It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
Are you a programmer like me ? We never used the term apps for applications, only programs, subprograms, subroutines etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.
PLEASE learn something about trademark law before embarrassing yourself further.
Just because one part of the trademark has been used before doesn't mean that the entire mark isn't valid.
People had Walls before and people had marts. So Wal-mart shouldn't be valid, right?
People had stars before and people had bucks, so Starbucks shouldn't be valid, right?
People used the word 'general' and people used the word 'motors', so General Motors isn't valid, right?
Heck, even use the example you cited. There were burgers and kings, so "Burger King" shouldn't be valid, right?
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
Uh, please.
Walmart is called such because of it being created by Sam Walton, not because it sells or deals with anything "walls".
Starbucks sells coffee, not stars or bucks.
General Motors is just the holding company of its marques. You don't see them trying to sue General Electric over its name because it is just that, generic.
Is "app" an apple invention? No. Are they the first to widely market it? Seems so.
But its apple - known for using other people's trademarks then settling later, while simultaneously whining about it when others do it.
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
...or trademarked Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, Fillet o' Fish, Chicken McNugget don't you mean?
The fact that Apple did not trademark "App" shows just how far off the mark and ill thought out your whole post is.
"Bank of America" - A very generic name, held under trademark.
Seriously, why can't Microsoft name their store something similar but different? App Shop? App Mart? App Market? This whole thing feels like Microsoft realized that Apple is making a killing with "App Store" both in monetary revenue and name recognition and thought "Hey, we ought to ride those coat tails!"
Apple may not have been the first company to use the "App Store" name, but they are the first to make legitimate money with it, and they're simply protecting that investment. It's grown to the point where "App Store" holds the same brand recognition as "iTunes."
Imagine for a moment what would have happened had Apple not trademarked 'iTunes'. Today there would be countless Russian music download services, serial number swappers, and porn sharing sites named 'iTunes.' I'm sure that's what Apple is afraid of with App Store. They're funneling a lot of time, money, and resources into the "App Store" name and are worried that if they don't protect that interest, there will be countless Porn "app stores" and warez "app stores" and spyware "app stores."
Apple isn't trying to trademark the name simply to say "Screw you Microsoft!" They're trying to trademark the name so some little old lady who just got her first iPod doesn't google "App Store" and end up on some shady website that ends up stealing her SSN.
It may or may not have been a joke, but I do think that the "Beer Store" reference works as a good example. It seems logical to me that if the Beer Store people have, or hypothetically did have, their store name trademarked (as Apple does the App Store), then of course they would have a case against anyone who opened another store and titled it "Beer Store."
To most or all of us, "Liquor Store" sounds generic because it is. That's because there is not and [likely] never was any trademark for the term held by any company or originator of the idea. But in the early stages of a new type of business, as Apple has more-or-less pioneered this one, it's important to defend any trademark that you have so that your trademark doesn't become synonymous with the whole of the market that includes your competition. This is the purpose of a trademark. This... seems obvious.
It might seem oppressive or bullish toward the other corporations, but does it make sense that Apple would defend its ownership of the name of something that, ~3 years in, at least seventeen companies are trying to model something after.
Well, I take apples side on this one. Im not too informed on this subject. But my understanding is that apple has it already trademarked. It do not matter, in my opinion, if it's valid or not. At the moment it is, if they overturn it, then whatever. But regardless, apple has the right to sue Amazon. As a consumer that's a bit more informed but not an Apple fanboy, when I hear "AppStore", I think iOS. Apple has this right. Amazon should lose any lawsuit. They broke the law, it's valid until they overturn it.
Amazon and all these companies are just so unoriginal they need to copy apples ever move. They can't take apple straight on and they know it.
Also, I feel like I've said Amazon more than App Store in my life. How can Amazon be trademarked then?
Ive used mircosoft windows all my life(only 19). But really it's been pretty miserable experience. Now that I'm past that point where I like to fix them. Being in college, GF, work, etc. I don't have the time to deal with it.
The reason I say that is this. Microsoft is bitching because they DON'T understand. Specs are awesome yea( I like high specs). But honestly. I JUST WANT MY SHIT TO WORK! I use an iPhone (soon iPad for school). I hope to buy a Mac in 2-3 years. I currently have a Dell Inspiron E1505. It came with Vista. Brought it back to XP within 6 months. That laptop is 4 years old now. Best hardware ever(despite what everyone says of Dell). Windows has mostly been the problem. Going to XP was a save. But being in an engineering course. Getting outdated.
