Apple sues Amazon over ''App Store'' trademark

No points if you saw this one coming - Apple is suing Amazon, claiming the online retailer is infringing upon the Mac-maker's App Store trademark with its soon-to-be-released Android app store.

Bloomberg reports that in a complaint filed March 18 in federal court in northern California, Apple asked for an order preventing Amazon from using the App Store name, along with unspecified damages.

''Amazon has begun improperly using Apple’s App Store mark in connection with Amazon’s mobile-software developer program,'' the complaint said. The fact that Amazon's offering would also be a mobile-software distribution service also drew Apple's ire.

The complaint also claimed that Amazon has used the App Store trade mark to ''solicit software developers throughout the United States'' as it geared up to launch its mobile software offering. Apple apparently contacted Amazon on three occasions to demand the company stop using the App Store name, with no ''substantive'' response.

Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told Bloomberg Amazon's use of the App Store name would ''confuse and mislead'' customers.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted Apple an application to register ''App Store'' as a trademark in the United States, an action Microsoft opposed and will now take to a trademark appeal board. In January, Microsoft claimed the term ''app store'' was generic and should be available to Apple's competitors.

According to Wired, the Amazon App Store could launch today.

Image Credit: digitaltrends.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Rumour: iOS 4.3.1 within a fortnight

Next Story

Rumour: HTC Pyramid to ship with Android 2.4 in June

98 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What if I open a shoe store and call it Shoe Mart. Registered it as a trade mark and started advertising the crap out of the Shoe Mart brand. Both Shoe and Mart are generic terms.

Now if Joe opens a shoe store across the street from me and calls it Joe's Shoe Mart, I think I'd take him to court on it. I certainly wouldn't ignore it. Even if I sold shoes to girls and he sold shoes to boys. Hmm...maybe I'm taking this analogy too far

Ultimately, we will have to see what the courts decide.

Shadrack said,
What if I open a shoe store and call it Shoe Mart. Registered it as a trade mark and started advertising the crap out of the Shoe Mart brand. Both Shoe and Mart are generic terms.

Now if Joe opens a shoe store across the street from me and calls it Joe's Shoe Mart, I think I'd take him to court on it. I certainly wouldn't ignore it. Even if I sold shoes to girls and he sold shoes to boys. Hmm...maybe I'm taking this analogy too far

Ultimately, we will have to see what the courts decide.

I think you need to use Shoe Store, not Shoe Mart. I think Apple would have had no trouble with App Mart.

App Store being owned by someone would just turn into a cash cow for the owner.

App and Store are to generic to be owned by any one. Plus it would start to set a standard that coule be used for later things.

AppStore
AppThis
AppThis

Would all now possible infringe on the owner of the AppStore.

Has anyone seen the movie Pirates Of Silicon Valley? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im589uTchKs - spped up to 6:48 and listen from there.

Bill Gates tell Steve. Theer may be similarities...all cars have steering wheels, but know one has tried to claim it as their invention. And that si the point. The steering wheel as been define as the only way to safely control a car. There has been no better way of doing it since. It is required in all cars. Ford can't sue any car company for basically COPYING this design. And they ahve never tried. Why?

Maybe for the same reason companies that make tires can't sue another company for making tires. They could only sue on the grounds thsi company makes their tires exactly as we do.

This is where the trademark laws are all BS. What apple is trying to argue is that people will be confused about the App Store. How? Who would be confused about Apple App Store vs Amazon App Store and Microsoft App Store. They are all app stores because they all sell applications. They are defined by the entity that owns them. If a dev releases a new app and he says available at App Store, he simply needs to say which one. Why? Because App Store is as generic as Vanilla Ice Cream. Anyone who doesn't get this and says Apple has an argument is simply stupid. There is no better way to say it. Period.

Department Store - JcPenny and Sears are both Department Stores. If you are a clothing designer and you sell your product at a DEPARTMENT STORE, what store would you be talking about...maybe ALL Department Stores? If you dont specify a department store how owuld we know. This is an easy case to argue. I wish I could be in this court room.

It would take the power of God for me not to call the judge stupid for allowing the trademark in the first place. That judge who allowed it should be taken outside and slap until he gains his senses. Oh wait...judges don't have sense, which is why they have this job in the first place.

