I think Amazon is being totally prickish and I will probably think twice before buying anything from them from now on. But go ahead and let them win this trademark case. I think as long as "Amazon" is associated with this terrible, non-curated, malware store, it can tarnish their brand all day long. Let them win and then Apple can just sue them into oblivion when they come out with their tablet: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...to_rivals.html
You misunderstand, App was generic, there's no dispute, but App Store wasn't. Combining two generic words doesn't produce a generic word - cheesecake and factory are both generic, but 'Cheesecake Factory' isn't. In order for App Store to have been a generic there would have to be large numbers of references were people used the phrase in a generic fashion. Those references may exist now, but they didn't exist back in 2008.
So someone could have trademarked 'grocery store' back in the day. So it comes down not to ingenuity and inventiveness, but merely timing.
Sorry, I don't buy it. I hope our legal system is indeed smarter than that. (I may be reaching here.)
I can see it now.....around a conference table at Apple...."so what are we going to call this place where you can buy our Apps?"......."Well 'DUH', Bob....we call it the App Store!"...."Quick, let's trademark it because it's so plain that it's bound to be used by others!" And this is why marketing VP's are paid so much, I s'pose.
What probably happened, though, is that when Apple coined the phrase, they thought of it as a generic term. If they had come up with something that was actually inventive, they would have trademarked it right off the bat. But only when Amazon came out with their app store did Apple say to themselves, "y'know, we should have trademarked that silly, generic term I guess....."
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon every again if they win this suit.
It's all so childish. Just think up an original name for cripes sake. Is it that hard?
The fact that they don't want to think up an original name is pretty much proof of Apple's claim IMO. If they weren't trafficking on the goodwill already established by Apple with the name, then any other name would do just as well. But any other name *wouldn't* do as well, because it doesn't have the same impact as copying Apple's already well-known moniker.
I think Apple should create the Apple Amazon Store and see how they like searching pointing to www.apple.com vs Amazon.com for sales.
What probably happened, though, is that when Apple coined the phrase, they thought of it as a generic term. If they had come up with something that was actually inventive, they would have trademarked it right off the bat. But only when Amazon came out with their app store did Apple say to themselves, "y'know, we should have trademarked that silly, generic term I guess....."
Very convincing. Except for the fact that you are talking out of your ass.
It doesn't take more than 5 seconds and an Internet connection to discover that Apple filed for a trademark of the term "App Store" back in 2008 when the App Store was launched for iOS and long before Amazon, Google or MS decided to copy the term...
So someone could have trademarked 'grocery store' back in the day. So it comes down not to ingenuity and inventiveness, but merely timing.
No because by the time trademarks existed that was already a generic
Quote:
Sorry, I don't buy it. I hope our legal system is indeed smarter than that. (I may be reaching here.)
Sorry to disappoint you on the legal system. 1-Click got patented, and trademarked - by Amazon of course. Can you get any more generic than that?
Fair and Balanced is trademarked by Fox News, though in that instance one can perhaps claim that it's not generic when it's applied to rabid rightwing lunacy.
Windows is trademarked by Microsoft.
Google is still a valid trademark, in spite of the fact that it is now a heavily used verb.
Quote:
What probably happened, though, is that when Apple coined the phrase, they thought of it as a generic term. If they had come up with something that was actually inventive, they would have trademarked it right off the bat. But only when Amazon came out with their app store did Apple say to themselves, "y'know, we should have trademarked that silly, generic term I guess....."
They did TM it, at least in the US, though the international filings were later. As to the name being uninventive - consider the options. You want your product to be immediately identifiable by its name, i<STUFF> was a good meme because it was both descriptive and non generic. But now iWorld+iDog are using it, so Apple ends up having to pay a ton for each new TM.
iAppStore sounds horrid, unless you're Italian maybe
iStore is too vague,
Apple App Store sounds ridiculous,
Apple Store means something else already
iPhone App Store is clumsy and they clearly already had the iPad in mind.
iOS App Store fails because iOS wasn't a brand back then, also it's ugly and sounds horrid for non Italians.
