Apple sues Amazon over 'App Store' name

Apple has sued Amazon.com, claiming the retail giant is using its "App Store" trademark without proper consent. As reported by Bloomberg, Apple filed suit on March 18 seeking to prevent Amazon from using the app store name and to win unspecified damages. "Amazon has begun improperly using Apple’s App Store mark in connection …

[Chris Hatfield]

This fails as much as Rebecca Black (Gotta have bowl, gotta have cereal)

I love Apple products, but happy to call them out when they are being ABSURD.

They are being twats! Stop wasting Amazon's money (through legal fees), just because you have mountains of cash.

[Steve Evans]

If apple have their way...

In twenty years the only people on the planet with any money will be lawyers.

Oh, and BMW salesmen.

Apple - grow up.

US patent and trademark system - sort yourself out! If you keep this up the rest of the world will be shortly joining China and just ignore it!

[Steve Davies 3]

re: If apple have their way...

Surely you mean Audi salesmen. Haven't you heard that Audi's are the new twat mobile. With their ever so sexy lights, what twat, sorry lawyer could resist one?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do the US patent office (is it them?) call..

..the room where all of the applications for trademark are stored?

[Mick Gower]

But what if I...

Whatever Apple force Amazon to call the store I will still call it an App Store because it's a store where I buy apps.

[pullenuk]

App Store

<get handed papers>

What? Not allowed to say App Store unless I got an iphone? Thats stupid.

(That appears to be the way Apple is heading)

[Anonymous Coward]

The way it should be

The same thing would have happened in reverse if Apple had used Amazon's infamous 1-Click(tm) trademark on their store.

Apple simply got there first, just as they created the smartphone market and made graphical interfaces affordable to the public. Android fanbois and Google pawns should learn to deal with it like adults and stop whining.

[Greg J Preece]

*Splutter*

"Apple simply got there first, just as they created the smartphone market"

*Hack* *Cough* *Splutter* .....What??

"and made graphical interfaces affordable to the public."

...............WHAT????

Seriously dude, what weed are you smoking, and can I get a drag on that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take care

No need for drugs. It's the reality of it.

Was the smartphone market anywhere near what it became after the iPhone? Ask any mobile network, they were the most shocked.

As for graphical interfaces before Apple there was the research Xerox Alto athe the PARC. The Apple Lisa was first commercially sold personal computer to have a GUI.

If this comes as a shock to you maybe you should refrain from drinking coffee at your keyboard,

you'll be in for plenty more accidents.

[werdsmith]

But.....

There is an important difference between "created" and having "developed and expanded". The latter is what Apple did. The former belongs to sundry other fogottens,

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the light bulb

werdsmith, I said created the market, not invented. There's a subtle but relevant difference.

A bit like trying to argue that Thomas Edison did not create the light bulb, despite it having been invented by Joseph Swan and others well before.

[werdsmith]

Yes, and

I said that they developed and expanded the market, not created. It's not a subtle difference but a huge one.

Otherwise you are saying there were no N95s, Palm Treos, Sendo Xs and various others before 2007 when Apple came out with their restricted multitasking iPhone 1 with no published API feature phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for all your comments

I'm sorry the Apple Lisa was not to everyone's pockets, although I know people who bought it.

Still way cheaper than that Xerox Star in the sense you didn't have to own a gold mine to buy it.

takuhii I would love to hear about the GUI before it that were affordable. Please don't include pencil and paper.

I'm sorry you don't agree with created the market, but "developed and expanded" is way to subtle.

Maybe we could agree half-way, "explosively expanded beyond all recogniton" suits better? Like in the recent announcement of 8000% growth in data traffic at AT&T since the launch of the iPhone - I know it doesn't include just the iPhone, but just trying to show who started it.

[werdsmith]

#Reverse Lewis Mettier

OK you are right. Insist immediately that the book of Genesis is rewritten and the word "god" is replaced with "Jobs" using iWork search and replace facility - the one and only truly original.

Of course, Apple authored "Origin of the Species" for non-creationists.

Or you could just own up that you are so blatantly wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's just crazy talk werdsmith

I'm not saying that at all, but the facts are Apple used the words "App Store" for selling mobile apps first, they trademarked it in that context and therefore by the laws which govern our society they have the right to defend it.

Where am I wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

re: I would love to hear about the GUI before it that were affordable

Not before it, but roughly contemporaneous and actually affordable and popular - GEM on the Atari ST. Apparently you already had your Apple blinkers on even that long ago.

[Shonko Kid]

Calm down dear...

I think the word your looking for is 'popularised'

[Geoff Campbell]

Dude, if you're going to correct people....

....better learn to check your facts.

Xerox released a commercial system with a GUI in 1981, the Xerox Star. Apple have always been second to market, it's what they do really well - taking a concept and refining the style and engineering to make it a success.

GJC

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude (@Geoff)

What part of "accessible to the public" and "personal computer" did you miss in my posts?

Sorry for correcting you on that, I do agree you other point.

[Geoff Campbell]

@Reversie

The Xerox Star was a commercially available personal computer, and cost $16,000 in 1981 - a lot of cash, I grant you. But then, the Lisa cost $10,000 in 1983, so the same sort of ball park given the pace of advance in electronics then and now.