Its nice to know that APPLE can't even get a response from Amazon.com. I have contacted Amazon.com many of times, without a response. Ultimately it required a complaint to the Attorney Generals office to get a response from a sales rep in India.

Apple just needs to get over itself. Apple was so stuck on Itunes and IStore; what do they have to worry about. If your an Apple user, than you already know it requires Itunes ACCOUNT to make a purchase.

So stupid, Apple should have trademarked the name.
I can't believe one person at Apple didn't see this coming.

It would be like Coke trying to sue Pepsi over the word "Cola"...

Steve do the world a favor, and retire already.

Regardless if anyone agrees that it should be a trademark, Apple DOES have the trademark. Amazon is definitely in copyright infringement by using an Apple trademark. When I think of App Store (it's not called the Apple App Store), I think of Apple. When I think of Marketplace, I think of Android. Amazon should come up with their own idea that doesn't infringe on someone else's copyright.

^

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted Apple an application to register ''App Store'' as a trademark in the United States, an action Microsoft opposed and will now take to a trademark appeal board. In January, Microsoft claimed the term ''app store'' was generic and should be available to Apple's competitors.

Really? And APP has been used for YEARS before Apple decided that App = Apple. Most people associate App with Application. Apple just has a bug up their ass and their ego and arrogance is getting to big even for them. Lots of other companies were like Apple and had to be put in their place and get a reality check.

patseguin said,
Regardless if anyone agrees that it should be a trademark, Apple DOES have the trademark. Amazon is definitely in copyright infringement by using an Apple trademark. When I think of App Store (it's not called the Apple App Store), I think of Apple. When I think of Marketplace, I think of Android. Amazon should come up with their own idea that doesn't infringe on someone else's copyright.

Please tell me you don't really believe teh BS you just said. Please tell me you don't. Please tell me it was sarcasm. App = Apple? It has never meant that. EVER!!!!

Fanbois will say anything, and yet you get mad if we call you names.
It is better to let people 'THINK' you are stupid, then to open your mouth and 'REMOVE ALL DOUBT'.

Can iPhone/iPod/iPad users even access Amazon's app store? I thought apps can only be acquired through Apple (jailbroken devices not included).

RangerLG said,
Can iPhone/iPod/iPad users even access Amazon's app store? I thought apps can only be acquired through Apple (jailbroken devices not included).
Jailbroken iPhones cant access apps on Amazon either. Because they are only for Android phones. Thus there isn't any room for confusion. If anyone is that confused, they are beyond help in the first place.

To all the ifans who think Apple is right, you obviosly all didn't go to school. The context of usage is what is the backbone of trademarks, before greedy corps started 'paying' for them.

Windows and 'windows' are not the same because it can each be defined to a SPECIFIC product. The key word is SPECIFIC. The reason App can't be specific to a single item is because the word incompasses multiple items. Thus terms like Grocery, Liquor, Food, Fruit or any similar with store behind them can't be defined to a single entity. If you could then anyone with a Grocery Store could sue another for using the same words. Has thsi ever happened? Nooooooo!

For you iFans, Apple is basically saying you are all to stupid to define their app store from another.
The term is easily fixed. Several companies can have a grocery store. So how do you find the one you want? They have a name.

Here is an example. Lets suppose there is a corner somewhere in the USA that has a grocery store on all 4 corners. Now suppose a friends says meet me at the grocery store on that corner, how would you know which one to go to? Bec it has a defined name. One could be, Trish's Grocery Store, Ted's Grocery Store, 7's Grocery Store and The General Grocery Store.

So thus Apple App Store, Microsoft App Store and Amazon App Store are defined by the fact their company name definds them.

Also it is IMPOSSIBLE to advertise an application without defining which device it is for. So if Ravio releases a new Angry Birds which they did and they say available only for iOS, will you be confused as to what that means? if they say its only for Android will you be confused as to what that means.?

For anyone who would be confused, then why do you even have a smartphone? And what I find so funny, is many of you I am sure went to college. I never went to college and I understand this, why can't you? I mean really? I learned word context in 5th grade. Where were you all. I mean really.

