and-a-half of Google search results. As you can see, if you believe "shoe company" is something that you can prevent other businesses from using, then The Shoe Company has a long (and probably fruitless) legal battle ahead of them.
This is dumb. Apple is the reason why "app store" is what it is today.
Doesn't really matter though, the term is still used when discussing other mobile stores as well. I know when I tell someone about an app for Android, Windows, BB, etc, I always refer to it as the app store, regardless of platform, though I do add, Apple, Android or Windows in front of it. The term has defiantly become ambiguous. Those who just use Apple's store though understandably don't see it.
I wasn't making a complaint, I don't complain in general, it was a statement, Marvin explains everything very well, doesn't mean i can't make a post...
The argument was that no one used "app" before the iOS App Store came into existence, which I pretty handily disproved there. The fact is that "app" has been a generic term for an executable for some time, and that "app store" is too general of a term to trademark.
what? no it wasnt! the post you replied to was by Slurpy and he said specifically:
Quote:
I'd never heard "app" before in the context of mobile applications until Apple first mentioned it.
...so stop bashing that strawman around. it's falling apart.
your entire post is a strawman. he clearly said he'd never heard app used "in the context of mobile applications".
Oh, really?
"No-one widely used the word 'app' before the App Store. Therefore, it should be a protected term in conjunction with the word 'Store'. "
"Indeed "app" as a word only became popular because of OSX and iPhone OS."
"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."
"It's true that app was a term used before, but it wasn't common at all. I'd say software was the most used, or program, then application after those 2."
"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."
your links about desktop apps are irrelevant.
Not according to the courts of law, which have repeatedly determined in multiple jurisdictions that "app" has been a pre-existing generic term for long enough that "app store" cannot be trademarked. I mean, if you really want me to, I could go provide a bunch of examples that specifically apply to mobile apps, but it really doesn't matter; "app" has been a generic term for binary executable in computing in general, including mobile computing, and indeed has been around longer than mobile computing has existed.
Comments
No they didn't, applications have been nick named apps since at least the early 90s probably earlier.
I don't mind apple getting the rights to the name, the modern known term app to the lay person is an application on your phone or tablet. Apple didn't coin the phrase though , I've always called applications apps for short.
Or Whole Foods Market:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Foods_Market
Poor Sunflower and Sprouts Farmers Market had to get round their generality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprouts_Farmers_Market
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflower_Farmers_Market
All they did was sell whole foods in a market first and picked the name.
There is a Shoe Company btw:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shoe_Company
There seems to have been a software company registered at one point called The Software Shop:
http://www.corporationwiki.com/p/j2rjn/the-software-shop-inc
The term App Store or even The App Store were specific enough at the time they launched.
It's important to distinguish between terms that come into popular usage and terms that competitors can use:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/09/kleenex-is-a-registered-trademark-and-other-appeals-to-journalists/380733/
If you Google for 'the app store', Google's own Play Store is ranked highly. What's strange is if you put it in double quotes in the search, meaning the exact phrase, Google Play still comes up and yet that text doesn't seem to appear on the page.
Apple's competitors are using the term to try and latch onto Apple's success. I think it doesn't make sense to give Apple exclusivity over it now but they should have back when it launched. Not many people use the term in their names so there's not really any confusion caused nor is there any harm being done to Apple.
Apple owns the Apple Store trademark yet apples were common before they came along. The decisions made around these names will be for what is considered the best outcome for the overall industry. If Apple's business was being harmed by other people using 'app store', they'd probably be granted it.
I think this is a bad decision.
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.
Sheesh, overreact much? ;^) I think I'll open something called the Foodstuffs Store, or a Milk Store -- or perhaps it's cutting off the beginning of the word that made it trademarkable? Auto[mobile] Store! Cloth[ing] Store! Foot[wear] Store! Time[piece] Store! Barb[er] Shop! Con[venience] Store!
I'm happy there's a country with a good, reasonable alternative to the overly broad (imo, ob) swath of what's trademarkable in the US. Is it really that big a deal to make Apple be a little more creative with their naming if they want protection? Even "Apple App Store" is probably trademarkable.
But then I think adding things to and keeping things in the public domain has the possibility of adding social value. Wild belief, I know.
blah, blah, blah irrelevant rubbish.
The trademark application was for "App Store", not "App".
So you wasted all your time on those references for naught.
I'm not talking about someone else swooping in and changing their name to "App Store" in places where Apple lost the trademark.
I'm saying Apple was stupid to give their app store a name like "App Store" in the first place.
Would you build a grocery store and name it "Grocery Store" ?
No. You'd name it "ASCII Foods" or something creative.
Excellent post!