I bet when they finally decided on App Store they were a bit nervous but hey, this was back in mid 2008 and there wasn't anybody else with a functioning App Store to get confused with. .
The term 'app' wasn't coined by Apple. It was in use before Apple. Apple did make it popular with the popularity of iOS devices, but that doens't make it trademark-able by Apple.
Apple made the term popular well before iDevices.
The phrase "application program" was used interchangeably with the shortened "application" for Inside Macintosh - written in 1984 - but it was also commonly used to describe programs for the Apple II. If you're not convinced consider the phrase "killer app" - it's generally accepted the first "killer app" was Dan Bricklin's VisiCalc (at least Wikipedia thinks so). It was written for the Apple II, and was instrumental in that computer's unprecedented success.
Contrary to what you wrote I don't remember nor can I find any reference to the term "application" to specifically describe a computer program prior to the Apple II. If you can unearth some reference to it I'm sure Microsoft and Amazon would like to know.
It's probably way too late for Apple to claim ownership of the term "app", but I understand their concern for its potential misuse.
Quote:
Back in the day......computers ran programs.
Yes, and long after the Macintosh was introduced, PCs still continued to favor the term "program". When Windows began to emulate the Mac's GUI, the icons themselves became synonymous with "applications" since they looked so similar to Susan Kare's original concepts. Even then, "applications" were generally associated with a "suite" of programs - such as MS Office.
I bet when they finally decided on App Store they were a bit nervous but hey, this was back in mid 2008 and there wasn't anybody else with a functioning App Store to get confused with.
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon every again if they win this suit.
It's all so childish. Just think up an original name for cripes sake. Is it that hard?
The fact that they don't want to think up an original name is pretty much proof of Apple's claim IMO. If they weren't trafficking on the goodwill already established by Apple with the name, then any other name would do just as well. But any other name *wouldn't* do as well, because it doesn't have the same impact as copying Apple's already well-known moniker.
I dunno that I'd boycott Amazon just because Apple's lawyers didn't make their case. I don't even think Apple trademarked the term. And no, nobody is going to confuse Amazon's App Store for Apple's. How many people went to the Amazon App Store, bought an app, then demanded their money back when they realized they couldn't load it onto their iPhone? I'm guessing...no one.
Actually I think this case is more of a potential problem for Amazon's own customers. Apple's App Store is clearly the most famous mobile software store in the world. Amazon's less nerdy customers might be under the impression that they're accessing the famous App Store when browsing Amazon's Appstore.
Apple's customers I don't think are at risk of being confused.
Its release received press coverage here, here, here, here and probably other places as well.
Amusingly that actually strengthens Apple's case that the name wasn't generic in 2006. Look at the Salesforce press release. They're calling their offering AppStore - so capitalized. They never refer to their offering as 'an app store' or an 'appstore' which would imply the term is a generic. Their release is full of statements like 'AppStore will do BLAH', and nowhere do you see 'our AppStore' or 'this AppStore'.
I'd also guess that the overwhelming majority of those that don't use an iPhone have no idea what Apple calls their application market. There's probably even a significant percentage of Apple user's that don't know for sure.
A lot of us probably wrongly assume much of what we discuss here in the forums is common knowledge.
I think that's the problem with having such a generic trademark.
However when the terms "app", "store" and the combination "app store" were all in use before the iOS App Store, it's harder to believe that people will think Amazon is selling apps for iOS.
Apple should have had the foresight to call it the iStore or something they could really own.
I do think Amazon are only using "Appstore" because Apple made it popular. I'm not sure how Apple prove that though.
Please show when App Store has been used for a mobile application distribution platform?
If you do not undersrand trademark law, you should try to refrain from posting on matters that pertain to trademark law.
As an Apple fan, it's my conclusion that Apple's attorneys "undersrand [sic} trademark law". If it's your perspective that they don't, as an Apple hater, you're the one posting on the wrong site. The trademark was registered properly and then the "App Store" was successfully promoted through "there is an app for that" advertising. Now other companies want to capitalize on that champaign. That is simple and sensible to me. Perhaps there is a "The Container Store" forum for you to check out.