I think Apple is just trying to say that they don't believe their customers are smart enough to tell the difference between App Stores....

Magallanes said,
is funny because apple, windows,office and amazon are generic words.

They are not generic within the context of their respective markets. Generic terms would be if Apple was called Computer Hardware Company, and Windows was called Operating System and Amazon was called Online Shopping Site.

And Apple claiming that the presence of other app stores is confusing is pure rubbish when they use the word "app" to mean different things: Apple in the term "app store" (supposedly) and application whenever they say "there's an app for that." Are they really saying "there's an Apple for that"? Isn't that more confusing?

The trademark should definitely be revoked. You shouldn't be able to trademark the generic name for what your product is. It would be like if Ford trademarked the terms Car and Truck...

JonathanMarston said,

And Apple claiming that the presence of other app stores is confusing is pure rubbish when they use the word "app" to mean different things: Apple in the term "app store" (supposedly) and application whenever they say "there's an app for that." Are they really saying "there's an Apple for that"? Isn't that more confusing?

I Agree, the only confusion is that when someone says APPSTORE apple want you to think of them and no one else.
If you said appstore and you knew immediately without a shadow of a doubt you were talking about apple, then there maybe an argument.
The issue here is that apple want this trade mark to make it so there is no confusion.

If anything this should be thrown out, the reason its not clear is that its a generic term used by multiple providers.

Once again ... sheeesh but... even MS in the fight!! I have not followed the Android thing but as for Apple vs MS... Apple has a application folder .. MS has a programs folder.. that being said then why is MS in the mix?? They have progs not apps

If App Store is generic then why don't the competitiors use something else which is generic?

The reason they all want to use App Store is to piggyback on the popularity/brand awareness that Apple has given that name in the first place. They patented the name and it was accepted so the other companies should just move on and create their own 'brand' for a software distribution channel..

DomZ said,
If App Store is generic then why don't the competitiors use something else which is generic?

The reason they all want to use App Store is to piggyback on the popularity/brand awareness that Apple has given that name in the first place. They patented the name and it was accepted so the other companies should just move on and create their own 'brand' for a software distribution channel..

They do, ever heard of the Android Market or Windows/Windows Phone Marketplace.

Microsoft aren't happy with Apple trademarking App Store as shorthand for Apple Store when App is more commonly known as shorthand for Application.

DomZ said,
If App Store is generic then why don't the competitiors use something else which is generic?

The reason they all want to use App Store is to piggyback on the popularity/brand awareness that Apple has given that name in the first place. They patented the name and it was accepted so the other companies should just move on and create their own 'brand' for a software distribution channel..

Well have you got an short words for application ? That's what they are, Applications.

If the Nintendo made Games popular then shouldn't they be the only ones to use that name ? Leaving Sega, playstation and Xbox to use something else ?

DomZ said,
If App Store is generic then why don't the competitiors use something else which is generic?
Analogy time: if table is the generic name for a table, why should I not call it a table?

Meh, I think this is stupid, and Apple needs to grow up a little.
But personally, I prefer Android Marketplace, over 'App Store,' simply because when I think of a 'Marketplace,' a vast shopping center comes to mind with more than you can fathom of items to choose from. When I think of 'Store,' I just envision a little store, with a mediocre selection, and nothing to write home about.

...Which TBH seems about right.
My 2 cents.

App Store = A Store that sells Applicationss. How much more generic can you get.

Nobody in their right mind agrees that App is actually short for Apple, so I hope this case gets thrown out straight away and their "trademark" gets invalidated.

TCLN Ryster said,
App Store = A Store that sells Applicationss. How much more generic can you get.

Nobody in their right mind agrees that App is actually short for Apple, so I hope this case gets thrown out straight away and their "trademark" gets invalidated.

I'm guessing you guys don't remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft Even if the trademark is stupid, once you own it, not much people can do about it.

One more exemple: http://www.geekosystem.com/wiffle-ball-trademark-yellow/

TCLN Ryster said,
App Store = A Store that sells Applicationss. How much more generic can you get.

Nobody in their right mind agrees that App is actually short for Apple, so I hope this case gets thrown out straight away and their "trademark" gets invalidated.