Of course, both of these systems failed because of the price, mostly, as demonstrated by the Macintosh when it released in 1984 (Interesting that Apple seem to have had a twelve month release cycle even back then, now that I look at the dates).

GJC

[Ken MAC]

Xerox Star

Yup used one of them whilst on a contract at Xerox.UK. Great bit of kit. I remember the TV ads where you dragged and dropped a document icon to a remote printer icon and it just worked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool..

So you agree that they like to nick (and patent/trademark) other peoples ideas. We agree on something then.

[werdsmith]

Distortion...must resist

That's the distorted reality of it.

Apple didn't create, they developed and expanded. Sundry other forgottens created. Important difference, usually overlooked by any expert in Jobsonian philosophy.

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Calling the Lisa affordable

is stretching credulity to breaking point. The Lisa flopped not because of the features and performance, but because of the price (USD 9,995 in 1983!!). The Mac was much more affordable.

[Richard 120]

What?

Are you mental?

Smartphone market didn't exist before Apple made it? So there were no smartphones before 2007?

Fucking hell, someone better tell RIM, Nokia, Samsung, IBM, Motorola they shouldn't have bothered and they should just stop now, and let Apple trademark the word smartphone. If they could they would.

I get it, you believe the hype that apple make everything and they were there first for everything, but let's face it, that's bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Apple simply got their first...'

LOL

Nowhere near...but they love to trademark/copyright other peoples ideas/names first - if that is what you meant.

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC

"Nowhere near...but they love to trademark/copyright other peoples ideas/names first - if that is what you meant."

So let's hear it, who used the name "App store" in the context of selling mobile applications before Apple? (and remember context matters in trademark issues)

I just love cutting through hatebois FUD and lies in the morning.

[werdsmith]

Cut this

http://www.handango.com/content/Mobile-App-Store

Storing apps since 1999.

[Anonymous Coward]

Handago

werdsmith, I'll give you a F+ for effort, but keep trying.

Handago was not using the term app store before Apple released iOS 2.0 with the App Store.

They even called it "mobile software" back then.

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20080828094951/http://www.handago.com/

[Clive Summerfield]

They also called them apps back in 2001

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20011102020041/http://www.handango.com/

Bottom right of front page:

"Developing the next killer app for handhelds? Become a Handango Software Partner."

[Anonymous Coward]

@Clive

There are some mentions of "app" intermixed with "mobile software" but def no "App Store".

[Clive Summerfield]

@RLM

So this statement of yours...

"They even called it "mobile software" back then."

... was more than a little disingenuous, as Handango were refering to "mobile software" as "apps" way back in 2001.

Now I buy things from shops or stores, so Handandgo were selling "apps" in a "store" back in 2001. Therefore "App Store" and "Appstore" are realistically too generic, though the latter has the advantage of being a more artificial construct.

[Richard 120]

So...

App is generic, store is generic, but when you use them together they're the product of Apple?

As it's been pointed out before in the context of "stores", the Apple app store is not the only one to sell "apps" and by a long way it was not the first to do so, it's like Clarks trying to trademark "shoe shop".

Give it up Reverse Lewis Mettier.

[Dapprman]

@ Reverse Lewis Mettier 11:51

I think you'll find that Handango were using the term App Store before Apple even thought about doing a phone, in fact even possibly before Palm launched their first phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Dapprman

I've pretty much moved away from this thread as it was getting boring.. I've made my point quite well.

Still wow that's really news Dapprman, and I'll find it where?

"Handango announces it's Mobile App Store. Shopping Handango just got easier! Browse Handangos selection of mobile apps and games right from your Windows Mobile phone at m.handango.com." (Sept, 2009) http://www.techrepublic.com/software/handango-mobile-app-store-mobile/1158449

Not in their PR apparently.

[Richard 120]

Re:I've made my point quite well.

No, not unless your point was that you're delusional, in which case, yes, well done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Delusional?

Maybe only in thinking more people could read.

Now I get the reason Google prefers to make those really patronising videos. Maybe I should look into it.

[serviceWithASmile]

RE: very long thread

obvious troll is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Who used the term Mobile Phone before....

Perhaps Nokia (or whoever) should sue Apple for using the term 'Mobile Phone' - hey it's a phone that is mobile - but the 2 terms were not used together until Nokia (or somebody) made it popular - same argument. But everybody would agree that would be daft right, 'cos its a description - a phone that is mobile = mobile phone.

Unless of course the distinction here is that Apple are allowed to trademark the amazing leap forward that was abbreviating Application into App - which of course nobody else thought of.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple sue Lewis Mettier, the fake over 'Fanboy' trademark abuse.

Unfortunately, the term fanboy (fanboi) defined as 'a person who is in denial about any shorcomings about merchandise or organisations they support, and who will jump to the defence of even the most absurd and patently rediculous idea' is also an Apple Trademark.

Apple trademark application for the term 'Fanboy/Fanboi' states "The definition of fanboy [q.v] as associated with technology was an original concept of Apple (tm), and any reference to that term is overwhelmingly aimed at Apple (tm) users - therefore the use of the term for other products or organisations is merely an attempt to jump on the Apple fanboy wagon."

