7 ms·
Your question is a very good one. A term that is primarily descriptive cannot be registered as a trademark on the primary register with the USPTO. However, if a
by grellas 16y ago
Your question is a very good one. A term that is primarily descriptive cannot be registered as a trademark on the primary register with the USPTO. However, if a vendor spends a lot in advertising over a substantial time such that the public comes to identify the relevant term with one vendor and not as a primarily descriptive term, then that item is said to acquire "secondary meaning." Once a primarily descriptive term acquires secondary meaning of this type, it can be registered on the primary register. Context matters here as well because marks are registered in revelant "classes" of goods or services. Thus, for Microsoft, "Windows" eventually acquired secondary meaning in the world of computer software (but not as applied to window installation in the building industry). Others can freely use "windows" in most any category of goods or services they want in the building trades but, given that the term "Windows" is now exclusively associated with a product from Microsoft in that class, not in the class of computer goods to which "Windows" belongs.
Other well-known secondary-meaning marks: "Holiday Inn," Subway's "Footlong" sandwich, many others.
- mambo69 16y agoHow did Facebook manage to acquire secondary meaning for the the name, when the term "face book" existed as a descriptive term for the exact same thing that sucker-borg created a variation of?
- recoiledsnake 16y agoIf Facebook sues people making face books, then you'll have a point. It's about co-opting naturally occurring words and then preventing people from using them to describe things naturally.
- ericd 16y agoWould the fact that "app" has been used as a shortened form of "application" in "web app"/"web application" have any bearing on it's ability be trademarked? Is it specifically for the combination "app store"? It would seem to me that its primary meaning is what they're trying to trademark, because it's bluntly self-descriptive.
- staunch 16y agoApple has successfully promoted the heck out of name "App Store" and spent a fortune doing so. If that's the criteria they have a solid case.
- seanalltogether 16y agoApple has been very inconsistent on their use of it though. Originally you just searched for apps in iTunes Store. Then I believe it changed to iTunes App Store. And now they have a Mac App Store. the other point is that apple refers to them as 'apps' in a generic sense and not something like 'App Store applications'
- mambodog 16y agoWas it not always called 'App Store' on the phone/ipod? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#2.x:_Second_major_release_of_the_OS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#2.x:_Second...
- recoiledsnake 16y agoI don't know if that should matter. If Facebook spends billions promoting it's brand and then sues people making books with faces who called it, lets say Staunch's face book, I don't see how they deserve to win.
- brown9-2 16y agoYou are overlooking the second part of this: such that the public comes to identify the relevant term with one vendor and not as a primarily descriptive term, then that item is said to acquire "secondary meaning. It is not clear that the public identifies "app" as something from Apple only.
- atlbeer 16y agoIt's a biased selection but, Google's Page Rank certainly says that the public tends to "link" the term 'App Store' to 'Apple' in a pretty consistant manner http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=app+store http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...
- recoiledsnake 16y ago> Thus, for Microsoft, "Windows" eventually acquired secondary meaning in the world of computer software (but not as applied to window installation in the building industry). Others can freely use "windows" in most any category of goods or services they want in the building trades but, given that the term "Windows" is now exclusively associated with a product from Microsoft in that class, not in the class of computer goods to which "Windows" belongs. Note that they can't/don't sue products like wxWindows, even though it refers to windows on computer screens, because it refers to the generic usage and not in terms of a OS. Thus they sued Lindows (and lost?) because it was an OS and with a similarly sounding name and settled.
- mcav 16y agoThough they forced wxWindows to rename to wxWidgets.
- andrewf 16y agoSome money changed hands too. http://wxwidgets.org/about/name.htm http://wxwidgets.org/about/name.htm No doubt there was both a carrot and a stick, but who knows whether the stick would have held up in court. Trademark law could also well be different in the UK.