9 ms·
Judge Denies Apple Request To Stop Amazon From Using "App Store"
- skawaii 15y agoFinally! An American judge with some common sense! Honestly, though, I think this is a good first step. I enjoy some Apple products, but I'll be more than happy to see them lose this. If they can trademark "app store", then what's next? They trademarks the term "app(s)", as well?
- TobbenTM 15y agoThey trademarked "280".
- jws 15y agoThis is not true. They trademarked a very specific icon which happens to contain the digits 2, 8, and 0 in that order. (If you have an iOS device, it is your "Maps" icon.) They did not trademark "280".
- rubinelli 15y agoA bit of history: when AMD and Cyrix started gaining market share selling their x86 chips, Intel went to court to try to trademark "486" and failed, so the 586 became Pentium.
- lachenmayer 15y agoThere's a similar story that the Porsche 911 was originally going to be called 901, but that Peugeot had claimed all 3-digit numbers with a zero in the middle and forced Porsche to rename their model.
- tzs 15y agoIf the drug company that made the morning after birth control drug had not been able tom trademark RU-486, I wonder ifbtheymwould have called it Preventium?
- CoryMathews 15y agolink?
- xuki 15y agohttp://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/apple-obtains-u-s-trademark-for-280-wait-what/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/06/apple-obtains-u-s-trademark...
- Symmetry 15y agoI've found that copyright law often ends up working reasonably well.
- 18pfsmt 15y agoIt is important to note that copyright law and trademark law, while both considered "intellectual property", differ quite a bit. Copyright was originally enacted to "promote the progress", while trademark law is intended to protect consumers (to be brief). Further, trademarks are enforced as long as the owner of the mark continues to defend it, while copyrights last _only_ 70 years after the death of the author. EDIT: Grammar, and to add that what I've written is only the tip of the iceberg as to how these concepts differ in law.
- dreamux 15y agoI think its good for users to associate "App Store" with a generic place to find and download applications on any platform; like the terms "program" and "browser" it helps to have standard ways of communicating basic concepts of computer/device use. Its a benefit to _everyone_ (Apple, Android, Microsoft...) that users can more easily interact with their systems sans training.
- rcfox 15y agoTrademarks and branding are strange things. One would assume that giving a term wide-spread use would be beneficial to everyone, but it seems that it's bad for companies. I still don't quite get it myself... For example, "Google" as a verb: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html I assumed that "Google" as a verb is a good thing for Google. It would imply that they've managed to get a huge mindshare. Google's lawyers disagree.
- danneu 15y agoBecause you can lose legal muscle behind your name if it becomes such common use that users might use the word without knowingly referencing your company's brand. Kleenex is the staple case.
- eropple 15y agoQ-Tips are another one, IIRC. Or, of course, Spam (but Hormel has been enlightened on the topic so it hasn't been a legal issue AFAIK).
- dmbass 15y agoAnother classic one is Band-Aid.
- chopsueyar 15y agothermos.
- hvs 15y agoThis looks like the judge just denied the preliminary injunction. It's a good first step, but this battle is far from over.
- Derbasti 15y agoI like Apple, but sometimes, they do really strange things…
- Urgo 15y agoI dislike apple, and am happy on this ruling, but still think the amazon app store, though good in theory for price competition, hurts the "one place to find all" mentality for consumers.
- jamesbritt 15y ago...hurts the "one place to find all" mentality for consumers. This is a good thing. Consumers should not be in the habit of trusting a single self-interested commercial vendor to look out for their best interests. Instead, people should get accustomed to being skeptical of vendor claims and cautious about what they install in their computers.
- burgerbrain 15y ago...Good? Are we really happy with not having alternatives to the walmarts of this world? I would wager that most consumers appreciate alternatives.
- Urgo 15y agoI know what you mean its just not really the same thing here.. if every store had their own 'app store' then whats the point of an app store anyway? Again as someone who has lived through a world before app stores, as long as the app store is fair its really the way to go.
- rhizome 15y agoEvery grocery store has a "produce section," "cereal aisle," and "checkout line."
- burgerbrain 15y agoI have yet to see a "the app store" that is fair, and I have a rather hard time imagining one even existing in the real world. As long as they have exclusion policies, I want as many different "app stores" competing with each other as possible.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jules 15y agoApp is now a generic name, and thus it cannot be trademarked and existing trademarks are invalid. That's just how trademarks work. It doesn't matter that it didn't use to be a generic name (and I recall hearing app used generically for a long time, so I don't think it was ever Apple specific).
- cosgroveb 15y agoI've never heard of any software being called "apps" on any other platform I used I heard the term "killer app" at least 10 years ago. "App" is not only generic but it's been out there for a long time. Edit: Here's the earliest I can find the word in print. It's from 2002. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/55/love.html http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/55/love.html
- Tiomaidh 15y agoHere it is in a book from 1995: http://books.google.com/books?id=JSnOPYKwwtQC&lpg=PA350&dq=killer%20app&pg=PA284#v=onepage&q=killer%20app&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=JSnOPYKwwtQC&lpg=PA350&...