[takuhii]

WTF?!

Seriously, you think what you are blathering is true?!

There were smartphones before Apple came along;

There were GUIs before Apple came along, affordable ones at that;

I am neither an Apple nor Google Fanboi, but your comments are unfounded and ridiculous and could only be those of someone who works for Apple...

Do a bit of research before you spout off!

[The Fuzzy Wotnot]

"Wake up and smell what you shovelling!"

MIght be true, Amazon might have sued had the boot been on the other foot but you still sound like an Apple shill/troll/fanboi. The point is Apple are suing for the use to call something by two perfectly standard English words in use by almost everyone, everyday.

APP and STORE, these are common English words,FFS!

You make me embarrassed to admit I own Apple desktop kit, nothing's perfect least of Apple or their kit, got that? I can handle the problems I get on my Apple kit with slightly more ease than other kit, that's all.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Fuzzy

1-Click or Windows are also a common English terms. These are very usual company shenanigans, I hardly see the point in people getting all excited about it.

Apple took the mark and application first, tough luck companies. Find other common English words to describe what you're selling and make them the new standard. Everyone called web search "searching" before Google came around.

[Blitterbug]

1-Click is NOT generic!

Peeps have been calling small applications 'Apps' for years. An App Store is a generic term, though Apple were first to market with an actual operation using that name. How the hell can anyone see the name '1-Click' as being anything other than a trademark?

Can't you see you're even pissing off the Apple fans with your obtuseness?

[MuddyBoots]

Common English Words

Before we talk about apple attempting to copyright "common english words" such as "App Store", lets look at Microsoft who copyrighted "Windows" and "Vista"...

[Naughtyhorse]

methinks

'someone' will be filing a patent application for 'asshat' as we speak.

while thay may not have invented the term 'asshat' they surely have developed the content and scope of asshattery to the extent that when people utter the word asshat in everyday speech the utteree will immediately envision mactard fanbois in general, and the grand master asshat himself mettier in particular.

although the idea that someone would want to infringe this patent would ultimately render the application moot

[Anonymous Coward]

@Naughtyhorse

People don't file patent applications for words.

Please try to keep up.

[David Neil]

Wut?

"made graphical interfaces affordable to the public"

They have done a lot of things with making people appreciate the design of their products, but affordable is certainly not their forté.

[patrick_bateman]

lol

so apple made smart phones....nope

they just marketed there first one well and gave loads away to celebs which then it caught on with all the 'hello' people then 'business' people picked them up.

nokia smartphones, ones with a full keyboard on, windoze mobile, not herd of any of these then i take it.

[Nordrick Framelhammer]

WTF?

"Apple simply got there first, just as they created the smartphone market"

Say what? Dude, you have got to give me the name of our dealer as he is selling you some righteous stuff!

[Sean Baggaley 1]

It's not Apple's fault the law is an ass.

Especially when we're talking about patent and trademark laws. If you file a patent or a trademark, the onus is on YOU to police it. If you fail to do so, you are, by law, assumed to tacitly support any violations and dilutions of your IP. This is the law. YOU voted for it. If you don't like it, the onus is on YOU—not some random corporation—to get off your arse and CHANGE it.

To be fair to Apple, (which isn't something that happens often on these forums), it'd be nice if Apple's competitors could come up with *something* original for once, instead of blatantly copying everything Apple does, only not quite as well.

Why is Amazon going for "Appstore"—note the feeble attempt at a more trademarkable neologism—instead of, say, "Prog Store"?

Hell, why even use a synonym for "application" at all? — nobody confuses "Best Buy" with "Wal*Mart", and they don't need to be explicitly told what each of these chains sell, either.

So why not "Amazon App Market"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"to be fair to Apple..."

So AppStore is an original Apple idea is it?

Not quite - SalesForce came up with the concept and name (And then let Apple use it). Before that Sage tried to trademark it.

SO the question is ..."Why didn't Apple think of an original name that was not just a description?"

[BorkedAgain]

@AC 10:27

Well, strictly speaking Salesforce.com has the "App Exchange" rather than an "App Store", but you're not a million miles off. Didn't know they'd allowed Apple to use it (I assumed Apple just independently arrived at "App" as a handy contraction of "Application" and the whole thing was coincidence...) but hey.

I understand that brand protection is important and all, but sometimes it really does sound like a bunch of eight-year-olds bickering in the back seat on a long car journey... "Dad! Amy touched my App! Tell her, Dad! Dad..."

Surely sometime around now we should be pulling over to the side and stinging knees? (ah, childhood memories...)

[SuperTim]

GreenGrocer (TM)

If i trademark another generic shop name, does that mean i can sue the bejesus out of Greengrocers?

[Adam T]

And so it begins

I predict execs flustering to register App Store-like names.

I hearby claim Flea Market™

[Alastair McFarlane]

@Chris Hatfield

They just want to have fun (fun, fun, fun).

But which seat? Which?!

[adnim]

They say black, I say white.

"Microsoft has filed a complaint against Apple's "App Store" trademark application, claiming the name is too generic."

They say "...too generic..."

