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.
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!
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.
Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.
You can call your operating System
"Apple" which is a fruit
"Macintosh" which is a surname
OS which is short for "Operating System"
X which is means "10" or is a letter
"Snow leopard" which is an animal.
If you wanted to. But then you can't sue the local greengrocer can you? Linux refers to 'windows' all the times. Its allowed as its clearly not talking about the OS.
Windows is a generic term in certain uses. You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'. You cannot call your OS Windows. That's not the same. You're comparing Apples and Oranges (pardon my pun).
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.
You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'.
You can, but you'd be wrong. The X Window system is not a window, it is a window manager.
They were issued a trademark and trademark law says you must defend your mark or lose it. You can dispute the merits of them being issued the mark, but the law itself compels them into this suit or they lose their mark.
Trade marks aren't awarded. They are claimed, and sometimes registered to strengthen that claim.
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?
So, Apple could call their new operating system Apple Windows?
(Incidentally, "Windows" by itself is a registered trademark.)
Not according to them: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
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.
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.
Apple was not able to use the name McIntosh because it is a trademark associated with what your greengrocer sells. Your greengrocer may have large apples of that variety, but wouldn't describe them as Big Macs.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
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.
Apple didn't sue Woolworths for use. They objected to Woolworths registering the apple logo as a trademark under a description that included electrical goods and technology. Areas where Apple already has an apple logo trademarked.
If Woolworths had just tried to register the trademark for grocery, then Apple wouldn't have objected.
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
So, what you're saying is.. Because 'app store' is a generic term, you wouldn't know, correct?
As this is despite the fact Android calls theirs Android Marketplace etc.
So in summary, because it's a generic term, Apple shouldn't have that trademark.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
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