These companies push specs SO much but it's not about that. Yea I know what's in my iPhone (replaced the screen myself and read up). But I need it to work. Work well. Fast and always. So damn what if android has the newest fastest stuff. I have friends with both devices. I mean like 100+ iPhones. About 30 with androids. Of those 30. 2 like them. One says he'd get an iPhone. Android has a free market. And cheap shit. That is it.
99 percent of my friends love their iPhones. They work and they are good at it. That's why they sell. Never had a phone as tough either.
I don't post a lot but all these lawsuits and disputes waste so much money for everyone. And in comes fro
Thr citizens and consumers, one way or another.
PS: I've never used the word "App" preiphone age(nor heard it)
but does make make sense that Apple would defend its ownership of the name of something that ~3 years in, at least seventeen companies are trying to model something after.
That's something else. Let's say, hypothetically, that I have a burger restaurant named "Burgers". At Burgers I make my hamburgers in a very unique and profitable way that no other burger restaurant has caught on to. As a result I've made a ton of money, and I want to keep making that money, so I apply for a trademark for burgers (remember this is a fantasy) but I'm contested by dozens of other burger places who all want to use Burgers for the name of their store, too.
If they all say "I want to make and sell burgers in a way completely different from the way your Burgers sells burgers, and it would in no way violate your methods" I would be inclined to let them use it. But if they all say "We like the way you do things, and want to copy you exactly, and basically rip off your methods and your name" I'd tell 'em to go screw themselves.
I say give the trademark to Apple. I have used Windows since Windows 95, and I cannot for the life of me ever recall anything running on Windows being called an "App". Every application on Windows is ALWAYS referred to as a "Program" (i.e. Start>All Programs>Microsoft Office>) I started using a Mac in 2006 (just imagine all those wasted years on Windows), that being the first time I was ever introduced to an "Application." Just because the masses tried to copy Apple's lead and decided to use the term to describe their Programs, Games, Applications, in no way makes it a generic term. Its just like someone calling tissue "kleenex." There is only one "kleenex" brand, yet people call all tissue "kleenex." Its clear to see where Apple got the term, they have been using it for years. First with their computers, then on their mobile platforms. It's also very clear why Microsoft would want the term deemed generic, $$$$$. lol.
"Bank of America" - A very generic name, held under trademark.
And so is Apple. Why is that? Who is Apple records? Why did I bring that up?
Is Bank of America suing US Bank? Why not?
Quote:
Seriously, why can't Microsoft name their store something similar but different? App Shop? App Mart? App Market? This whole thing feels like Microsoft realized that Apple is making a killing with "App Store" both in monetary revenue and name recognition and thought "Hey, we ought to ride those coat tails!"
Microsoft is the one being sued?
Quote:
Apple may not have been the first company to use the "App Store" name, but they are the first to make legitimate money with it, and they're simply protecting that investment. It's grown to the point where "App Store" holds the same brand recognition as "iTunes."
Oh, so it's about the money. Where is that written in trademark law...
Quote:
Imagine for a moment what would have happened had Apple not trademarked 'iTunes'. Today there would be countless Russian music download services, serial number swappers, and porn sharing sites named 'iTunes.' I'm sure that's what Apple is afraid of with App Store. They're funneling a lot of time, money, and resources into the "App Store" name and are worried that if they don't protect that interest, there will be countless Porn "app stores" and warez "app stores" and spyware "app stores."
That's true. But "itunes" is a unique name, "tune store" or "music store" or "mp4 store" isn't.
Quote:
Apple isn't trying to trademark the name simply to say "Screw you Microsoft!" They're trying to trademark the name so some little old lady who just got her first iPod doesn't google "App Store" and end up on some shady website that ends up stealing her SSN.
Yeah, that will stop people from trying to scam others - fear of trademark infringement.
And so is Apple. Why is that? Who is Apple records? Why did I bring that up?
Huh? The Bank of America quote was in response to an earlier poster who claimed that you can't trademark generic names. Bank of America is one of the more generic names out there.
Quote:
Microsoft is the one being sued?
Microsoft is trying to nullify Apple's trademark, and they want 'App Store' to be able to be used by anyone.
Quote:
Oh, so it's about the money. Where is that written in trademark law...