I say "Windows"

Yes the US patent system is a cashcow for those who make the rules, don't expect those rules to change anytime soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

not quite

The trademark for windows is within the computing environment (it doesn't apply to buildings) - unfortunately all 'apps' that I know of are computer-based, so apple's trademark is TOO GENERIC.

[P Zero]

Maybe so

But I still headchuckle when I see adds for this place

http://www.vistablinds.com.au/

[Anonymous Coward]

Been tried before

Sage tried to trademark it in 1998 - (abandoned in 2000)

SalesForce (who gave the name to Apple) tried in 2006 (dropped the application as it was just a description).

Apple - grow-up - apps have been around for donkeys years (at least 20). If they get their way then there is no hope for us. This is why people love to hate Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

1-Click

People have said 1-Click well before Amazon and didn't stop them from trademarking it.

Also neither Salesforce nor Sage ever tried to sell mobile apps using that trademark, so Apple was the first one to do so. Which at the end of the day is what matters for companies trying to do business.

[Naughtyhorse]

Appz anyone?

I'm sure i recall this term being used in the pre iCrap era.

[JaitcH]

Jobs stealing yet more from others. What a legacy!

Apple/Jobs has no rights that others don't enjoy to use this name as it has been around for decades - even before Apple started using it.

Next Apple will be claiming Apps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apply your facile logic...

Microsoft have no right to "Office" or "Windows", as both terms were around, relating to software, before Microsft monopolised them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why the trademark is for "Microsoft Office"

Now if Apple would do the same and trademark Apple AppStore then all will be fine.

[Tom Wood]

For once

I agree with Microsoft.

[Lewis Mettler]

yea

App store is generic. Otherwise there is no generic name for it?

"AppStore" may not be. But, App Store certainly is.

The question is whether Apple will end up paying Amazon some $30 million to have them change their name. You know, like Microsoft had to pay off Lindows to allow Microsoft to dismiss it's lawsuit.

Strange it is when a plantiff has to pay the defendant to allow the plaintiff to drop a suit.

And this time Apple may have to pay both Amazon and Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

Been practicing law long, Lewis...

It's just that you, like quite a few on here, seem to not understand the basic nuances of copyright law and you seem to go on as if you were a soliciter.

Here's what Apple will argue. They introduced and coined the term 'App', a contraction of the word 'application'; pertaning to software, between 1982 - 84 and have used it to describe said software since then. They were also the first to refer to a store selling mobile apps as an 'App Store' (trading as such since 11th July 2008). I think it's reasonably safe to say that *legally* speaking Amazon and Microsoft do not have a leg to stand on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Snapple

I'm surprised the dickheads at Apple haven't tried sueing anything with 'app' or an 'i' in it.

Really sick of Jobs and his minions. Honestly, wish they'd just f*** off. They've morphed into the M$ of old.

[Anonymous Coward]

er, they tried, didn't they ?

wasn't there a story a while back of someone having to change their brand because it started with an "i" ?

quick google ...

No, I stand corrected. It was any product with the word "POD" in it they sued on.

[Naughtyhorse]

wasnt that the

iPood

[Lewis Mettler]

Apple is abusive

It is clear that Apple is much more abusive that Microsoft.

Most of the restrictions Apple has imposed on the iDevices are geared to restricting competition.

No you can not make certain links. No you can not use other app stores. No you can not sell your products or services cheaper anywhere else. No you can not sell your services to Apple customers.

Apparently Apple management thinks it can gain a monopoly position by acting like jerks. Or, by outright precluding competitors from dealing with Apple customers unless Apple gets a 30% cut off the top.

Consumers clearly do not benefit from anything Apple is doing in it's business practices.

But, I guess Apple customers are not very bright.

Forget the Apple employees posing as Apple customers. They do not even believe themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

@Lewis

Ah found it, I knew you had to call Apple customers stupid everyday, and today could not be an exception. It's just in your blood.

Apple is not more abusive than Microsoft, WP7 even has more restrictions. So that's, as usual from you, an unfounded lie.

Amazon does the very same with their Kindle, actually they used to charge 70% before Apple forced them to change the rules. Now they can live on just 30% for a very restricted number of markets (it's still 70% everywhere else)

Even Google blocks alternative markets from operating within their Android Market. See Kongregate.

Try stopping with the lies, and I encourage you to try and don't call Apple customers the whole of tomorrow. Let's take it one day at a time.

[bugalugs]

Like kids

in a sandbox. Did, Did Not, etc ad nauseum

[Anonymous Coward]

More pots and kettles

"Microsoft has filed a complaint against Apple's "App Store" trademark application, claiming the name is too generic."

Errr... a bit like "windows" then?

(I'm not taking sides here; all the players are as bad as each other)

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm...No

Nothing like 'windows' actually.

[Dr Patrick J R Harkin]

Solution is obvious.

"App" is short for "Application" so just use a different abbreviation. Instead of the first three letters, use the firsr four and call it the ApplStore. All solved!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

See title

[Michael H.F. Wilkinson]

Or, even better

use the first five:

Appl-iStore

oops, did I get my hyphenation wrong?

