Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sues Amazon.com Over App Store Trademark
tekgoblin writes "Apple is suing Amazon.com over the use of Apple's trademarked App Store name in their mobile software developer program. Apple filed the suit back on March 18th, which detailed the trademark infringement and unfair competition which Apple felt was happening. Apple's statement in the suit reads: 'Amazon has begun improperly using Apple's App Store mark in connection with Amazon's mobile software developer program.' Apple also said, 'We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers.'"
hey Amazon, want to reconsider that one-click patent?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Seriously, they added "store" to a word we've been using in the industry for decades. Surely there's no merit in this...
The term "application shop" was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995.
You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.
What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive as far as UK registration eligibility goes.
Frankly, I'm surprised you can recall your birth experience so vividly.
Apple's stance has little ground. "App" is not specific to a brand, it's not specific to an operating system, it's not specific to a class of hardware. "App" is short for application, that's all. Any computer program is an app. It's a completely generic term.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Then don't name it something obvious and generic. App Store is a short name for "Application Store" which is the very definition of the service they provide. They essentially named it The "App Store" Application Store. It's like naming something the "Oil Comp" Oil Company, or the "Soft. development" Software development company. They are using a generic term, so fuck them. Be more creative and stop trying to ban language.
Google did the same shit, they named theirs "Market". I mean, come on!. What is it? A Market. Who owns it? Google. What is it called? Google Market TM. FUCK THAT. Call it SuckingCocksthroughagardenhose TM or Bazinga TM and then we'll all support you when someone tries to infringe on your trademark. Actually, if you call it something original, no reasonable company will try to infringe on your trademark.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
There's an App for that!
I'm going to go trademark "grocery store" now. Piss off, Apple!
Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced. Apple may very well think suing Amazon over this is as stupid as everyone else, but the law says they have to do it anyway, else lose their rights to the trademark altogether.
I'm assuming from all the litigation against competitors by large U.S. technology/software firms, it is cheaper and easier for them to sue than to come up with new products and ideas for their customers.
The "App Store" (TM) application store by Apple is trademarked. The trademark is 3 years old now, and hasn't seen any real enforcement. Of course, we all know it's a non-unique descriptive that is, by trademark rules, untrademarkable (like "Windows" (TM) to refer to an operating system distinguished because applications run in windows, when the phrase "windows" to refer to the method of display pre-dates the OS in question).
So, either Amazon doesn't know Apple has an App Store (TM) that they were infringing against, or they did know, recognize it's invalid, and purposefully infringed it to start the legal battle to strip Apple of the trademark that should never have been awarded in the first place. I'm guessing they aren't that stupid. And the pros hint that if Microsoft ever tried to enforce their Windows trademark, that they'd fail as well. So it seems to be a good time to get in the trademark challenges if you want to. I always wonder how the Stealth (TM) guy is doing. Last I heard, he's still suing everyone.
Learn to love Alaska
Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
and some judge breaks it off in Apple's rear end for wasting his time with a frivolous lawsuit
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Barney Frank, is that you? Thanks for causing the housing market crash, you jackass.
Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.
Oh, well played!
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
They should lose their trademark altogether. That's the point. It's already too generic.
Colonel Store best hope he doesn't get promoted then.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
'Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced."
Too bad Apple is SEVERAL years late to the game.
http://www.salesforce.com/company/news-press/press-releases/2006/12/061212-1.jsp
Trademark made INVALID as it has existed in that particular ecosystem well before Apple filed.
Hey, Jobs, tell your lawyers to back off before I fuck up yet a FOURTH lawsuit for you in my amicus.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This is not about the word app -- it's about the phrase App Store (or appstore, or any permutation involving spaces between the two words and capitalization).
Modifying your own query, we get zero results for "app store" in the given date range, but 18,000+ results if we're not date-restricted.
This is not the first time a company has trademarked or otherwise branded a simple phrase. What if Budweiser used, "Good to the last drop" as their motto (it's Maxwell House's motto)?
Personally, I do think Apple's being pretty juvenile, but they were the first ones to use the phrase App Store with real success.
