If App Store's Trademark Is Generic, So Is Windows'

Toe, The writes "In response to Microsoft's attempt to dismiss Apple's 'App Store' trademark application, Apple references Microsoft's claim to the Windows trademark. 'Having itself faced a decades-long genericness challenge to its claimed WINDOWS mark, Microsoft should be well aware that the focus in evaluating genericness is on the mark as a whole and requires a fact-intensive assessment of the primary significance of the term to a substantial majority of the relevant public.'"

Comments

Re:Secondary Meaning

[andrea.sartori]

On the other hand, "Apple" implies a fruit of the apple tree (Malus domestica L.), generally used for the purpose of nourishment.
Ok, trolling, I just couldn't resist. And I see your point.
However it always surprises me when people (Apple, Microsoft, you name it) waste time in scolding each other on such trivialities. (To anybody who is going to say trademarks are not trivialities as lots of money are involved etc... I am aware of all that. I just find it all meaningless.)

Re:Are they kidding?

[bunratty]

But Microsoft does sue companies that make products with names similar to Windows. They sued Lindows. If Microsoft can successfully sue over the Windows trademark, why can't Apple successfully sue over the App Store trademark?

Re:It's still different

[halber_mensch]

"App Store" by itself is inherently generic. It literally just means "place where apps are sold." Trademarking it is as ridiculous as trademarking "shoe store" or "electronics store." Windows, used in the context of a computer product, is not generic. Rather, it's a specific, well-known product.

"Window" is a graphical user environment concept, predating MS Windows by a good many years. X Windows predates Microsoft Windows by one year. Microsoft trademarking the term "Windows" forced the X Consortium to change the name to "X Window System". Pot, kettle, dark color, etc.