[Robert Carnegie]

Cutesy abbreviations can be trademarked,

but I would judge that the term "app" for software appears earlier in the common expression "killer app", meaning the software product or use for a particular computer platform that is a must-have, and that gets that computer platform chosen before others. The VisiCalc spreadsheet was the first "killer app" according to a reference quoted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visicalc , and it was a product initially for Apple II computers but not owned by them, although it may be by now. But then Lotus 1-2-3 was the better spreadsheet that was the killer app for IBM PCs (VisiCalc was also released for PCs), and I don't think anyone complained at the time that the term "app" was misappropriated - or, not with much success.

But I'm -not- a judge - which may be just as well overall, but in this particular case, I wish I was.

[stuwaldy]

Try approaching from the other way...

Everyone is abbreviating/truncating from the start. I hereby lay claim to Cation Station and all future use.

Or maybe they could move onto a statement of intent as the name, so instead of Hack The World - App the World, but the "the" in there is a bit clunky, maybe go with the French to sound a bit more cosmopolitan - so there you go Amazon, you can call it App le World.

[LPF]

Quick fix

Call it the Amazon store?

of course if you want to horn in on the good will that apple have ceatedf then you will call yours the app store and hope no one notices ;)

[Anonymous Coward]

even quicker fix

Why not keep calling it an App Store - as its a store that sells Apps!

[Anonymous Coward]

how can they sue...

..if the trademark has not been granted yet?

Also, it is not listed on Apple's trademark list

http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

so how are people supposed to know not to use it?

Hope they fail big time in this suit (and it costs them loads).

All Apples rot eventually - but this one is rotten already.

[Anonymous Coward]

name is too generic ????

So what about "windows"?

I hate software patents and abusive use of trademark law, but Amazon's name choice wasn't casual IMHO, so I think Apple's attack is in this case justified.

[Richard 120]

So...

Because there is one stupid trademark there should be more of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS

Neither was Apples choice of the name - get your facts straight before commenting please (read up on the history of who actually came up with the name). Secondly the 'windows' trademark is for operating systems - know anybody who is affected by not calling their OS windows? Not calling applications 'apps' and being able to sell them in an 'app store' on the other hand is rediculous - ALL computer corps use this term (And have done long before Apple got their thieving hands into lawsuit business).

[Anonymous Coward]

And again...

If I went into business selling panes of glass and tried to trademark my panes of glass as Windows(TM) it would be the same as what Apple are doing with "app store" for a store that sells apps.

Taking otherwise common nouns and naming your company after them, and trademarking it in your specific segment is permitted. Particularly when you add another word (Word is not a trademark, Microsoft Word is)

See also: excel, access, amazon, apple, the register, subway, sprint...

[Lewis Mettler]

windows and app store

Windows is generic. And Microsoft knew that. Always had. And it felt it needed to pay $30 million or so to Lindows in order to get Lindows to allow Microsoft to drop its case. And to have Lindows change it name. The truth remaining that Microsoft decided it would lose the right to claim "windows" as a trademark. And I think it would have. I often agree with the legal opinion that Microsoft lawyers have. They just do not say what their legal opinion really is. They are only paid to represent Microsoft not to state their true legal opinions.

Amazon's choice of "AppStore" was not casual. But, normally when you combine two words to coin a new one, that combination is subject to trademark protection. I have not heard if Amazon tried to trademark AppStore, but I can assume they have.

If you have to defend either "App Store" or "AppStore" as a trademark, "AppStore" wins. "App store" is clearly the generic version. But, you may have a problem with which is first. And which company is willing to pay the other off. Microsoft had to pay their $30 million to get Lindows to back away. And MS had the so-called trademark.

Personally I would like to see "Ubuntu Windows", "Suse Windows" and even "Red Hat Windows". They might each get some $30 million or more from Microsoft. Or, many of the lessor known Linux distributions could adopt "windows" as part of their OS name. Of course, they have to have a sizable legal budget to risk. And not everyone even wants to sound like something Microsoft cooked up.

But, the real problem for Apple is simply that there is no generic term for what is being offered? What is the generic term for a store that sells apps? If not "app store"?

The real problem with any trademark is that you may have to defend it in court. And, yes, big companies like Microsoft can do that and even pay $30 million to have others go away. And "App Store" as a trademark is going to require significant defense in court. Or, it will simply be tossed out as a trademark in the first place. Which should be the result. Generic terms make lousy trademarks. For legal reasons.

[Chronos]

Devil's advocate

Here's the twist: App Store as a contraction of "Apple Store" not "application store" or possibly "applet store." They can then claim brand confusion rather than claiming a trademarked generic term. Crafty bastards...

[Piri Piri Chicken]

Dangerous Idea

If that were the case the there would be a valid counter argument to it which would be that it's Apples fault that they have contracted Apple Store which could quite easily have been trademarked, into something so short, it is generic and can be misinterpreted as other meanings.

[John Tappin]

i dont belive it

IT magazine information age uses the term app store generically in the feb issue - perhaps they should be sued too..

[Lewis Mettler]

is believable

What other generic term can you apply?

What is it? It is an app store. Calling it something else is to use a trademarkable term.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about

app market? app mall?

But glad to see you're quite balanced today Lewis, I miss your earlier unfounded rants.

[takuhii]

douchebags!!

App Store, App Store, App Store. Come on apple, BRING THE PAIN!!

