Microsoft Fights Apple Trademark On 'App Store'

angry tapir writes "Microsoft is asking the US Patent and Trademark Office to deny Apple a trademark on the name 'App Store,' saying the term is generic and competitors should be able to use it. Apple applied for the trademark in 2008 for goods and services including 'retail store services featuring computer software provided via the internet and other computer and electronic communication networks' and other related offerings."

Comments

Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[mysidia]

Pretty sure Sales Force came first.

Back in 2006, when the iPhone was but a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye. And now there are lots of 'app stores'; including Apple's, but also including the Android app store, and others.

So... where is Apple's eligibility for using this descriptive non-creative name as a trademark, if they do not have exclusive use, first use, or even most famous use in commerce?

As far as I'm concerned, Apple's product is the iTunes App Store, which is specific and famous, but App Store is generic, and used by many organization's before and after Apple.

Actually.. when I think of "App Store", the first thing that comes to mind for most people is the Android App Store. If anyone should be awarded the trademark (and they should not), it should be Google.

Re:Apple was not first user of name 'App Store'

[BasilBrush]

Pretty sure Sales Force [programmableweb.com] came first.

Almost the same. "AppStore" rather than App Store.

But here's the thing, Sales Force DID trademark it, but it was listed as a dead patent by 2008, presumably because their "vision" didn't turn into something actual or successful. Also, before them Sage had the trademark in 2000, but that was listed as dead within the year.

Where's Apple's eligibility? Well they are the ones that applied to use a trademark which wasn't currently in use by anyone else. Same reason Sales Force could trademark it.

And what's this nonsense about not even the most famous use? Of course Apple's use of "App Store" is the most famous.

And the Android thing is "Android Marketplace", not app store. Even if it was App Store, how the hell would that mean Google would get the trademark rather than Apple, given that Apple's App Store was already open when Android's marketplace came along. You're talking complete shit.

Re:Windows

[kimvette]

"Settled out of court" translated to normal English really means "We would win against evil Microsoft if we had the funds to take this to the end, but sadly their lawyers are bleeding us dry with continual delays so we accepted their offer to settle."

Re:Windows

[node 3]

That's not how genericity of a trademark works. If Microsoft were in the business of selling large crystal panes that you can attach to walls to see through them, then yes, it couldn't call them "windows", because you're using the generic word for that product.

They don't sell "Windows: n. 1. transparent glass panes", but "Windows: n. 2. Primary graphical representations in a windowed GUI system".

Re:Windows

[BasilBrush]

Is it? Then show me what mobile device company was using "App Store" before Apple did.

e.g. Nokia used "Software Marketplace"
Microsoft used marketplace too. "Windows Mobile Marketplace" etc.
Android uses "Android Market".

App Store seems like the obvious thing to call it now, because Apple have been so successful with it. But other companies were not wanting to use it till Apple got there first.

Re:Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

The frames around an application's UI, that you can move around and such? Those were called "windows" in the trade press before Microsoft wrote their OS. A bit ago Microsoft sued Lindows claiming "Lindows" was too close to their "Windows" trademark. They dropped the suit when the judge said that the Lindows legal team had introduced enough evidence to call into question Microsoft's claim on the Windows trademark, and opted instead to buy the Lindows trademark for $20 million (the Lindows software is now called Linspire).

Still feeling quite so sure of your superiority to the OP?

Re:To be fair

[Andy Smith]

"Apple is trademark happy -- snapping up all i*, and *pod names, including established names like podcast "

Isn't podcast derived from iPod? A downloadable broadcast that people listen to on their iPod. That would give Apple a good claim to the term.

Re:Windows

[Fzz]

Yes but there also was no Windowed GUI system in common use before Windows came out

Windows 1.0 came out in 1985.

It's predated by Xerox Star, the Apple Macintosh, Sun's SunView, the W Window System from Stanford, and early releases of the X indow System. Probably a bunch more too - Symbolics comes to mind. Of those, the Mac and SunView at the very least were widely used.

Microsoft, as usual, were late to the party.

Re:Windows

[TheRaven64]

That's not the word that they chose at Xerox, because they were concerned with the user perception, not the implementation. In implementation, they were just reserved regions of the frame buffer (Smalltalk-76 didn't support overlapping windows), but in terms of user interaction they were things that you looked through into your document - windows. This is why they called them windows (instances of the Window class in Smalltalk-76 and Smalltalk-80). This was almost a decade before MS Windows 1.0 (which also didn't support overlapping windows) was released.

Re:Windows

[jspayne]

Well, I don't know if there are enough pixels there to make that distinction, but this page makes it pretty clear that Internet Explorer is a registered trademark:

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx