Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
At least you can't say that Apple doesn't learn from their own mistakes.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
An oblong table? Any idiot could think of that. But an oblong table with stools and screens nearby? That's the genius of Apple.
*Not* a patent. This is a trademark.
No ... no patent was asked for, and none was given.
They trademarked (not patented) a particular set of features, which is fairly common. It only prevents people in the same trade from incorporating the same combination of distinctive features and leaves the enforcement up to Apple's expense to detect and pursue.
Car examples:
Much like Jeep trademarking vehicle's with a "7 vertical slot grill between a pair of round headlights" or Harley Davidson trademarking the sound of their V-twin motorcycles.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
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
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
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.
This has nothing to do with patents. The title of the submission even says "trademark" quite clearly. Are you illiterate?
No, they didn't patent anything. They did obtain a trademark, though. Something completely different. You failed at reading comprehension in school, didn't you?
But Microsoft trademarked their store design too, and had it granted in 2011. This looks much like return fire, and not an opening shot.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85194406&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
This sounds like one of those patents
It's not a patent.
Apple Granted Trademark For Its Stores
*facepalm*
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Apple copied every other fucking phone maker before that enough with apple fan boy propaganda. The Design is NOT new.
Nor does it "grant" them. It registers them. They are created by use.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Note that coffee shops are not in the same "trade" as an Apple store, so they are not impacted.
Now, if Apple had requested a servicemark instead of a trademark, that would be a different story ... but a service mark is much harder to get.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Unless those bar/pub's are retailing computers/tablets/phones (who knows, maybe they are), they are not in the same "trade" as an Apple store and would not be affected.
Trademarks are specific to a single trade.
Servicemarks are broader, but also much more difficult to acquire.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
The summary gives the impression this is a patent, but the /. article title says trademark. Actually, according to the linked USPTO file, it's a service mark.
I had once considered applying for a registered trademark for the FreeDOS Project, just to protect the name. To be clear, a registered trademark is R not TM. But the Apple file is a service mark, or SM. To simplify, a SM is basically the same as a TM, but the understanding is a SM will be for a short term use, for various definitions of "short term" (usually a SM is applied to an advertising slogan, like Walmart's "Save money. Live better.")
First of all, to apply for either mark in the US, you need to pay a fee to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). But even if you file, there is the issue of diligence. If there's a violation (someone uses that trademark or service mark without permission) the mark holder fails to prosecute or take action, the mark can be found in a court to be unprotected and open for use. There are other ways to lose a mark as well.
However, it is not necessary to register a mark with the USPTO in order to claim it as a trademark or service mark. The USPTO says any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the "TM" (trademark) or "SM" (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO.
Owning a mark registration on the Principal Register does give you several things:
So really what Apple is doing here is registering the layout and design of their store as a service mark (an identity) so that if someone else comes along and uses the same layout and design, Apple can make a stronger case to sue them. The legal theory is that you could have looked up the service mark to see if someone else was using it so it's harder to defend yourself if you are found to be infringing. Not impossible to defend, just harder.
Companies do this kind of thing all the time. It just doesn't usually hit the news. Coke has a registered mark on the shape their bottle, for example.
This isn't an Apple patent, it's not an abuse of the patent system. It's just a service mark.
In terms of store layout and design, of course. Naturally. Any other questions?
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.
To be truthful, the Apple store in the mall near my house is very similar to the Microsoft store located on the floor above it. I don't think they copied each other, it's just the most obvious and easy way to sell almost-identical products.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
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.
When has that ever stopped Apple?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademark
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Seriously? 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.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Now, if Apple had requested a servicemark instead of a trademark, that would be a different story ... but a service mark is much harder to get.
How much harder exactly? Because they got one:
Owner Name: Apple Inc.
Legal Entity Type: CORPORATION
...
US Serial Number: 85036990
US Registration Number: 4277914
Register: Principal
Mark Type: Service Mark
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85036990&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
look exactly the same...
According this service mark, no, they don't, so there shouldn't be any conflicts. As the service mark says, it must be considered in whole, not in part, and the Microsoft stores do not demonstrate all of the aspects detailed in Apple's service mark.
Moreover, if they did demonstrate everything in Apple's service mark, wouldn't that be a compelling argument for why Apple should be filing this sort of paperwork in the first place? After all, they have a brand to protect, and part of that is ensuring that others can't mislead customers into confusing their brand with another. It's fairly obvious that Microsoft's retail stores have drawn quite a bit of inspiration from Apple's, but a lot of other stores have outright ripped off Apple (e.g. the fake Apple stores in China, as well as some apparently-less-than-reputable Apple dealers).
Of course, this service mark won't stop everything that has an Apple air about it from being used. For instance, it wouldn't have done anything to prevent Samsung from using iOS app icons in their retail store.