[takuhii]

And another thing

When are Apple taking the growers of said fruit to court for "Growing a Product in their Likeness"? Next thing we know is that Eve will have tempted Adam with an iPod int he Garden of Eden. Grow a sense of camaraderie Apple and share your toys like everyone else!!

[werdsmith]

Wet Fish

Which is going to be the first Fish & Chip shop to claim that they are the only one?

[Pahhh]

Like Apple products but...

I like Apple products but I cant say I like the company at all. Think the company is hyprotrical as it will shameless use other company's trademarks (e.g. iPhone, Apple) yet they will pursue anyone that uses a term that sounds remotely like theirs.

In fact, I will go so far as to say I hate Apple. Problem is I still like the iPhone....

Oh yeah and as far as Amazon are concerned, they are bunch of shitsters as well. Uhm.... lets use a browser cookie so you can remember who the person is (thats the whole reason why cookies were invented) so when I press Buy I dont have to enter my details again.... I will call it "1-Click" and put a patent on it. Thats a FARCE!

[Lewis Mettler]

maybe not when you pay higher prices

Maybe you will not like your iDevice so much when you have to pay higher prices for subscriptions.

There is one and only one reason why Apple insists upon subscriptions not costing less through other channels. They want to illegally prohibit price competition from other channels or block such products and services from Apple customers.

Clearly if Apple insists upon a 30% cut on subscriptions, other channels would cost less. Google says 10%. Amazon has not yet announced in regard to subscriptions. And certainly any media subscription company can afford to take subscriptions for less directly. And no doubt some media companies do not have a 30% margin themselves. And that may include Apple itself.

Could Apple allow others to market it's tunes if charged a 30% cut and require that Apple not charge less on iTunes? I doubt it. So Apple knows that insisting upon a 30% cut is the same as simply blocking competing services such a music subscriptions. Apple customers will never know they have been illegally blocked from alternative services. And that is Apple's intent. Keep your customers stupid and ignorant of alternatives. Particularly less expensive ones.

[Fuh Quit]

this is all bollocks

I have windows in my house and I don't see MS complaining. Microsoft Windows is trademarked - font, logo, etc

Appstore App Store whatever is too vague. The Apple Store is definitely not the App Store - they are two separate things.

Just google, sorry, search for "appstore" and you'll see a whole shedload of people needing to be sued. Or not as this is crap.

I wish Apple great success but my wife is dumping her iPhone for a Galaxy and wants to get a "proper computer" when her MacBook dies. She's not impressed with the quality they're pumping out.

[Robert Carnegie]

Re print too small

Re print in the legal documents being too small - it's the fucking law, retards. Legal documents must meet a useability standard. It's probably also an accessibility issue. I suppose they don't accept crayon or invisible ink either.

[Peter 48]

Stop using the american language then

Hey amazon, if Apple want to be such prats, just call it the AppShop instead. One goes "shopping" afterall not "store-ing"

[DZ-Jay]

@Peter 48

And for that extra British flair, go for "App Shoppe."

Why, yes, I'm a 'merkin. How can you tell?

-dZ.

[Naughtyhorse]

cant tell

you spelled everything correctly

:D

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, trademark this...

what about iAppStore since Apple seem to consider anything starting "i" is theirs

[Rolf Howarth]

It may be generic NOW but it wasn't then

"IT magazine information age uses the term app store generically in the feb issue - perhaps they should be sued too.."

The industry moves so quickly that it's very easy to forget what things were like just a few years ago. Sure, people sometimes used 'app' short for application, but nothing like as universally as they do now, and certainly not when applied to mobile devices. Applet or mobile application maybe, but certainly not mobile app. And sure, there were lots of online stores that sold software, but usually each software vendor had their own store and you got a boxed CD in the post, and the only stuff you could buy for mobile devices was games and ring tones.

Seriously, who else had anything remotely resembling the Apple App Store, or referred to anything as an "app store", before Apple introduced theirs?

Just for interest, I did a search through 10 years of email archive, including various industry newsletters and forum digests I subscribe to. Apart from a number of spurious "the app stores its preferences here" type references, the first occurrence was in March 2008 when Apple first announced their app store, then about a thousand occurrences after.

[Clive Summerfield]

Prior usage

Rolf, try looking beyond your email archive:

"Sure, people sometimes used 'app' short for application, but nothing like as universally as they do now, and certainly not when applied to mobile devices."

"Seriously, who else had anything remotely resembling the Apple App Store, or referred to anything as an "app store", before Apple introduced theirs?"

Thanks to the wayback machine we have, from 2nd Nov 2001:

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20011102020041/http://www.handango.com/

Bottom right of front page:

"Developing the next killer app for handhelds? Become a Handango Software Partner."

[Rolf Howarth]

What?

That's the best you can do, one reference to "killer app for handhelds"?? Brilliant, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "app store", not "app".

[Clive Summerfield]

Huh?

>>Brilliant, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about "app store", not "app".

Huh? I event went as far as to quote the appropriate part of your comment:

"Sure, people sometimes used 'app' short for application, but nothing like as universally as they do now, and certainly not when applied to mobile devices."

More specifically:

"... people sometimes used 'app' short for application... ...certainly not when applied to mobile devices."

