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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.