Couldn't agree more. "App" is even in the dictionary. This is as ridiculous as a computer manufacturer trademarking "personal computer".

LeGourmand said,
I'm guessing you guys don't remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft Even if the trademark is stupid, once you own it, not much people can do about it.
Now I know you're not saying the Microsoft trademark is stupid, even though you just did.

It's hardly difficult to see the reasoning behind the MikeRoweSoft issue: if you say you got something from MikeRoweSoft ... that sounds exactly like Microsoft.

Also not an example of a silly trademark. Just like if I decided to market chocolate bars using the exact color Cadbury use, or other examples where the colour of the item is very much its brand identity. Remember, trademarks are pretty much limited to the area where they're used. You could certainly still use that shade of yellow on other items.

floopy said,

Couldn't agree more. "App" is even in the dictionary. This is as ridiculous as a computer manufacturer trademarking "personal computer".

Apple even use the .app file extension for applications on OS X!!!

LeGourmand said,

I'm guessing you guys don't remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft Even if the trademark is stupid, once you own it, not much people can do about it.

One more exemple: http://www.geekosystem.com/wiffle-ball-trademark-yellow/

How do you get that two names, selling software, that sound identical, are not an infringement of trademark?

If Mike Rowe sold soft bake cookies, that would be one thing. However selling software is completely against trademark laws.

Now more companies will join Microsoft against this ridiculous trademark....also i heard that IOS is registered to Cisco (Inter-network OS)...so how is apple using it?

Gaurav Agrawal said,
Now more companies will join Microsoft against this ridiculous trademark....also i heard that IOS is registered to Cisco (Inter-network OS)...so how is apple using it?

Apple bought the name from Cisco

Devmonster said,

Apple bought the name from Cisco

They didn't "buy" it, Cisco still owns it, they just licensed the use of it... but if you want confusing IOS is confusing because they are both Operating systems, unlike two unlike names that wouldn't be confused....

Gaurav Agrawal said,
Now more companies will join Microsoft against this ridiculous trademark....also i heard that IOS is registered to Cisco (Inter-network OS)...so how is apple using it?

They took the name iphone frome cisco too.

I would love to see Apple not to get the trademark since I really don't like the name "marketplace" on my WP7.

stablemist said,
I would love to see Apple not to get the trademark since I really don't like the name "marketplace" on my WP7.

Marketplace is a better name than App Store. Music + apps, all in one store.

Julius Caro said,
Not this again. 'Application store' is too generic to be trademarked, seriously?

You're not thinking differently enough. Its APPle Store not applicatin store.

No i don't belive that nonsense either.

Not sure how to classify this...

Paranoid
Insane
Greedy

One of these days, Apple is going to PO Microsoft, and after the legal crap hits the fan, Apple will be down to selling computer hardware out a garage. Microsoft truly owns a lot of significant and legitimate patents that Apple seems to forget they have integrated into every aspect of their computers, phones and general business model.

Until now, both companies have upheld the 'no litigation' clause of their 1990s agreement, when Microsoft bailed them out. Since Apple is going after Microsft on this issue, they are literally poking a bear with a stick. Maybe they have started to believe their own marketing a bit too much.

For example, just the basic constructs of OS X/iOS's kernel alone violates around fifty (50) Microsoft patents.* Even if a one or two of these hold up, it could instantly halt the sale of all Apple products. Why is Apple even tempting their fate, do they think they will garner public sympathy in the aftermath?

*(Last time I read through them, only about 25% are fluff patents to protect Microsoft, making 75% of them fairly easy to enforce. Especially the patents that came from the creation of NT, which was a big bag of new kernel concepts.)

thenetavenger said,
Not sure how to classify this...

Paranoid
Insane
Greedy

One of these days, Apple is going to PO Microsoft, and after the legal crap hits the fan, Apple will be down to selling computer hardware out a garage. Microsoft truly owns a lot of significant and legitimate patents that Apple seems to forget they have integrated into every aspect of their computers, phones and general business model.

Until now, both companies have upheld the 'no litigation' clause of their 1990s agreement, when Microsoft bailed them out. Since Apple is going after Microsft on this issue, they are literally poking a bear with a stick. Maybe they have started to believe their own marketing a bit too much.