And you probably have always called shoes shoes ... care to complain about these guys?
http://theshoecompany
Marvin has explained this very well ...
I think this is a bad decision.
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.
Actually, the judge was constrained by the law. You can read the judgment here.
http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca1304
"I am prepared to accept that, as part of the launch of the iPhone 3G in Australia, Apple’s App Store aroused significant interest, manifested by persons undertaking inquiries on the Internet using app store as a search term. I am also prepared to accept that, within the relevant period, a number of persons – perhaps many persons – associated the idea of the App Store service with Apple. But this is far from saying that, at the filing date, Apple’s use of “App Store” had been such that the mark distinguished the designated services as being Apple’s services and not those, also, of other persons."
That, in conjunction with the use of descriptive terms, which are not registrable, killed the application. Note my emphasis on 'filing date'. Basically, the judgment is saying something like:
If you invent a product called a metal sandwich, which is, in fact, a metal sandwich, you can't trademark the term 'metal sandwich', because the term is essentially descriptive. There's a reason why descriptive terms can't be trademarked, because if you could, everyone would be a walking infringement.
Your google example is poor and makes no sense.
Apple Store is unlikely to be problematic in Australia and Apple probably would have been given the mark. While Apple is a descriptive term, in the three categories in which Apple applied for the App Store mark, at least one of them it could be cogently argued that Apple is not descriptive. It would be if one were a green grocer, but Apple is not a green grocer. They already have Apple on its own as a mark. That has to tell you something.
The important point to note here is that it's not just me saying this, but also the court system, because Apple lost its case when they tried to trademark "app store", not only in Australia but also in the US when they tried to sue Amazon. It is, quite simply, generic and not trademarkable.
They are perfectly free to name their business "The Shoe Company." What they are not able to do is prevent others from using "shoe company" in their names. As a result, there are lots of businesses that have "shoe company" in their names. Here are a few:
Charleston Shoe Company
Consolidated Shoe Company
Red Wing Shoe Company
The Left Shoe Company
West Coast Shoe Company
Brown Shoe Company
DVS Shoe Company
And that was only on the first page-and-a-half of Google search results. As you can see, if you believe "shoe company" is something that you can prevent other businesses from using, then The Shoe Company has a long (and probably fruitless) legal battle ahead of them.
They should change it to "The Apple Software, Etc. Emporium for the People's Republic of Australia".
No dice. GameStop's got something too close to that one.
Doesn't really matter though, the term is still used when discussing other mobile stores as well. I know when I tell someone about an app for Android, Windows, BB, etc, I always refer to it as the app store, regardless of platform, though I do add, Apple, Android or Windows in front of it. The term has defiantly become ambiguous. Those who just use Apple's store though understandably don't see it.
And you probably have always called shoes shoes ... care to complain about these guys?
http://theshoecompany
Marvin has explained this very well ...
Please don't be a douche.
I wasn't making a complaint, I don't complain in general, it was a statement, Marvin explains everything very well, doesn't mean i can't make a post...
I linked you to a whole plethora of instances of the word "app" being used casually prior to 2008. If you'd never heard "app" before,
your entire post is a strawman. he clearly said he'd never heard app used "in the context of mobile applications".
your links about desktop apps are irrelevant.
My question has always been... why didn't Apple simply come up with a better name?
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
if you think those names are better than App Store, then lets hope marketing isnt your day job.
The argument was that no one used "app" before the iOS App Store came into existence, which I pretty handily disproved there. The fact is that "app" has been a generic term for an executable for some time, and that "app store" is too general of a term to trademark.
what? no it wasnt! the post you replied to was by Slurpy and he said specifically:
...so stop bashing that strawman around. it's falling apart.
Better? Maybe not.
But those names might be easier to trademark... which is exactly what Apple is having trouble doing.
I sure as hell wouldn't try to trademark a generic term like "app store" if that was my day job
I will revise my earlier question:
Why didn't Apple simply come up with a different name?
"No-one widely used the word 'app' before the App Store. Therefore, it should be a protected term in conjunction with the word 'Store'. "
"Indeed "app" as a word only became popular because of OSX and iPhone OS."
"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."
"It's true that app was a term used before, but it wasn't common at all. I'd say software was the most used, or program, then application after those 2."
"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."
Not according to the courts of law, which have repeatedly determined in multiple jurisdictions that "app" has been a pre-existing generic term for long enough that "app store" cannot be trademarked. I mean, if you really want me to, I could go provide a bunch of examples that specifically apply to mobile apps, but it really doesn't matter; "app" has been a generic term for binary executable in computing in general, including mobile computing, and indeed has been around longer than mobile computing has existed.