The judge stated she was troubled by Apple's inability to produce evidence that anyone is confused by it; so unless they can produce that evidence she's pretty much told them it's over.
i, for one, don't understand the confusion.
i've always associated the name 'AppStore' or 'App Store' with apple. i don't care how it's spelled.
As an Apple fan, it's my conclusion that Apple's attorneys "undersrand [sic} trademark law". If it's your perspective that they don't, as an Apple hater, you're the one posting on the wrong site. The trademark was registered properly and then the "App Store" was successfully promoted through "there is an app for that" advertising. Now other companies want to capitalize on that champaign. That is simple and sensible to me. Perhaps there is a "The Container Store" forum for you to check out.
and the whole its not an App it's a Super App advertising confuses me because as far as I can tell the examples they use are not exclusive to a given platform - so how does that distinguish your platform from others? or does it just reinforce beliefs held by those with no direct experience with Apple products?
On the other hand - although there is overlap in cases such as Angry Birds being offered for multiple platforms - I don't see how anyone could easily be confused - has even a single person complained to Amazon that an app purchased there failed to run on their iOS device or a single person complained to Apple that an app purchased there failed to run on the Android or Windows device?
And if the mark is so important - why does iTunes still say "iTunes Store" and not "App Store" ? because it includes more than just apps? well then how about two links - one for Apps and another for everything else? I would like to be abel to more easily launch into Apps only store using iTunes.
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon ever again if they win this suit.
Yes, I'm sure Amazon's lawyers are already preparing the bankruptcy paperwork after realizing how much money they're going to lose from irate iOS users if/when they win the case. Talk about childish...
Comments
You misunderstand, App was generic, there's no dispute, but App Store wasn't. Combining two generic words doesn't produce a generic word - cheesecake and factory are both generic, but 'Cheesecake Factory' isn't. In order for App Store to have been a generic there would have to be large numbers of references were people used the phrase in a generic fashion. Those references may exist now, but they didn't exist back in 2008.
So someone could have trademarked 'grocery store' back in the day. So it comes down not to ingenuity and inventiveness, but merely timing.
Sorry, I don't buy it. I hope our legal system is indeed smarter than that. (I may be reaching here.)
I can see it now.....around a conference table at Apple...."so what are we going to call this place where you can buy our Apps?"......."Well 'DUH', Bob....we call it the App Store!"...."Quick, let's trademark it because it's so plain that it's bound to be used by others!" And this is why marketing VP's are paid so much, I s'pose.
What probably happened, though, is that when Apple coined the phrase, they thought of it as a generic term. If they had come up with something that was actually inventive, they would have trademarked it right off the bat. But only when Amazon came out with their app store did Apple say to themselves, "y'know, we should have trademarked that silly, generic term I guess....."
Apple has just trademarked the term "Amazo Store" that sells only Apple's amazing products.
Eat that Bezos!
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon every again if they win this suit.
It's all so childish. Just think up an original name for cripes sake. Is it that hard?
The fact that they don't want to think up an original name is pretty much proof of Apple's claim IMO. If they weren't trafficking on the goodwill already established by Apple with the name, then any other name would do just as well. But any other name *wouldn't* do as well, because it doesn't have the same impact as copying Apple's already well-known moniker.
I think Apple should create the Apple Amazon Store and see how they like searching pointing to www.apple.com vs Amazon.com for sales.
What probably happened, though, is that when Apple coined the phrase, they thought of it as a generic term. If they had come up with something that was actually inventive, they would have trademarked it right off the bat. But only when Amazon came out with their app store did Apple say to themselves, "y'know, we should have trademarked that silly, generic term I guess....."
Very convincing. Except for the fact that you are talking out of your ass.
It doesn't take more than 5 seconds and an Internet connection to discover that Apple filed for a trademark of the term "App Store" back in 2008 when the App Store was launched for iOS and long before Amazon, Google or MS decided to copy the term...