For example, just the basic constructs of OS X/iOS's kernel alone violates around fifty (50) Microsoft patents.* Even if a one or two of these hold up, it could instantly halt the sale of all Apple products. Why is Apple even tempting their fate, do they think they will garner public sympathy in the aftermath?

*(Last time I read through them, only about 25% are fluff patents to protect Microsoft, making 75% of them fairly easy to enforce. Especially the patents that came from the creation of NT, which was a big bag of new kernel concepts.)

Any legit proof of these?

Id love to have this ammunition for any future arguements.

Benjy91 said,

Any legit proof of these?

Id love to have this ammunition for any future arguements.

Ya, use any patent search site...

There is a lot of good reading, and if you coordinate the patent technology with the product or R&D work history, you can correlate them to see what group came up with the idea, and how Microsoft used it.

For example, just digging through Microsoft Kernel patents, you can see work from NT from its creation to changes over the years that at the time were new technologies.

Or follow patents that would relate to features in Microsoft Word, like formatting concepts, or spellcheck algorithms. People forget that a lot of basic UI things like select and modify, text manipulations, squiggle line errors, etc were invented by the Microsoft Word team; as they are common now and literally used in every OS and most applications.

As for the Apple agreement, this can be found in news articles from then.

"App" stands for "Apple"? Wow, really? Who came up with that golden nugget? Even within the Apple ecosystem there's a demarcation between the iTunes App Store and the Mac App Store. Why can't there be the Amazon App Store, Android App Store, and Microsoft App Store? Apple, I love you, but come on. This is stupid.

Its a ridiculous trademark, but I can see why they want to fight for it and why their competitors want to get it thrown out - people, in general, are dumb. I know this because I know people, I talk to them about other phones (windows phone 7/Android) and mention the market, they say "oh like an 'App store'" - apple made smartphones cool to the masses and as such they all know mobile markets places as 'app stores' - its hard to describe just how dumb or uninterested some people are, but they are, and this 'app store' trademark matters!

duddit2 said,
Its a ridiculous trademark, but I can see why they want to fight for it and why their competitors want to get it thrown out - people, in general, are dumb. I know this because I know people, I talk to them about other phones (windows phone 7/Android) and mention the market, they say "oh like an 'App store'" - apple made smartphones cool to the masses and as such they all know mobile markets places as 'app stores' - its hard to describe just how dumb or uninterested some people are, but they are, and this 'app store' trademark matters!

"apple made smartphones cool to the masses"

i think you are making a bit or a stretch here by saying apple made smartphones cool. Smartphones were cool way before Apple even came to the picture. That they made it more flashy I can agree, NOT that they made them cool.

duddit2 said,
Its a ridiculous trademark, but I can see why they want to fight for it and why their competitors want to get it thrown out - people, in general, are dumb. I know this because I know people, I talk to them about other phones (windows phone 7/Android) and mention the market, they say "oh like an 'App store'" - apple made smartphones cool to the masses and as such they all know mobile markets places as 'app stores' - its hard to describe just how dumb or uninterested some people are, but they are, and this 'app store' trademark matters!
Precisely! I hate it when people say, "Plug my iPod in," and they hand me a generic MP3 player or something.
grrr

Mr Spoon said,

Or my app turnover!

While we're at it, I should get some more apps from the supermarket. Wait a minute.. !

Loved my Del Monte App Juice with breakfast this morning!

TCLN Ryster said,

Anyone else hungry for an App and Blackcurrant Crumble right now?
I love how new people come and continue the joke and everyone gets it immediately.

But, hold that thought, my app slices are browning.

Dumb. Don't know about the rest of you, but I have no intentions of using their "App Store" anyway... and the stupid Angry Birds "exclusive" will have to wait until they put it on the Android Market, I'm sticking with Google on this one. Nice pic of Jobs BTW LOL.

"Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told Bloomberg Amazon's use of the App Store name would ''confuse and mislead'' customers."

When the term is used I'm pretty sure it also contains the company's name within it as well.
IE: Apple's App Store.. so don't understand where the confusion is. (Apples App Store - Amazons App Store)

Whenever a store is brought up usually its within some sort of a topic regarding a specific location, retailer, manufacture, brand, etc

Somewhere on a forum (I think it's here...) I saw someone compare this situation to a grocery, or a specialty store... Apple app store, microsoft app store and here amazon app store... nothing confusing here.