You have two of the biggest companies in the world sicking one another's lawyers on each other. How could it not be about money?
Quote:
That's true. But "itunes" is a unique name, "tune store" or "music store" or "mp4 store" isn't.
The point of my argument wasn't to question the trademark validity or genericness of iTunes, but rather paint a scenario where Apple didn't own the name and the fallout that would ensue.
Quote:
Yeah, that will stop people from trying to scam others - fear of trademark infringement.
It has before.
I thought my post was pretty straight-forward and easy to read. I wish I could say the same for some of the responses.
'APP STORE' prior to Apples creation had never been used before in any commercial environment. Had it been a generic term or a common phrase a patent would not have been issued.
As for Amazon, couldn't they have come up with they own unique phrase????
Additionally, what's the first 3 letters of 'Apple' again?
That's something else. Let's say, hypothetically, that I have a burger restaurant named "Burgers". At Burgers I make my hamburgers in a very unique and profitable way that no other burger restaurant has caught on to. As a result I've made a ton of money, and I want to keep making that money, so I apply for a trademark for burgers (remember this is a fantasy) but I'm contested by dozens of other burger places who all want to use Burgers for the name of their store, too.
If they all say "I want to make and sell burgers in a way completely different from the way your Burgers sells burgers, and it would in no way violate your methods" I would be inclined to let them use it. But if they all say "We like the way you do things, and want to copy you exactly, and basically rip off your methods and your name" I'd tell 'em to go screw themselves.
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.
In my view, the other "app stores" that I'm familiar with are handling their business in the second way that you described. But even or especially if they're handling their "app stores" in a completely different way than how Apple handles theirs and doesn't violate Apple's methods, it is important for Apple to defend their trademark so as to prevent confusion. Even if it seems mostly implausible that enough people would confuse an "Android App Store" with an "Apple App Store," it still goes against the image that Apple is trying to create and maintain with their own trademarked term.
I don't quite understand why you would want to allow competition to use your popularized (in this hypothetical) term simply because they aren't following your business model as well.
I personally think that Melville would very publicly object, but not take the time to sue. I also think that his Bartleby (the scrivener) character would be one to spend a whole shit-load of time at Starbucks.
Also, with a thread that is filling to the brim with hypotheticals, I think that these two are my favorites.
Huh? The Bank of America quote was in response to an earlier poster who claimed that you can't trademark generic names. Bank of America is one of the more generic names out there.
Good. Now explain why they aren't suing anyone else like US Bank. And, again, explain Apple Records.
Quote:
Microsoft is trying to nullify Apple's trademark, and they want 'App Store' to be able to be used by anyone.
Yeah, I know that. What's the name of their app store?
Quote:
You have two of the biggest companies in the world sicking one another's lawyers on each other. How could it not be about money?
You are using success as a validity on whether or not "app store" should remain apples.
That's not going to be worth squat in court.
Quote:
The point of my argument wasn't to question the trademark validity or genericness of iTunes, but rather paint a scenario where Apple didn't own the name and the fallout that would ensue.
It has before.
I know. But that isn't relevant to why "app store" should be apple's.
Quote:
I thought my post was pretty straight-forward and easy to read. I wish I could say the same for some of the responses.
It may or may not have been a joke, but I do think that the "Beer Store" reference works as a good example. It seems logical to me that if the Beer Store people have, or hypothetically did have, their store name trademarked (as Apple does the App Store), then of course they would have a case against anyone who opened another store and titled it "Beer Store."
The Beer Store reference wasn't a joke. They used to be called "Brewers Retail" but everyone called them "The Beer Store." The changed the name in the 80's or 90's to "The Beer Store." However, I have never seen a TM reference on their signs.
That's something else. Let's say, hypothetically, that I have a burger restaurant named "Burgers". At Burgers I make my hamburgers in a very unique and profitable way that no other burger restaurant has caught on to. As a result I've made a ton of money, and I want to keep making that money, so I apply for a trademark for burgers (remember this is a fantasy) but I'm contested by dozens of other burger places who all want to use Burgers for the name of their store, too.
Well it is a poor choice of name, is generic and wouldn't even be granted but OK.
Quote:
If they all say "I want to make and sell burgers in a way completely different from the way your Burgers sells burgers, and it would in no way violate your methods" I would be inclined to let them use it. But if they all say "We like the way you do things, and want to copy you exactly, and basically rip off your methods and your name" I'd tell 'em to go screw themselves.