In related news, Apple has sued the Sunnyside Day Care pre-school for allowing one Benjamin Turner, age 4, to bite into an apple in such a way as to result in a mark that too closely resembles Apple's trademarked logo. Apple states that they are "in favor" of children eating healthy snacks, particularly apples, but that they are compelled to protect their intellectual property, lest another child mistakes Turner's apple for Apple's logo and attempts to eat the industry giant's products, website or marketing materials. Turner was napping and unavailable for comment.
Amazon is calling theirs the Amazon "appstore". One word. Lower case.
Apple's is the Apple "App Store". Two words. Capitalized.
How can there be any confusion?
Agreed. But they're still going to fight for it. Clearly it's worth it to them financially speaking.
To the best of my knowledge, the first time I heard anyone refer to an "app" was programmers referring to executables on the original Mac OS. All files had a type and creator code; for programs the type was "appl". The "l" was awkward to pronounce, so they were just called "apps".
Stick to giving eachother AIDS, fags.
Why don't you run on back to 4chan before your Mom finds out you're using the computer again.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
This is not about the word app -- it's about the phrase App Store (or appstore, or any permutation involving spaces between the two words and capitalization).
A phrase that Apple is not the first user of in commerce.. in other words, that Apple does not have exclusive use of.
Salesforce.com used it first back in 2006 to refer to a product,
Since we can trademark our stores based on what we sell, I'm off to trademark hardware store, clothing store, electronics store, video game store, grocery store, and music store.
Clearly it's worth it to them financially speaking.
Why do you say that it's "worth it"? "App Store" is just a name. Amazon (or Apple) could use another name instead that would be less generic.
Unfortunately, you're confused between patents and trademarks. Prior art can make patents invalid after being granted. But prior use does not make trademarks invalid once they've been granted.
The prior use of "AppStore" as an unregistered trademark by SalesForce.com gives SalesForce.com the right to continue using the mark. But it doesn't invalidate Apples's registered trademark, nor does it in any way give Amazon the right to use the mark.
Windows. Sun. Photoshop. Illustrator. Red Hat. Android.
All anticompetitive?
None of those are similar to 'app store' and the current lawsuit because they're not self descriptive. Facebook is the closest though, but if they sue someone making, lets say Anonymous Coward's face book, they will be laughed out of court because such use precedes the trademark. Microsoft can't sue people using the 'word' to describe words, only if someone makes word processors with that name. The problem isn't that 'app store' is generic, but that it describes itself without Apple even entering into the picture. You cannot trademark words like Television and then sue people calling their product a television. On the other surely you can use the word 'Television' to sell apples in the supermarket and trademark it for fruit. Adobe cannot sue shops that sell photos for calling themselves a photo shop, which is similar to what Apple is trying to do here.
This space for rent.
But Salesforce.com didn't register it as a trademark. The prior use means that Salesforce.com can continue using "AppStore" as a mark. But it doesn't invalidate Apple's registered trademark. Apple still has the right (and the duty if they want to keep their trademark live) to prevent companies other than Salesforce.com using the mark.
Well, Ubuntu is a windows-based operating system, in that all programs/applications and even configuration can (nominally) be done through boxes on the screen which can be dragged around, resized, minimized, etc.
;) (someone's probably gonna drag up a Lindows reference...)
Maybe this only works because no one wants to say they're windows-based in the first place
Actually, I'm sure there's a market in Silicon Valley for an appetizer joint that brands itself as an App Store (or App Place, or something that takes a jab at Apple). It would be great to be a waiter there...no substitutions or user requests! (Now I'm thinking of a Sony-themed restaurant...they take away your food half way through your meal...)
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.1
Owner (APPLICANT) salesforce.com, inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE The Landmark @ One Market Street #300 San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94105
Filing Date June 14, 2006
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Abandonment Date December 5, 2008
Sorry, your example did not enforce their mark and lost it.
While Apple can not sue salesforce for their use of AppStore, salesforce no longer counts as prior usage in the eyes of the trademark office.
Apple suing Amazon right now is a requirement if Apple does not want their current existing active mark to do the same.