I don't think "Jonh Doe's Fruit Store" is going to sue Mary Jane Fruit Store", etc... This is just stupid.

FrancoisC said,
Somewhere on a forum (I think it's here...) I saw someone compare this situation to a grocery, or a specialty store... Apple app store, microsoft app store and here amazon app store... nothing confusing here.

I don't think "Jonh Doe's Fruit Store" is going to sue Mary Jane Fruit Store", etc... This is just stupid.

I saw that exact comparison made several times on Mac Rumors.

FrancoisC said,
Somewhere on a forum (I think it's here...) I saw someone compare this situation to a grocery, or a specialty store... Apple app store, microsoft app store and here amazon app store... nothing confusing here.

I don't think "Jonh Doe's Fruit Store" is going to sue Mary Jane Fruit Store", etc... This is just stupid.

That is a wrong way to look at it since Apple is trademarking "App Store" and not "Apple App Store".

Ci7 said,
just call it Software store then

Amason and Microsoft can't call it software store or softy store since app store is so much more catchy and so many are so accustomed to through apple. This is why they must steal from apples fame. Would you name your sone biber or hitler. biber=fame hitler=hate. So there. Microsoft and Amason must do whats right, right that is for their business and steal from anothers fame to market their shity version.

Ci7 said,
just call it Software store then

Amason and Microsoft can't call it software store or softy store since app store is so much more catchy and so many are so accustomed to through apple. This is why they must steal from apples fame. Would you name your sone biber or hitler. biber=fame hitler=hate. So there. Microsoft and Amason must do whats right, right that is for their business and steal from anothers fame to market their shity version.

enocheed said,

Amason and Microsoft can't call it software store or softy store since app store is so much more catchy and so many are so accustomed to through apple. This is why they must steal from apples fame. Would you name your sone biber or hitler. biber=fame hitler=hate. So there. Microsoft and Amason must do whats right, right that is for their business and steal from anothers fame to market their shity version.

Really? So that shows how you're not so smart. When Apple frist made the iPhone OS, they didn't have an App Store. They stole the concept from Cydia who jailbroke iPhone OS and made an app store. Apple never had an app Store before that. They did so after Cydia made one that allowed apps to be installed on iphone which App didn't allow.

Agreed. I don't use the Apple Apple Store, I use the Apple Application Store. If I were the courts on this I would laugh them out of the building.

Hardcore Til I Die said,
What an absolute joke. "App" is an abbreviation for "Application" not "Apple." App store/app shop is a logical name for something that sells software.

They haven't trademarked the word App, they have trademarked the word AppStore and AppStore can be an abbreviation of whatever they want.


Agreed. I don't use the Apple Apple Store, I use the Apple Application Store. If I were the courts on this I would laugh them out of the building.

It wouldn't be Apple Apple Store either, it's up to the company what they name their products and services. you just added a word in there. No where on the App Store does it use the word Apple.

That being said it does sit too closely to Application which is a big generic word.

Hardcore Til I Die said,
What an absolute joke. "App" is an abbreviation for "Application" not "Apple." App store/app shop is a logical name for something that sells software.

This doesn't matter and you need to learn how trademarks work.

App Store *taken together* is a brand name, just like Windows is in the software market, and how it's not just about windows in that case, but a specific product designed by Microsoft.

This lawsuit isn't about App / Application, it's about App Store. That is: App + space + Store with a capitalized "A" and a capitalized "S" with the remaining letters in lowercase. Yes, these things are pretty damn specific. They're also only granted for specific markets.

Apple has every right to defend this trademark if they were granted it in the past.

It's also a completely different question whether we should have trademarks or not. Now we have them though, so we have to act by that.

Northgrove said,

This doesn't matter and you need to learn how trademarks work.

App Store *taken together* is a brand name, just like Windows is in the software market, and how it's not just about windows in that case, but a specific product designed by Microsoft.

This lawsuit isn't about App / Application, it's about App Store. That is: App + space + Store with a capitalized "A" and a capitalized "S" with the remaining letters in lowercase. Yes, these things are pretty damn specific. They're also only granted for specific markets.