Certainly there appears to be a certain degree of uncertainty as to the certainty of your statement that people certainly didn't use 'app' in a mobile context. Of that we can be quite certain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Apple want that name

If you discuss "Windows" in an I.T. context people generally know you're reffering to Microsoft Windows, which is something Microsoft have an interest in. If someone says "you need to get Windows if you want to run that" then people generally know what product they need. Apple want "App Store" to work the same way, in that if people say "you can download this from the App Store" then people head straight over to Apple. If there are 10 different companies with "app stores" and people aren't sure which one someone's reffering to it could result in lost revenue for Apple. As a redeeming comment I think all of this is ridiculous and a big money making exercise for lawyers, but I can see why Apple are trying to persue it, no matter how stupid it may look to other people here.

[Barry Lane 1]

Love Apple's computers

Hate their enthusiasm to litigate against everything that piss@s them off.

[Anonymous Coward]

App. Store (with a dot)

"App. store" with a dot to indicate an abbreviation is a completely generic term, should removing the dot make it a trademark?

Perhaps they will have better luck with this than they did with "Windows" but I hope not.

[Anonymous Coward]

An yet scant mention...

Of Amazon pulling the API plug on the sites that has started lending services for Kindles such as www.lendle.com because it does not, to quote Amazon, “...serve the principal purpose of driving sales of products and services on the Amazon site.” Yawn, Cade...

[Mark .]

"mobile software developer program"

I love how Apple manage to avoid saying "Amazon's app store" - so I guess Apple think the generic term should be "mobile software developer program", despite the fact that no one in their right mind would use such a term? It doesn't even make sense - I'm not buying from a program, and "developer" implies it's only for developers, not customers.

I also note how the media have happily been referring to the store as an "app store" (e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12119509 ), because that's what it is.

"Unlike Google's marketplace, which lets developers list any application after paying a fee"

Really? Nokia's app store is only 1 euro - how much do Google charge?

Lewis Mettier, the Fake: "Apple simply got there first, just as they created the smartphone market"

Er, no they didn't.

"Was the smartphone market anywhere near what it became after the iPhone?"

I'm not sure what you mean. The phone market has been growing continuously, so obviously it is larger now than it was years ago, but that is no more down to the original Iphone, than any other phone. A simple glance at market figures shows that other companies (e.g., Nokia) have consistently outselled Apple, even in the ill-defined "smartphone" category, so the increase in market _can't_ be primarily due to Apple, because other companies have been selling even more.

"The Apple Lisa was first commercially sold personal computer to have a GUI."

Even if that was true (it isn't), the Iphone wasn't anywhere near the first commercially sold smartphone. If you're trying to claim that it should be labelled "first" because of some unknown quality, I might as well say AmigaOS was "first" with a GUI, because the Amiga was much more affordable than anything from Apple.

It's the Apple definition of "first" - "first", if we ignore all that came before. Next you'll be telling me they had the first computer without floppy drive, or first 64 bit personal computer.

"Like in the recent announcement of 8000% growth in data traffic at AT&T since the launch of the iPhone"

So Iphone users sit on Facebook all day, and the Iphone apps guzzle data in the background. I'm not sure why that's a good thing. My Nokia is more intelligent with its network usage - e.g., allowing maps to be downloaded and stored on the phone.

"1-Click or Windows are also a common English terms."

I don't think Windows should be trademarked either - and they lost the initial case against Lindows. If someone took them to court, they might well lose.

Sean Baggaley 1: "If you file a patent or a trademark, the onus is on YOU to police it."

The point is that they shouldn't be trying to trademark it at all.

"So why not "Amazon App Market"?"

Why not "Apple App Store"? People aren't copying Apple - they're using the generic term for the thing being described. If that's not "app store", then come on, tell me what the correct term is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia software is dead

Mike have you really not read the news yet?

We've already had this discussion yesterday, Nokia as a platform is dead.

Yes it's true Apple killed it, just by innovating (I can sense you'll try to convince me they didn't innovate anything). What you're going through is called grief, deal with it.

[Sineira]

Patenting common words?

I just heard Apple patented the following English words as well:

and, the, to, that, has, was, been, us

[Sineira]

iAppStore?

Shouldn't this work?

iAppStore

[Anonymous Coward]

more

Or the Yorkshire version:

iUpStore

[Ken MAC]

Apple customers confused

So is it the owners of iPads who will be confused whilst trying to download Android onto iOS or Android users being a bunch of wannabees, "It's like an iPad but not an IPad" as the advert goes..

Dear Steve et al,, Either grow up or just patent\trademark the whole damn dictionary and be done with it..

[Ken MAC]

Ancient GUIs

Anybody rememer DR GEM on Amstrads.. OH I forgot Apple sued them as well.

[James Hughes 1]

I remember!

Also seem to remember the Atari ST had some sort of GUI as well. Prior to the Lisa I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's just crazy talk werdsmith

No it wasn't prior to the Lisa. Apple Lisa was the first *PERSONAL COMPUTER* with a GUI.

(haters please note I didn't say personal OFFICE SYSTEM costing over $75,000 in 1981)

[Lewis Mettler]

Amazon is likely to sue Apple in response

Amazon has the better trademark in AppStore compared to App Store. App Store is a generic term. How else would you describe what they do? It is just like food store, gas store, clothing store.