There was even an older mark on the term back in 1998, abandoned in 2000.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:1s4tir.3.2
But bad news, that doesn't count either :P
This is the exact reason there is no burger king (the chain) in Mattoon, Illinois
Would you bet a large sum of your own money that apple will lose the suit? yea, I thought so.
I see everyone getting spun up about it being too generic.
Well if that is the case why don't one of you man up and and create a social networking site called face book. I mean come on, face and book are two very generic terms, nobody will care if you put a little space in there and call it face book.
Got Code?
Abandoned in one field typically means it can't be held as a trademark in that field by anybody else.
See 'i' anything, which cannot ever be legally enforced due to the sheer proliferation by force.
Good day.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Store" is not trademarked. "App Store" is. It's a bit generic, but not too generic, especially considering it's the only mobile store with that name. Apple is acting like a business should. Amazon should change the name. Amazon chose that name on purpose, so that people searching for app store will find out about theirs. Amazon is the one being an asshole.
No, I'm not an Apple fanboy, in fact I really don't like them. (I have a tmobile mytouch 3g, which unfortunately looks like it will become at+t now :( )
But they are absolutely in the right here.
Apple's trademark consists of "App Store", two capitalizations and a space while Amazon uses "appstore" as one word without a space no capitalization. It's obviously Amazon's.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
They got to spend all those hard-earned dollars somewhere. :P
You do know Apple have been going a lot longer than 97, right? The first time I came across 'application' being used was on the Mac platform, then it spread to most GUI platforms shortly afterwards (GEM, Windows).
There may or may not have been an earlier use, but that actually is the first time I came across it. I'd be interested to see if there's any use of it which predates the 80s, because until then I'd heard things referred to has as 'programs' or 'systems' but never 'applications'. It honestly doesn't strike me as likely that Apple invented it, but I never came across it anywhere else and if someone knows otherwise I'd genuinely like to hear.
Cheers,
Ian
But I'm already confused - why is the Beatles record label concerned about software on smartphones?
Isn't "App Store" the functional equivalent of "Flower Shop", "Fruit Stand", or "Gas Station"? [what we sell] [synonym for merchant establishment].
Should never have been granted a trademark on the name.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
That clearly depends on whether you have to clean it out of your keyboard after.
which is totally what she said
Won't happen, not because of this. The most they can do is force Amazon to stop calling it the App Store.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Actually, since 'shop is an abbreviation of workshop, Photoshop == Photo Workshop, which is pretty descriptive IMO.
which is totally what she said
It's all about "app". If "app" is a generic word meaning software application (and it is), then Apple can't lay claim to "App Store" any more than Budweiser can lay claim to Beer Store or McDonalds can lay claim to Hamburger Store.
Being descriptive alone is not and should not be the only metric. Even if it is a little descriptive, they grant trademarks because companies want people associate the product with the brand. The problem comes when companies turn around and sue descriptive uses of the name, like in this case. As I said, Adobe cannot sue someone for naming their store that sells photos as Joe's Photo Shop
This space for rent.
The people who registered `Windows' think `App Store' is unworthy of a trademark registration?
I refuse to believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. -- desert rain on http://www.dailykos.com/user/
They got to spend all those hard-earned dollars somewhere. :P
They're legally required to maximize shareholder value. That means either spending the money efficiently on profitmaking, or returning the money to sharholders.
They're being sued by Apple.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Although i$DEVICE users are supposed to have the attitude of "I just want to use it, not tinker with it", doesn't anyone find it patronizing that Apple assumes its users are so dumb as rocks as to not recognize that, Yes Virginia,
-there are other phones besides the iPhone, and so consequently
-there must be app[lications] for those phones, and
-there must be app[lication] stores for those phones?
Or are Apple users so solipsistic that they can't even begin to conceive of a phone that doesn't wear a black turtleneck?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
If anything comes out of your ass and hits your keyboard, you're doing it wrong. Regardless of what "it" is.
Remember to maintain your supply of
What if you're trying to fire a rocket out of your ass, and using your keyboard as a target?
Suddenly, I'm reminded of Jackass 3D.. it involved a blow dart, and a balloon..
which is totally what she said
Apple must also think all of their users have Android devices, because that's the only way any of their users could get confused - Amazon's store is Android-only...