Apple has every right to defend this trademark if they were granted it in the past.

It's also a completely different question whether we should have trademarks or not. Now we have them though, so we have to act by that.


You're forgetting one thing. Microsoft doesn't sell windows (as in panes of glass in a wooden frame). App Store = an application store. Windows = an operating system.
You cannot compare the two.

Northgrove said,
This lawsuit isn't about App / Application, it's about App Store. That is: App + space + Store with a capitalized "A" and a capitalized "S" with the remaining letters in lowercase. Yes, these things are pretty damn specific. They're also only granted for specific markets.
So, uh ... "Amazon Appstore" would cause them to sue, why? Cause that's not App + space + Store. Your logic doesn't work.

floopy said,

You're forgetting one thing. Microsoft doesn't sell windows (as in panes of glass in a wooden frame). App Store = an application store. Windows = an operating system.
You cannot compare the two.

He already said "They're also only granted for specific markets."

This means window manufacturers (home supplies) cannot sue Microsoft for "Windows" (software)

Northgrove said,

This doesn't matter and you need to learn how trademarks work.

App Store *taken together* is a brand name, just like Windows is in the software market, and how it's not just about windows in that case, but a specific product designed by Microsoft.

This lawsuit isn't about App / Application, it's about App Store. That is: App + space + Store with a capitalized "A" and a capitalized "S" with the remaining letters in lowercase. Yes, these things are pretty damn specific. They're also only granted for specific markets.

Apple has every right to defend this trademark if they were granted it in the past.

It's also a completely different question whether we should have trademarks or not. Now we have them though, so we have to act by that.

So all basic logic goes out the window? I'd maybe understand Apples thinking if they only ever used 'App Store'. However when they use 'There's an App for that' then even they clearly show that 'App Store' means Application Store. Trademarks or not common sense must be used here. It makes as much sense as someone trying to patent the term Newsagents and then suing everyone with variations on this name. Idiotic, petty and a real sign of the ****storm that are patents.

Hardcore Til I Die said,
What an absolute joke. "App" is an abbreviation for "Application" not "Apple." App store/app shop is a logical name for something that sells software.

Actually its an abbreviation or could be an abbreviation for both. that is what is so wrong with abbreviations they could mean a lot of things. But once a trade mark you should not use it. Respect?

floopy said,

You're forgetting one thing. Microsoft doesn't sell windows (as in panes of glass in a wooden frame). App Store = an application store. Windows = an operating system.
You cannot compare the two.
You can compare them when you're intellectually challenged :-)

Northgrove said,

This doesn't matter and you need to learn how trademarks work.

App Store *taken together* is a brand name, just like Windows is in the software market, and how it's not just about windows in that case, but a specific product designed by Microsoft.

This lawsuit isn't about App / Application, it's about App Store. That is: App + space + Store with a capitalized "A" and a capitalized "S" with the remaining letters in lowercase. Yes, these things are pretty damn specific. They're also only granted for specific markets.

Apple has every right to defend this trademark if they were granted it in the past.

It's also a completely different question whether we should have trademarks or not. Now we have them though, so we have to act by that.

When talking about software "Windows" is not a term that would logically be used by many.
Microsoft doesn't operate in a market that sells windows.

Apple sells applications in an online store.
Amazon sells applications in an online store.

In the computing/digital market, lots of companies sell applications online. You shouldn't be allowed to trademark a common term for such a store. App Store = application store = store that sells applications, which many MANY companies have.

You cannot make a similar connection with Windows. Windows is a brand name and really has no relevance to what they're selling.. nobody would logically and easily draw a conclusion that their software should be named "Windows" based on what it is/does.

enocheed said,

Actually its an abbreviation or could be an abbreviation for both. that is what is so wrong with abbreviations they could mean a lot of things. But once a trade mark you should not use it. Respect?

No, because abbreviations end in a period. Such as: The U.S.A., 3:00 of the clock P.M., and S. America.

Uplift said,

They haven't trademarked the word App, they have trademarked the word AppStore and AppStore can be an abbreviation of whatever they want.