Courts aren't stupid.
Citation?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
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.
You must be new here. You don't exactly expect people to RTFA do you?
One thing I've learned since my first computer (Vic-20) is never bet against Apple. Or at least don't make stupid predictions about them. Comments like "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." were lame at the time and on the wrong side of history.
Or boycott Google for selling ads as a business model? To each his own. Enjoy your Chromebook. Unlike you, I'm not going to go around telling people what they should like and I'll just keep using this MacBook Pro Retina display at 6x the cost of your Chromebook.
Steve was a shrewd business man, a smart man, a genius, a visionary he was not. He was just able to play the heartless CEO game with the best.
Come on ... almost no-one (if anyone) has even the first point ...
It's a specific arrangement of vertical glass panels from floor to door height across the full frontage of the store and supplemented by horizontal glass panels from top of the door to the ceiling and 2 narrow panels either side of the store front.
Cantilevered shelves along the walls are pretty rare. Flush-mounted video screen less so and tables are pretty much the common one (although they need to running solely front to back which is quite a bit less common).
And other items include the VERY specific lighting which is extremely uncommon.
As pointed out, it is the COMBINATION of 6-8 very specific things ... not just having any type of glass front, tables, video screens and shelves which would be stupidly generic.
Apple copied every other fucking phone maker before that enough with apple fan boy propaganda. The Design is NOT new.
I don't know about their phone, but I know the design of their stores isn't unique. I was eating at lunch counters while sitting on a stool. It even had a multi-media device (you did have to put a nickle in it, though). And they had blinds because the sun would shine through the front glass window. Granted, back then, our "pads" were usually yellow with lines on them but they did have a #2 stylus for work that you wanted to be read-writable or for write-once you had a choice of pen computing in either blue, black or red.
Are you kidding? I own an iPhone, but it is NOT an original design. Rectangular with rounded edges and a large screen? Don't forget that "iPhone" was a Cisco trademark that Apple stole from them after licensing agreements fell apart.
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.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
I wonder if they've also accidentally given Microsoft a perpetual license to the look-and-feel of their stores?
I doubt it reading the summary suggests that this might be Apple's revenge:
Apple has requested that no store be allowed to replicate various features, including 'a clear glass storefront surrounded by a panelled facade'
In other words they have managed to trademark windows! ;-)
I've never seen a coffee shop that would be confused with an Apple store. You do know that's the idea behind trademarks, right? To protect a brand by not confusing customers as to who they're doing business with, who made a product, etc?
You can have a restaurant with the letter M in it; just don't make it look too much like the Golden Arches and you won't have a problem with McDonalds.
He did have the advantage of being rich enough to buy medical treatment and a transplant organ that most people in his situation could expect. Even with all that, he wasn't particularly far outside the statistical norms.
In any case, whether Steve Jobs possessed amazing marketing/business acumen, or just a cult of personality, Apple's fortunes seem to have risen and fallen based on whether or not he was at the helm. As he's no longer at the helm, Apple could potentially be in trouble in the mid to long term. They could always bring back Gil Amelio...
Apple stores do have a distinctive look
Yep they don't look like any store, they look like every mobile phone store in most countries.
All of that is true, but what is the trade this trademark is applied to? It is not computers and technology. The trade in question is a storefront, so technically, any retail store front that has those features come into conflict with the trademark regardless of whether they sell computers or not.
Retail store services featuring computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and related accessories, and demonstration of products relating thereto
But, you just descirbed Best Buy and almost any electronic boutique. I am prety sure that if somebody opens a juice bar (maybe calling it the Orange Store) and designs it to look like an Apple Store, Apple will enforce there trademark (or try to) even though Orange Julius doesn't sell computers or electronics.
Trademark enforcement goes a lot further than the actual product or trade it was given for. McDonalds agressively went after other businesses named MacDonalds, even though that was the name of the family run business. Mars (M&M) went after plenty of unrelated businesses over the use of their trademark. Trademarks are about protecting corporate identity (such as the apple on Apple computers). It protects the corporation from others using their identity in their own products and services. Trademarking a retail layout in a store goes far beyond what that store may or may not be selling.
It's cool if you're not familiar with Soma architecture, no big deal unless you live there. But don't go posting poorly-researched links attempting to show off knowledge you don't have.
The first link, a restaurant, actually does look somewhat similar to Apple's style tho less shiny. Second one isn't even a coffee shop. Third one does illustrate the danger of sweeping generalizations like "every coffee shop" - Soma also includes a fair number of places whose architecture might best be described as "greasy spoon shithole".
The last link was, I think, Sightglass coffee. Their shop on the whole has a minimal mod look that feels similar to the Apple store, tho with a stronger industrial flavor. However Sightglass significantly postdates the Apple store. You need to research what was in Soma a decade ago.