Apple Granted Trademark For Its Stores

walterbyrd sends this news from ZDNet: "The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office approved Apple's request to trademark the design and layout of its stores last week, according to patent office records. ... Apple has requested that no store be allowed to replicate various features, including 'a clear glass storefront surrounded by a panelled facade' or an 'oblong table with stools... set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall.'"

Comments

I imagine....

[mark-t]

... that if Apple had thought of trying this idea of patenting or trademarking their look 30 years ago, their lawsuit against Microsoft for copying their look and feel could have gone very differently.

At least you can't say that Apple doesn't learn from their own mistakes.

Re:I imagine....

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this prove anything? There's a massive difference between "granting access" to "copying". They were granted access, not gave permission to copy.

Re:I imagine....

[Anonymous Coward]

And it wasn't buying it at the "going rate". The quote even says "at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share".

When a company is still private, the "going rate" is whatever price the company sets their stock at. At the time of this event, Apple's internal stock price was $10 a share, so Xerox was, in fact, buying stock at the "going rate".

A store cannot look like a store?

[Bizzeh]

HMV, Game, Debenhams, JJB, DW, JD... just a few stores i can think of now that have the all glass front, the table and stool layout, currys use it, comet used to use it, asda use it in their electronics departments... seems prior art doesnt count for anything anymore, neither does "your patent cant be completely fucking retarded".

Re:A store cannot look like a store?

[idontgno]

The saving grace is that this was granted by the US PTO. As far as I can tell, it's not directly applicable in the land of all of those retailers, and I hope that maybe the UK IPO has the good sense to say "Fuck right off" to APL.

Well, I can hope, can't I?

Re:A store cannot look like a store?

[msauve]

I'm not familiar with (UK?) stores, but a quick Google shows that Apple stores are distinctively different than Debenahms (I don't see any video screens, and it's much more cluttered), or HMV (I don't see any tables or wall mounted video displays).

Apple stores do have a distinctive look, and I can't fault them for wanting to keep that unique. I don't think they're trying at all to claim the individual features, but the overall architecture created by a combination of features.

Re:A store cannot look like a store?

[Teancum]

Which is why this issuance of a trademark is so utterly silly. A patent and a copyright have time limits in exchange for a monopoly.... you give something to the world in exchange for exclusive rights.

A trademark on the other hand is indefinitely perpetual. In most cases it is a name, and most correctly used as an adjective such as "Apple computers" or "Band-Aid adhesive bandages" as in "I'm going to buy an Apple-brand computer". Trademarking a logo is certainly in the same realm as it is something distinctive which sets that business apart from others in the same trade.

This still smells strongly like a patent though or at least a misapplication of trademarks. I understand that the point is about how the store has a very distinctive look where somebody walking into a store with a similar layout with similar furniture and materials might think they are actually in an Apple store when in fact they are selling something else, like a Mapple computer. Then again, IKEA tried to do the same thing with STØR and was successful on a legal front of defending that trademark.

I still think it is abuse of the concept though. A store layout might be patentable and perhaps even deserves limited protection if it proves to be successful in moving merchandise more efficiently than their competitors. It doesn't deserve to have perpetual protection though. That is why there is confusion here, particularly because the same organization which grants patents is granting this horrible abuse of trademarks.

What in the fuck?

[fnj]

The bowing to the excesses and insanity of capitalism has reached bizarre extremes. This is how little kids act. "Mommy! Jimmy is COPYING me! Make him stop!"

Re:What in the fuck?

[hduff]

The bowing to the excesses and insanity of capitalism has reached bizarre extremes. This is how little kids act. "Mommy! Jimmy is COPYING me! Make him PAY!"

FTFY

Re:What in the fuck?

[fnj]

So somebody should be able to set up an exact replica of an Apple store?

In terms of store layout and design, of course. Naturally. Any other questions?

slapping Apple logos all over the place

Are you daft? That would be outright fraud on the face of it. Even making the sign on the front of the store say "Apple" would be obvious fraud. You don't need trademarks on the GODDAM LAYOUT AND DESIGN OF A STORE to protect against that kind of thing.

Re:What in the fuck?

[mister2au]

You think that their store layout is somehow unique? Except that there are iToys on the tables instead of painted miniatures and dungeon layouts, and the posters on the wall are made with LCD screens instead of paper this is the exact same layout as the game shop down the hill from my house. Well, except that the Apple store doesn't have a carpet full of Doritos crumbs and spilled Mountain Dew.

Yes it is in the context of the trademark application ... Have a read of it

It covers a very specific COMBINATION of Apple's glass frontage design, lighting and shelving NOT THE BASIC LAYOUT ... it is a combination that you would not stumble upon unless you were DELIBERATELY trying to pass yourself off as an Apple store.

Your local games shop is not pretending to be an Apple store (and certainly does not have that specific combination of elements) so is not covered my the trademark - no drama !

Having said that I am certainly no fan of Apple but do understand they want protection against obvious fraudsters who try to pass themselves off Apple stores.

Inaccurate Summary

[Grond]

In this case the trademark is defined by the illustration, which is basically a line drawing of an Apple Store minus the logo. The text in the summary is drawn from the "description of mark" field, which is just a description of the image and does not define the trademark. Further, the summary suggests that Apple is individually claiming trademark protection on various features of its store design ('clear glass storefront...' or an 'oblong table with stools...'). This is not the case. The trademark claims the entire design as a whole.

Re:The USPTO does not "approve" trademarks.

[Desler]

Your post goes over most of their heads. Many don't even know the difference between a patent and trademark.

Re:All Apple news all the time

[zieroh]

I've been visiting Slashdot for quite a number of years now, and I don't agree with this assessment. Slashdot used to be a bunch of cranky Linux / Open Source guys, mixed with some unix graybeards. Now the place is overrun with foaming-at-the-mouth Android fans, intent on berating anything that isn't Android.

I realize that this sounds ridiculous when applied to Slashdot, but truth be told, the quality of discourse around these parts has gone into the shitter in the last two years or so.