Then you would go to court and lose. And then you will be told your way of making burgers can't be protected in any way shape or form.
Comments
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
Are you a programmer like me ? We never used the term apps for applications, only programs, subprograms, subroutines etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.
PLEASE learn something about trademark law before embarrassing yourself further.
Just because one part of the trademark has been used before doesn't mean that the entire mark isn't valid.
People had Walls before and people had marts. So Wal-mart shouldn't be valid, right?
People had stars before and people had bucks, so Starbucks shouldn't be valid, right?
People used the word 'general' and people used the word 'motors', so General Motors isn't valid, right?
Heck, even use the example you cited. There were burgers and kings, so "Burger King" shouldn't be valid, right?
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
Couldn't agree more, this person hasn't a clue, just your typical Apple hater, sigh ...
PLEASE learn something about trademark law before embarrassing yourself further.
Just because one part of the trademark has been used before doesn't mean that the entire mark isn't valid.
People had Walls before and people had marts. So Wal-mart shouldn't be valid, right?
People had stars before and people had bucks, so Starbucks shouldn't be valid, right?
People used the word 'general' and people used the word 'motors', so General Motors isn't valid, right?
Heck, even use the example you cited. There were burgers and kings, so "Burger King" shouldn't be valid, right?
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
Uh, please.
Walmart is called such because of it being created by Sam Walton, not because it sells or deals with anything "walls".
Starbucks sells coffee, not stars or bucks.
General Motors is just the holding company of its marques. You don't see them trying to sue General Electric over its name because it is just that, generic.
Is "app" an apple invention? No. Are they the first to widely market it? Seems so.
But its apple - known for using other people's trademarks then settling later, while simultaneously whining about it when others do it.
It doesn't matter. The term 'App' to mean 'application' was around before Apple started using it.
Apple was the first one to start using it en masse, but that doesn't mean that they can trademark it.
'App' = application. It has nothing to do with Apple inherently.
'Fail' on Apple's part. Though you can understand their desire to rule out the competition but not allowing them to use a common word. It's as if McDonalds could trademark the word 'Cheeseburger'. That would be a huge competitive advantage against the Burger Kings and Wendys out there. Or they patented the 'Drive Thru', and said that In-N-Out had to call it something else.
...or trademarked Big Mac, Quarter Pounder, Fillet o' Fish, Chicken McNugget don't you mean?
The fact that Apple did not trademark "App" shows just how far off the mark and ill thought out your whole post is.
Seriously, why can't Microsoft name their store something similar but different? App Shop? App Mart? App Market? This whole thing feels like Microsoft realized that Apple is making a killing with "App Store" both in monetary revenue and name recognition and thought "Hey, we ought to ride those coat tails!"
Apple may not have been the first company to use the "App Store" name, but they are the first to make legitimate money with it, and they're simply protecting that investment. It's grown to the point where "App Store" holds the same brand recognition as "iTunes."
Imagine for a moment what would have happened had Apple not trademarked 'iTunes'. Today there would be countless Russian music download services, serial number swappers, and porn sharing sites named 'iTunes.' I'm sure that's what Apple is afraid of with App Store. They're funneling a lot of time, money, and resources into the "App Store" name and are worried that if they don't protect that interest, there will be countless Porn "app stores" and warez "app stores" and spyware "app stores."
Apple isn't trying to trademark the name simply to say "Screw you Microsoft!" They're trying to trademark the name so some little old lady who just got her first iPod doesn't google "App Store" and end up on some shady website that ends up stealing her SSN.
To most or all of us, "Liquor Store" sounds generic because it is. That's because there is not and [likely] never was any trademark for the term held by any company or originator of the idea. But in the early stages of a new type of business, as Apple has more-or-less pioneered this one, it's important to defend any trademark that you have so that your trademark doesn't become synonymous with the whole of the market that includes your competition. This is the purpose of a trademark. This... seems obvious.
It might seem oppressive or bullish toward the other corporations, but does it make sense that Apple would defend its ownership of the name of something that, ~3 years in, at least seventeen companies are trying to model something after.
Amazon and all these companies are just so unoriginal they need to copy apples ever move. They can't take apple straight on and they know it.
Also, I feel like I've said Amazon more than App Store in my life. How can Amazon be trademarked then?
