While I agree that Apple should be able to keep the App Store trademark, "Amazon Appstore" seems different from "App Store" to me, because Amazon is an extremely well known brand. Nobody would look at "Amazon Appstore" and think it's a part of Apple. It'd be viewed as a store affiliated with Amazon instead. On the other hand, if some company create a store selling apps and call that "My Appstore", or "Mobile Appstore", etc, then that shouldn't fly.
Apple Windows...
Microsoft should be able to keep the Windows trademark, "Apple Windows" seems different from "Windows" to me, because Apple is an extremely well known brand. Nobody would look at "Apple Windows" and think it's a part of Microsoft. It'd be viewed as an application affiliated with Apple instead.
You are just completely wrong about this. Not that you are the only one, I just picked your response cause it was near the end.
The fact is that Apple could *easily* claim a trademark on "App Store since they used it first. Whether or not it's a generic word has no bearing whatsoever (see "Windows"). They used it first, they trademarked it, and continue to use it. Therefore it's their trademark. Period.
Secondly, as is often pointed out when this topic comes up. it's only considered by some to be a generic term because Apple made it so in the first place. "Apps" were not always called apps, they were called "executables" for the most part or "programs." It was NeXT/Apple that started calling them "applications" (for the most part), and used the *.app extension for them. They were called "apps" at Apple headquarters and in the Mac community for years and years. Only *after* that did it go mainstream and on then did it become common usage to say "apps" when you mean applications, programs or executable files.
Apple may not win because the law is a (corrupt) ass, but truthfully and factually, they have the word "app" locked up. They basically invented the term and even if you argue they didn't they still trademarked it first and started using it first. Amazon just doesn't have an argument here at all and neither does Microsoft.
Could or is? Make up your mind. And for the record, it currently isn't.
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
Could or is? Make up your mind. And for the record, it currently isn't.
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
I'm not so sure that "it currently isn't" a trademark, actually. I'm a bit confused about it. The MacRumors article about this suit says the following:
"Apple originally applied for the 'App Store' trademark in 2008 and finally got approval in 2010."
That seems to indicate that the application was approved and so "App Store" is an official Apple trademark.
EDIT: Apple also lists "App Store" in their list of trademarks.
If Amazon wins the suit with Apple, will Amazon try to trademark the word "appstore"?
I'm sure they would. That line of thinking has me believing that the phrase "App Store" has value that is worthy of protection and, since Apple started using it first (and applied for a trademark first), it should belong to them.
Could or is? Make up your mind. And for the record, it currently isn't.
Incorrect. For the record App Store is an identified Apple Service Mark which is all it takes to make it officially Apple's
Apple has also applied to register the Service Mark, which doesn't do anything additional to make the mark Apples, it's already theirs and they can sue over it to make someone stop using it. But if it is registered they can sue for damages too.
Quote:
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
Well, legally that's not applicable, that's just your opinion. Well to be fair it's Microsoft's too. MS's case is about the only way a company can lose a trademark/service mark unless they give it up by not defending it. But that isn't going to do much for Amazon.
Comments
While I agree that Apple should be able to keep the App Store trademark, "Amazon Appstore" seems different from "App Store" to me, because Amazon is an extremely well known brand. Nobody would look at "Amazon Appstore" and think it's a part of Apple. It'd be viewed as a store affiliated with Amazon instead. On the other hand, if some company create a store selling apps and call that "My Appstore", or "Mobile Appstore", etc, then that shouldn't fly.
Apple Windows...
Microsoft should be able to keep the Windows trademark, "Apple Windows" seems different from "Windows" to me, because Apple is an extremely well known brand. Nobody would look at "Apple Windows" and think it's a part of Microsoft. It'd be viewed as an application affiliated with Apple instead.
You are just completely wrong about this. Not that you are the only one, I just picked your response cause it was near the end.
The fact is that Apple could *easily* claim a trademark on "App Store since they used it first. Whether or not it's a generic word has no bearing whatsoever (see "Windows"). They used it first, they trademarked it, and continue to use it. Therefore it's their trademark. Period.
Secondly, as is often pointed out when this topic comes up. it's only considered by some to be a generic term because Apple made it so in the first place. "Apps" were not always called apps, they were called "executables" for the most part or "programs." It was NeXT/Apple that started calling them "applications" (for the most part), and used the *.app extension for them. They were called "apps" at Apple headquarters and in the Mac community for years and years. Only *after* that did it go mainstream and on then did it become common usage to say "apps" when you mean applications, programs or executable files.
Apple may not win because the law is a (corrupt) ass, but truthfully and factually, they have the word "app" locked up. They basically invented the term and even if you argue they didn't they still trademarked it first and started using it first. Amazon just doesn't have an argument here at all and neither does Microsoft.
Could or is? Make up your mind. And for the record, it currently isn't.
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
Could or is? Make up your mind. And for the record, it currently isn't.
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
I'm not so sure that "it currently isn't" a trademark, actually. I'm a bit confused about it. The MacRumors article about this suit says the following:
"Apple originally applied for the 'App Store' trademark in 2008 and finally got approval in 2010."
That seems to indicate that the application was approved and so "App Store" is an official Apple trademark.
EDIT: Apple also lists "App Store" in their list of trademarks.
If Amazon wins the suit with Apple, will Amazon try to trademark the word "appstore"?
I'm sure they would. That line of thinking has me believing that the phrase "App Store" has value that is worthy of protection and, since Apple started using it first (and applied for a trademark first), it should belong to them.
Could or is? Make up your mind. And for the record, it currently isn't.
Incorrect. For the record App Store is an identified Apple Service Mark which is all it takes to make it officially Apple's
Apple has also applied to register the Service Mark, which doesn't do anything additional to make the mark Apples, it's already theirs and they can sue over it to make someone stop using it. But if it is registered they can sue for damages too.
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
Well, legally that's not applicable, that's just your opinion. Well to be fair it's Microsoft's too. MS's case is about the only way a company can lose a trademark/service mark unless they give it up by not defending it. But that isn't going to do much for Amazon.
I see it as, App store = Application store, the same way as Gas Station = Gasoline Station.
The difference would be that nobody tried to trademark "Gas Station" when it first came into use.