- _delirium 15y agoGoogle Books also has a lot of uses in the early 1990s of the phrases "Windows apps", "Mac apps", "DOS apps", and "Unix apps". They appear to be used in a way that's pretty similar to how the terms "iPhone apps" or "Android apps" are used today.
- Pinckney 15y agoThe OED has quotations for "app, n." dating back to 1985: "1985 Info World (Nexis) 9 Dec. 41 At first look, the user sees only one new menu (‘apps’ for applications) at the top of the screen."
- mikemaccana 15y ago
- bhartzer 15y ago"app store" should be a generic phrase. We all know that Apple's App Store is THE app store, so it should be referred to as "the app store" not just an 'app store' (which there could be many of).
- mcritz 15y agoI think this ambiguity of terms is bad for consumers. My mom might buy Apps through the Amazon "App Store" and expect it to run on her iPhone. I think Amazon is coat-tailing on Apple's branding in a deliberate attempt to create a false sense of equivalency.
- tomlin 15y agoThis is not a good argument. To me, protecting a name like "App Store" would be as silly as protecting the word "Computer" before commonplace in society. Can you imagine the ads for such a company? "Don't be fooled by those other microcomputer systems! We're the real Computer^tm^!" And yes, there are examples of this today already, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
- pyre 15y agoComputer was a generic term even before computer devices. "Computer" was used to refer to people that performed computations. If you paid someone to perform busy-work computations all day, then they were a 'computer.' See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History_of_computing
- statictype 15y agoHow would one's mom buy an app from Amazon's android store without doing it through an Android Phone?
- grellas 15y agoThis ruling involved Apple's attempt to block Amazon's use of the term "app store" pending trial in this case. Apple claims infringement and dilution of its mark. To win on infringement, it must ultimately show that it has a legally protectable mark and that Amazon's use of the term "app store" to describe where it sells apps for use on Android devices will likely confuse consumers about the origin of the goods being sold. To win on dilution, it must show that the mark is protectable, that it is "famous," and that Amazon's use of it dilutes its value. To get a preliminary injunction, Apple needed to convince the judge that it is likely to win at trial and also that it will be irreparably harmed if Amazon is not blocked from using the mark during the time leading up to trial. The judge said no to the preliminary injunction, not on grounds of lack of irreparable harm (that issue was never reached) but on the ground that Apple was not likely to win on the merits of its claims at trial. Marks are classified as generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful. Any mark that is suggestive, arbitrary, or fanciful is protectable. A generic mark is never protectable and a descriptive mark normally is not either - but the latter can become protectable if it acquires distinctiveness in the public mind through what is called "secondary meaning" (which generally means that a company has advertised a product or service to such a degree that the public comes to associate the mark with the producer of the goods or services as opposed to seeing the mark as descriptive, e.g., "Holiday Inn"). Apple claimed that the "app store" mark is suggestive because its meaning is "not inherently obvious" and because Apple was required to devote a lot of resources to educate consumers about the service. Amazon claimed the mark is generic in merely describing a store where software apps are sold. On this key issue, the court ruled as follows in assessing whether Apple was likely to succeed with its claim: "The court assumes without deciding that the 'App Store' mark is protectable as a descriptive mark that has arguably acquired secondary meaning. The court does not agree with Amazon that the mark is purely generic . . . but also does not find that Apple has shown that the mark is suggestive, as there appears to be no need for a leap of imagination to understand what the term means." So far so good for Apple (with its major advertising, it may well be able to prove secondary meaning at trial). But Apple got sunk by the second factor it will need to show if it is to win at trial and that is the "likelihood of confusion" factor. On this point, the court weighed eight factors as required by governing precedent but, in effect, really boiled it down to the fact that consumers buying apps for Android devices will not really believe that they are buying them from Apple or from an Apple-authorized source when they see the term "app store" at Amazon's site. The court also rejected Apple's dilution claim as a basis for granting preliminary relief, basically finding that "App Store" did not constitute a "famous mark" on the evidence shown by Apple to date (it is here that the generic references to "app store" by Mr. Jobs and others come back to bite Apple). All this suggests that Apple will have an uphill fight at trial on this one (as it should, in my view). The 18-page decision is well-reasoned and may be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59494852/Apple-v-Amazon-Order-Denying-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction http://www.scribd.com/doc/59494852/Apple-v-Amazon-Order-Deny.... Also, my prior comments on the case: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2351910 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2351910.
- comex 15y agoTry as I might, I couldn't get this text from Apple's Back to School promotion to sound non-weird: > Where can I use my Back to School Card or code? > You can take advantage of this unique offer to purchase apps from the Mac App Store and the App Store[...]
- mbrzuzy 15y agoApple needs to sit back down. People have been getting way to carried with trademark suits over the years.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Hisoka 15y agoI don't think naming your store the App Store is good for branding anyway if you're Amazon.