Ive used mircosoft windows all my life(only 19). But really it's been pretty miserable experience. Now that I'm past that point where I like to fix them. Being in college, GF, work, etc. I don't have the time to deal with it.
The reason I say that is this. Microsoft is bitching because they DON'T understand. Specs are awesome yea( I like high specs). But honestly. I JUST WANT MY SHIT TO WORK! I use an iPhone (soon iPad for school). I hope to buy a Mac in 2-3 years. I currently have a Dell Inspiron E1505. It came with Vista. Brought it back to XP within 6 months. That laptop is 4 years old now. Best hardware ever(despite what everyone says of Dell). Windows has mostly been the problem. Going to XP was a save. But being in an engineering course. Getting outdated.
These companies push specs SO much but it's not about that. Yea I know what's in my iPhone (replaced the screen myself and read up). But I need it to work. Work well. Fast and always. So damn what if android has the newest fastest stuff. I have friends with both devices. I mean like 100+ iPhones. About 30 with androids. Of those 30. 2 like them. One says he'd get an iPhone. Android has a free market. And cheap shit. That is it.
99 percent of my friends love their iPhones. They work and they are good at it. That's why they sell. Never had a phone as tough either.
I don't post a lot but all these lawsuits and disputes waste so much money for everyone. And in comes fro
Thr citizens and consumers, one way or another.
PS: I've never used the word "App" preiphone age(nor heard it)
So why are saying all these people do??
but does make make sense that Apple would defend its ownership of the name of something that ~3 years in, at least seventeen companies are trying to model something after.
That's something else. Let's say, hypothetically, that I have a burger restaurant named "Burgers". At Burgers I make my hamburgers in a very unique and profitable way that no other burger restaurant has caught on to. As a result I've made a ton of money, and I want to keep making that money, so I apply for a trademark for burgers (remember this is a fantasy) but I'm contested by dozens of other burger places who all want to use Burgers for the name of their store, too.
If they all say "I want to make and sell burgers in a way completely different from the way your Burgers sells burgers, and it would in no way violate your methods" I would be inclined to let them use it. But if they all say "We like the way you do things, and want to copy you exactly, and basically rip off your methods and your name" I'd tell 'em to go screw themselves.
"Bank of America" - A very generic name, held under trademark.
And so is Apple. Why is that? Who is Apple records? Why did I bring that up?
Is Bank of America suing US Bank? Why not?
Seriously, why can't Microsoft name their store something similar but different? App Shop? App Mart? App Market? This whole thing feels like Microsoft realized that Apple is making a killing with "App Store" both in monetary revenue and name recognition and thought "Hey, we ought to ride those coat tails!"
Microsoft is the one being sued?
Apple may not have been the first company to use the "App Store" name, but they are the first to make legitimate money with it, and they're simply protecting that investment. It's grown to the point where "App Store" holds the same brand recognition as "iTunes."
Oh, so it's about the money. Where is that written in trademark law...
Imagine for a moment what would have happened had Apple not trademarked 'iTunes'. Today there would be countless Russian music download services, serial number swappers, and porn sharing sites named 'iTunes.' I'm sure that's what Apple is afraid of with App Store. They're funneling a lot of time, money, and resources into the "App Store" name and are worried that if they don't protect that interest, there will be countless Porn "app stores" and warez "app stores" and spyware "app stores."
That's true. But "itunes" is a unique name, "tune store" or "music store" or "mp4 store" isn't.
Apple isn't trying to trademark the name simply to say "Screw you Microsoft!" They're trying to trademark the name so some little old lady who just got her first iPod doesn't google "App Store" and end up on some shady website that ends up stealing her SSN.
Yeah, that will stop people from trying to scam others - fear of trademark infringement.
And so is Apple. Why is that? Who is Apple records? Why did I bring that up?
Huh? The Bank of America quote was in response to an earlier poster who claimed that you can't trademark generic names. Bank of America is one of the more generic names out there.
Microsoft is the one being sued?
Microsoft is trying to nullify Apple's trademark, and they want 'App Store' to be able to be used by anyone.
Oh, so it's about the money. Where is that written in trademark law...
You have two of the biggest companies in the world sicking one another's lawyers on each other. How could it not be about money?
That's true. But "itunes" is a unique name, "tune store" or "music store" or "mp4 store" isn't.
The point of my argument wasn't to question the trademark validity or genericness of iTunes, but rather paint a scenario where Apple didn't own the name and the fallout that would ensue.