It wouldn't be Apple Apple Store either, it's up to the company what they name their products and services. you just added a word in there. No where on the App Store does it use the word Apple.

That being said it does sit too closely to Application which is a big generic word.

Please point us to a link where it says "AppStore" and not "App Store" on Apple's website. I will give it to you if I see "AppStore".

Edited by Jebadiah, Mar 23 2011, 3:19am :

Jebadiah said,
Please point us to a link where it says "AppStore" and not "App Store" on Apple's website. I will give it to you if I see "AppStore".

AppStore / App Store, the space was irrelevant to my point.

Uplift said,

AppStore / App Store, the space was irrelevant to my point.

Well then, you have little idea about Trademark law and your point was moot.

RichardK said,
Good, the more that challenge this absurd "Trademark" the better.

How is it absurd? Microsoft owns windows trademark. Is that absurd too? I think it is. Windows is such a generic term. Every house has it. So is office. Every office is called office so should every software for office. It's such a generic term. How about word? Outlook. Express? Messenger? Explorer? Most terms are generic. Why don't we look at most tech companies in the world almost all brand their trade with generic names you know why because generic names are the most catchy. Attacking a company's trade mark based on that is childish of microsoft. Microsoft needs to stop infringing so is amazon. They need to come up with their own ideas and stop steeling others ideas. And once late to an idea just wait it out. A trademark is not that long is it? It only grants exclusive rights for a number of years than it goes to public domain or common use. Oh wait a minute that is the rule for a patent. Oh they need to fight this but I say if microsoft wins this them apple should start suing microsoft for most of their trademarks like work. I want my pages in osx called word. I want my windows in osx to be able to close from the right instead of left. The right side is so generic. No one can prevent that cuz it's so generic. Did I make a point yet?

Edited by enocheed, Mar 22 2011, 3:33pm :

enocheed said,

How is it absurd? Microsoft owns windows trademark. Is that absurd too? I think it is. Windows is such a generic term. Every house has it. So is office. Every office is called office so should every software for office. It's such a generic term. How about word? Outlook. Express? Messenger? Explorer? Most terms are generic. Why don't we look at most tech companies in the world almost all brand their trade with generic names you know why because generic names are the most catchy. Attacking a company's trade mark based on that is childish of microsoft. Microsoft needs to stop infringing so is amazon. They need to come up with their own ideas and stop steeling others ideas. And once late to an idea just wait it out. A trademark is not that long is it? It only grants exclusive rights for a number of years than it goes to public domain or common use. Oh wait a minute that is the rule for a patent. Oh they need to fight this but I say if microsoft wins this them apple should start suing microsoft for most of their trademarks like work. I want my pages in osx called word. I want my windows in osx to be able to close from the right instead of left. The right side is so generic. No one can prevent that cuz it's so generic. Did I make a point yet?

Please tell me you went to school. Words that are trademarked, are words that can be define to a single entity. "Windows" is very define in talking about an OS, as oppose to a person that repairs store 'windows'. Thus a person in the business of repairing 'windows' won't be infringing because it is a different product. Working with a software called Office is diiferent than I work in an 'office'. I use Word on my computer is different than I typed a 'word' using my computer.

App Store can't be defined to a single entity, like liquor store, clothing store, food store, grocery store and may others. Application or app can't be defined to a single entity which is why Microsoft is arguing the point. If you had went to school you would understand that.

@enocheed
I could just as well say that "Apple" is such a generic term as well. Remember that trademarks only apply in certain contexts.

TechieXP said,

Please tell me you went to school.

I remember a time when Neowin wasn't filled with posts as demeaning as this. He took the time to write all his thoughts out and this is the response? He raises valid points.

McG said,

I remember a time when Neowin wasn't filled with posts as demeaning as this. He took the time to write all his thoughts out and this is the response? He raises valid points.

+1

RichardK said,
Good, the more that challenge this absurd "Trademark" the better.

I say we have a photo caption contest. Here is my entry:
"You! Over there! Yes, YOU! Give me your pancreas, NOW!"

McG said,

I remember a time when Neowin wasn't filled with posts as demeaning as this. He took the time to write all his thoughts out and this is the response? He raises valid points.
No he doesn't. Just because he said it convincingly doesn't mean it is valid.