Come to think of it someone should try to trademark "Clothing Store" and see how they do.

But, the most interesting development may be Amazon suing Apple for the right to sell iDevice applications. Or, trademark "iDevice". Now that would be interesting.

But, Amazon does have the legal right to sell and distribute applications for Apple products. There is no legal basis for concluding otherwise.

Apple may try to prevent it. But, that effort is illegal. Could Microsoft prevent anyone else from selling applications for the Microsoft OS? I seriously doubt that. And that is true even without relying upon a determination that Microsoft has a monopoly.

Again, consumers are being harmed directly by not having access to other app stores. And you can bet Amazon wants to play there to.

There is no reason why Amazon should be happly selling only apps for the Android marketplace. Or, even the Microsoft mobile market.

I think Apple is being stupid.

It is likely that Apple will lose it's "App Store" trademark completely. And it is also likely that Amazon will be successful in forcing Apple to open up its devices to apps distributed by others.

Who in their right mind really wants to be restricted to alternatives sources. Clearly not Apple customers. So when you see supports of the Apple controlling nature, you see Apple employees being deceptive and trying to defraud the reader. It is possible that some Apple customers might only be interested in the walled garden or controlled market offered by Apple. But, that clearly is NOT in the interest of all of them.

No doubt a number of those other companies hoping to sell media subscriptions to Apple users might also bring their own law suits to prevent Apple from restricting access to their services. Spotify being one. Rhapsidy being another. The Economist being a third. Even the New York Times. No question that any number of media suppliers want to excesize their right to market to Apple customers without being obligated to pay Apple 30% off the top.

Apple would never accept the terms it wants to impose upon everyone else with their iTunes? You know, pay someone else 30% off the top and not be able to sell for less directly.

Only idiots at Apple demand that terms they would never accept must be applied to all competitors.

Apple is clearly not the consumers friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahah

Do you believe your own bullshit or is someone paying you to write it?

[Neil Stansbury]

@Reverse Lewis Mettier

Dear RLM

Ignoring the fact that you appear to be:

a) A bit of a knob

b) Seem to have just discovered the internet

Your certainly don't appear to know much about the topic of trademarks, so lets just let the people that aren't intellectual trolls do the talking shall we:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-applying/t-before/t-requirements.htm

[snip]

We will not accept marks which:

describe your goods or services or any characteristics of them, for example, marks which show the quality, quantity, purpose, value or geographical origin of your goods or services;

have become customary in your line of trade;

are not distinctive;

[/snip]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#3

Now, do us all a favour - be a good little troll and go feed some place else.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing

To find someone who cares enough to read actually read something. However:

a) My being is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I have to be like this because the

signal-to-noise ratio is just too low in forums like this. People somehow love posting whatever pre-conception even when they have no clue. I don't care for that so I just cut through it with and take no prisoners.

b) The odds you were on the Internet, or X.25 networks (good times) before me are low. But if you were maybe we can swap blue box tones someday, or good Fidonet node numbers.

Back to the topic why do you think your links make you more of an expert? I don't see it at all.

If that's all it takes maybe I'm in the wrong profession.

Now let's see, if Apple sued Amazon it's clear they already have the trademark, it's already been accepted.

Also it wouldn't be registered through the UK IPO but in the US (they would apply here via the International system).As the legal battle is between two US companies your UK link is irrelevant.

So I suggest you do yourself a favour and wait for the legal proceedings to go through, which at this point is really will decide the fate of the trademark, before spending more time on this.

[Robert Carnegie]

Prior GUI

Not only was VisiCalc, as I say, the apparent origin of "killer app", and Lotus 1-2-3 the second of them, Wikipedia declares that "VisiOn" was the first GUI for PC, probably easier to look up as project name "Quasar". A hyperlinked PDF business school document about What Went Wrong states that VisiOn was released in December 1983, late, by which time you could buy an Apple Lisa or let Microsoft tell you about Windows 1.0, which seems to be credited with inspired the term "vaporware" (I'm not sure about that) because it didn't arrive till over a year later. VisiOn also seems to have beaten GEM to your PC screen by around six months(?), and probably mainly or exclusively ran VisiCorp programs - but I'm sure they'd have opened an app store if things were different.

Hands up who wasn't born yet then. I was, I'm in my forties. I even used some of this stuff, but not VisiCorp products. Amstrad PCs, or some of them, came with GEM.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good stuff

I'm glad to have inspired a true historical computing search mission by posting on a article covering litigation over "app store"

My work for today is done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Words too common to sue

App, Application, Store are common words so Apple will have a time suing. Like Office Depot was sued by Home Depot and they lost. Words are too common.

Its not the exact spelling. I am sure application store is been used before Apple. App is abbr of application.....fat chance Apple.

[Tim Brown 1]

I blame the Beatles...

didn't they start Apple?

(oh wait, wrong lawsuit...)

[OutOfContext]

RLM Appreciation Society

Thinking of starting one - anyone care to join?

[beep54]

Apple now officially bites

At this point I will NEVER purchase anything from Apple. Or Sony for that matter.