Yeah, that will stop people from trying to scam others - fear of trademark infringement.
It has before.
I thought my post was pretty straight-forward and easy to read. I wish I could say the same for some of the responses.
'APP STORE' prior to Apples creation had never been used before in any commercial environment. Had it been a generic term or a common phrase a patent would not have been issued.
As for Amazon, couldn't they have come up with they own unique phrase????
Additionally, what's the first 3 letters of 'Apple' again?
'App' isn't exactly random here.
That's something else. Let's say, hypothetically, that I have a burger restaurant named "Burgers". At Burgers I make my hamburgers in a very unique and profitable way that no other burger restaurant has caught on to. As a result I've made a ton of money, and I want to keep making that money, so I apply for a trademark for burgers (remember this is a fantasy) but I'm contested by dozens of other burger places who all want to use Burgers for the name of their store, too.
If they all say "I want to make and sell burgers in a way completely different from the way your Burgers sells burgers, and it would in no way violate your methods" I would be inclined to let them use it. But if they all say "We like the way you do things, and want to copy you exactly, and basically rip off your methods and your name" I'd tell 'em to go screw themselves.
I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.
In my view, the other "app stores" that I'm familiar with are handling their business in the second way that you described. But even or especially if they're handling their "app stores" in a completely different way than how Apple handles theirs and doesn't violate Apple's methods, it is important for Apple to defend their trademark so as to prevent confusion. Even if it seems mostly implausible that enough people would confuse an "Android App Store" with an "Apple App Store," it still goes against the image that Apple is trying to create and maintain with their own trademarked term.
I don't quite understand why you would want to allow competition to use your popularized (in this hypothetical) term simply because they aren't following your business model as well.
Starbucks sells coffee, not stars or bucks.
Herman Melville might justifiably object.
(just a joke) but I'm sure someone wont see that
Herman Melville might justifiably object.
I personally think that Melville would very publicly object, but not take the time to sue. I also think that his Bartleby (the scrivener) character would be one to spend a whole shit-load of time at Starbucks.
Also, with a thread that is filling to the brim with hypotheticals, I think that these two are my favorites.
Huh? The Bank of America quote was in response to an earlier poster who claimed that you can't trademark generic names. Bank of America is one of the more generic names out there.
Good. Now explain why they aren't suing anyone else like US Bank. And, again, explain Apple Records.
Microsoft is trying to nullify Apple's trademark, and they want 'App Store' to be able to be used by anyone.
Yeah, I know that. What's the name of their app store?
You have two of the biggest companies in the world sicking one another's lawyers on each other. How could it not be about money?
You are using success as a validity on whether or not "app store" should remain apples.
That's not going to be worth squat in court.
The point of my argument wasn't to question the trademark validity or genericness of iTunes, but rather paint a scenario where Apple didn't own the name and the fallout that would ensue.
It has before.
I know. But that isn't relevant to why "app store" should be apple's.
I thought my post was pretty straight-forward and easy to read. I wish I could say the same for some of the responses.
It was.
It may or may not have been a joke, but I do think that the "Beer Store" reference works as a good example. It seems logical to me that if the Beer Store people have, or hypothetically did have, their store name trademarked (as Apple does the App Store), then of course they would have a case against anyone who opened another store and titled it "Beer Store."
The Beer Store reference wasn't a joke. They used to be called "Brewers Retail" but everyone called them "The Beer Store." The changed the name in the 80's or 90's to "The Beer Store." However, I have never seen a TM reference on their signs.
That's something else. Let's say, hypothetically, that I have a burger restaurant named "Burgers". At Burgers I make my hamburgers in a very unique and profitable way that no other burger restaurant has caught on to. As a result I've made a ton of money, and I want to keep making that money, so I apply for a trademark for burgers (remember this is a fantasy) but I'm contested by dozens of other burger places who all want to use Burgers for the name of their store, too.
Well it is a poor choice of name, is generic and wouldn't even be granted but OK.
If they all say "I want to make and sell burgers in a way completely different from the way your Burgers sells burgers, and it would in no way violate your methods" I would be inclined to let them use it. But if they all say "We like the way you do things, and want to copy you exactly, and basically rip off your methods and your name" I'd tell 'em to go screw themselves.
Then you would go to court and lose. And then you will be told your way of making burgers can't be protected in any way shape or form.