So someone could have trademarked 'grocery store' back in the day. So it comes down not to ingenuity and inventiveness, but merely timing.
No because by the time trademarks existed that was already a generic
Sorry, I don't buy it. I hope our legal system is indeed smarter than that. (I may be reaching here.)
Sorry to disappoint you on the legal system. 1-Click got patented, and trademarked - by Amazon of course. Can you get any more generic than that?
Fair and Balanced is trademarked by Fox News, though in that instance one can perhaps claim that it's not generic when it's applied to rabid rightwing lunacy.
Windows is trademarked by Microsoft.
Google is still a valid trademark, in spite of the fact that it is now a heavily used verb.
What probably happened, though, is that when Apple coined the phrase, they thought of it as a generic term. If they had come up with something that was actually inventive, they would have trademarked it right off the bat. But only when Amazon came out with their app store did Apple say to themselves, "y'know, we should have trademarked that silly, generic term I guess....."
They did TM it, at least in the US, though the international filings were later. As to the name being uninventive - consider the options. You want your product to be immediately identifiable by its name, i<STUFF> was a good meme because it was both descriptive and non generic. But now iWorld+iDog are using it, so Apple ends up having to pay a ton for each new TM.
- iAppStore sounds horrid, unless you're Italian maybe
- iStore is too vague,
- Apple App Store sounds ridiculous,
- Apple Store means something else already
- iPhone App Store is clumsy and they clearly already had the iPad in mind.
- iOS App Store fails because iOS wasn't a brand back then, also it's ugly and sounds horrid for non Italians.
I bet when they finally decided on App Store they were a bit nervous but hey, this was back in mid 2008 and there wasn't anybody else with a functioning App Store to get confused with. .The term 'app' wasn't coined by Apple. It was in use before Apple. Apple did make it popular with the popularity of iOS devices, but that doens't make it trademark-able by Apple.
Apple made the term popular well before iDevices.
The phrase "application program" was used interchangeably with the shortened "application" for Inside Macintosh - written in 1984 - but it was also commonly used to describe programs for the Apple II. If you're not convinced consider the phrase "killer app" - it's generally accepted the first "killer app" was Dan Bricklin's VisiCalc (at least Wikipedia thinks so). It was written for the Apple II, and was instrumental in that computer's unprecedented success.
Contrary to what you wrote I don't remember nor can I find any reference to the term "application" to specifically describe a computer program prior to the Apple II. If you can unearth some reference to it I'm sure Microsoft and Amazon would like to know.
It's probably way too late for Apple to claim ownership of the term "app", but I understand their concern for its potential misuse.
Back in the day......computers ran programs.
Yes, and long after the Macintosh was introduced, PCs still continued to favor the term "program". When Windows began to emulate the Mac's GUI, the icons themselves became synonymous with "applications" since they looked so similar to Susan Kare's original concepts. Even then, "applications" were generally associated with a "suite" of programs - such as MS Office.
^^^ this is an application
...iPhone maker has yet to produce "real evidence" that customers have confused it with the App Store....
That obstacle is Apple's inability to produce ?real evidence of actual confusion,?
.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Yep, "Apple Word" software would not actually confuse.
I bet when they finally decided on App Store they were a bit nervous but hey, this was back in mid 2008 and there wasn't anybody else with a functioning App Store to get confused with.
I'm not sure what they were thinking.
SalesForce already had an app store in 2006.
Its release received press coverage here, here, here, here and probably other places as well.
Yep, "Apple Word" software would not actually confuse.
If you do not undersrand trademark law, you should try to refrain from posting on matters that pertain to trademark law.
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon every again if they win this suit.
It's all so childish. Just think up an original name for cripes sake. Is it that hard?
The fact that they don't want to think up an original name is pretty much proof of Apple's claim IMO. If they weren't trafficking on the goodwill already established by Apple with the name, then any other name would do just as well. But any other name *wouldn't* do as well, because it doesn't have the same impact as copying Apple's already well-known moniker.
I dunno that I'd boycott Amazon just because Apple's lawyers didn't make their case. I don't even think Apple trademarked the term. And no, nobody is going to confuse Amazon's App Store for Apple's. How many people went to the Amazon App Store, bought an app, then demanded their money back when they realized they couldn't load it onto their iPhone? I'm guessing...no one.
And if the judge denied Apple this then I believe the patent laws are useless too.
And this case may be cited by others not to care about infringing on trade marks and she has also open a can of worms.
Good luck judge Phyllis.
Apple's customers I don't think are at risk of being confused.
I'm not sure what they were thinking.
SalesForce already had an app store in 2006.
Its release received press coverage here, here, here, here and probably other places as well.
Amusingly that actually strengthens Apple's case that the name wasn't generic in 2006. Look at the Salesforce press release. They're calling their offering AppStore - so capitalized. They never refer to their offering as 'an app store' or an 'appstore' which would imply the term is a generic. Their release is full of statements like 'AppStore will do BLAH', and nowhere do you see 'our AppStore' or 'this AppStore'.
Salesforce actually gave the TM to Apple - http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/mac...k-history/1063. So they're not a competitor for it.
In order to show that the term is generic you need to find significant amounts of writing or speech where it is used, but not as a proper noun.
A lot of us probably wrongly assume much of what we discuss here in the forums is common knowledge.
I think that's the problem with having such a generic trademark.
However when the terms "app", "store" and the combination "app store" were all in use before the iOS App Store, it's harder to believe that people will think Amazon is selling apps for iOS.
Apple should have had the foresight to call it the iStore or something they could really own.
I do think Amazon are only using "Appstore" because Apple made it popular. I'm not sure how Apple prove that though.
Please show when App Store has been used for a mobile application distribution platform?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mobile_devices
App Store - Apple July 10th 2008
Amazon Appstore - Amazon March 2011
If you do not undersrand trademark law, you should try to refrain from posting on matters that pertain to trademark law.
As an Apple fan, it's my conclusion that Apple's attorneys "undersrand [sic} trademark law". If it's your perspective that they don't, as an Apple hater, you're the one posting on the wrong site. The trademark was registered properly and then the "App Store" was successfully promoted through "there is an app for that" advertising. Now other companies want to capitalize on that champaign. That is simple and sensible to me. Perhaps there is a "The Container Store" forum for you to check out.
The judge stated she was troubled by Apple's inability to produce evidence that anyone is confused by it; so unless they can produce that evidence she's pretty much told them it's over.
i, for one, don't understand the confusion.
i've always associated the name 'AppStore' or 'App Store' with apple. i don't care how it's spelled.
As an Apple fan, it's my conclusion that Apple's attorneys "undersrand [sic} trademark law". If it's your perspective that they don't, as an Apple hater, you're the one posting on the wrong site. The trademark was registered properly and then the "App Store" was successfully promoted through "there is an app for that" advertising. Now other companies want to capitalize on that champaign. That is simple and sensible to me. Perhaps there is a "The Container Store" forum for you to check out.
and the whole its not an App it's a Super App advertising confuses me because as far as I can tell the examples they use are not exclusive to a given platform - so how does that distinguish your platform from others? or does it just reinforce beliefs held by those with no direct experience with Apple products?
On the other hand - although there is overlap in cases such as Angry Birds being offered for multiple platforms - I don't see how anyone could easily be confused - has even a single person complained to Amazon that an app purchased there failed to run on their iOS device or a single person complained to Apple that an app purchased there failed to run on the Android or Windows device?
And if the mark is so important - why does iTunes still say "iTunes Store" and not "App Store" ? because it includes more than just apps? well then how about two links - one for Apps and another for everything else? I would like to be abel to more easily launch into Apps only store using iTunes.
Amazon should realise that there are a lot of people who won't buy anything from Amazon ever again if they win this suit.
Yes, I'm sure Amazon's lawyers are already preparing the bankruptcy paperwork after realizing how much money they're going to lose from irate iOS users if/when they win the case.