Apple Sues Amazon.com Over App Store Trademark 285
tekgoblin writes "Apple is suing Amazon.com over the use of Apple's trademarked App Store name in their mobile software developer program. Apple filed the suit back on March 18th, which detailed the trademark infringement and unfair competition which Apple felt was happening. Apple's statement in the suit reads: 'Amazon has begun improperly using Apple's App Store mark in connection with Amazon's mobile software developer program.' Apple also said, 'We've asked Amazon not to copy the App Store name because it will confuse and mislead customers.'"
Bring it on. (Score:5, Insightful)
hey Amazon, want to reconsider that one-click patent?
Re:Bring it on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If Amazon having an App Store will "confuse" people, then surely OSX having the "Mac App Store" will also cause confusion and mislead customers? Seems a bit of a double standard there. Either that or they're just talking out of their ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they're not.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they are. The grocer is a person. The supermarket is a store.
I think you fell into a trap set by a pedant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trademark != patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's both, actually: http://www.markify.com/trademarks/uspto/1-click/75413262 [markify.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Apple licensed 1 Click after Amazon sued them.
Appholes (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, they added "store" to a word we've been using in the industry for decades. Surely there's no merit in this...
Re:Appholes (Score:4, Insightful)
I should probably have included the obligatory link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/appholes [thedailyshow.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's an App for That. [skyfire.com]
("There's an App for That" is a registered trademark of Apple Corporation.)
Re: (Score:3)
("There's an App for That" is a registered trademark of Apple Corporation.)
Strange how everyone here uses that phrase to make a dig at how useless most apps on the ipad/iphone (and the devices in general) are... for example...
"Want a cracked screen on your phone? There's an app for that!"
"Got an upset stomach and run out of toilet paper? There's an app for that!"
"Accidentally ran over your neighbours dog? There's an app for that!"
"Can't remember your own name? There's an app for that!"
Feel free to supply more examples...
Re: (Score:3)
In a bad mood today? There's an app for that!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're going to claim 'apps' is short for apples or some crap like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, like apples are something new that they invented.
Apple, the fruity computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Appholes (Score:4, Informative)
The Apple App Store opened in March 2008. If you do an Internet search for the term "App Store" prior to that you have a very hard time finding any legitimate results. (Google really needs to fix their date search, and Bing and Yahoo! were worse) I didn't find any, but going through lots of results manually is problematic. It is entirely possible that they actually did coin the term - so yes, seriously.
Bullshit. [salesforce.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Ultra B*llsh*t. I have seen the term being used many years ago. Watford Electronics in the UK, had a section of its store called... you guessed it.. App Store. And watford electronics were in business since the 80's (they are defunt now, and have been bought by Sava Stores)
Nobody trademarked it before because.. its obvious, and its a generic term that describes what is beign sold.
Apple popularised the app store iPod/iPhone/iPad app store to advertise a feature available on their devices (the ability to easi
Re: (Score:3)
"The Container Store" is also a trademark for a chain of, uh, container stores, although I've used containers in conversation long before it. Trying to market a knockoff chain "The Container Shop" may not work.
Re:Appholes (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't mean that it's not generic just because they used it first.
Re:Appholes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite aware of them, their worth, and how they work. I wouldn't get rid of them or suggest they're as broken as patents or the like. Can't a guy just make a snarky comment for fun sometimes though? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Appholes (Score:4, Insightful)
Trademarks have the concept of a domain in which they are valid. People tend not to mix up produce with personal electronics very often, so you'd have a tough sell at court for your Apple Store idea, especially so since they'd have a tough time registering a trademark in the electronics domain since Apple Inc. would already have a claim there. That said, two different stores, each selling programs for mobile devices, could easily be mistaken if they share the same name.
Re: (Score:2)
generic; prior usage (Score:3, Insightful)
The term "application shop" [google.co.uk] was used for Symbian's shop for quite a while before Apple appeared with its iPhone, "shop" being a simple translation of the US English "store". And "app" has been a generic abbreviation for "application" at least since the late '80s on Acorn's RISC OS, newsgroup comp.sys.acorn.apps being proposed in early 1995 [google.com].
You can argue that translations are irrelevant but this is not always so across the world [chinadaily.com.cn]. Regardless, it is ethically questionable to suggest that a generic phrase should become a trademark just because a word has been translated to another dialect of English.
What is more, the term "app store" is clearly descriptive and non-distinctive [ezinearticles.com] as far as UK registration eligibility goes.
Re: (Score:2)
With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No he doesn't. Microsoft may have "Microsoft Windows" registered as a trademark, I don't know. But I know for sure they do have the word "Windows" on it's own registered, because I looked it up in the database last time it was questioned on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the trademark was "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And in the US too.
Re:generic; prior usage (Score:4, Informative)
I thought the trademark was "Microsoft Windows", not "Windows"
Microsoft sued Lindows over being similar to "Windows". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._Lindows [wikipedia.org] They ended up losing some early battles in court and then bought them out.
They've also bullied/bribed other projects like wxWindows (now wxWidgets). http://www.wxwindows.org/about/name.htm [wxwindows.org]
Those are just the ones I know about off the top of my head.
Re:generic; prior usage (Score:5, Insightful)
With that in mind, how do you feel about Windows(tm)? :)
Well given that the App Store is an app store and Windows is an Operating System (not a windows), i don't see an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Windows is not a description of the product (an OS). If they sold window managers, you'd have a point.
Re:generic; prior usage (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone once used a similar phrase in the past it doesn't mean it can't be trademarked today. We're not talking about patents. Acorn certainly isn't using it anymore, and there would be little confusion between an iPad and an Acorn OS machine. Besides, to my knowledge Acorn never actually used "App Store". As for Symbian, I'm sure they're safe from Apple's lawyers with their "application shop"-- in fact they can probably trademark that one themselves.
Apple has historically used "Application" as its descriptive term for this stuff. MacOS's place to put programs is called the "Applications" folder, while Windows used "Program Files". When the iPhone came around, they just shortened it to App, and the phrase became immediately descriptive for what it was-- a tiny application that ran on an embedded device. So an App is a little Application. And a store is where you buy them. But *the* "App Store" is Apple's place to sell iOS apps, and no one else was using that particular phraseology that I know of before them.
If anything, Apple's biggest challenge is going to be to prove that they themselves didn't ever use it generically, since they were brought rather reluctantly into the proprietary app business when developers refused to use HTML as the way to make iPhone software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want your trademark used ... (Score:2)
Then don't name it something obvious and generic. App Store is a short name for "Application Store" which is the very definition of the service they provide. They essentially named it The "App Store" Application Store. It's like naming something the "Oil Comp" Oil Company, or the "Soft. development" Software development company. They are using a generic term, so fuck them. Be more creative and stop trying to ban language.
Google did the same shit, they named theirs "Market". I mean, come on!. What is it? A M
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, "app" is the file extension NeXT chose for application bundles. Since OS X and iOS are NeXTStep derrived, they too use the app extension. When you visit the App Store, you really are buying "app"s. Microsoft opening an EXE Store would be a better example of another company doing something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The .ipa is just a zip file. Uncompress it and you'll find your .app inside. Try it!
Re: (Score:2)
Then Amazon can't be infringing as their App Store clearly sells applications rather than .app files, and no customer would confuse the two of them. Right?
Re: (Score:3)
The .ipa is just a compressed distribution package (it is a zip file). The .app file is contained within. I guess you could argue that OS X doesn't use .app either because software is typically distributed via .dmg or .pkg files, but I'm not sure what is to be gained.
Re:If you don't want your trademark used ... (Score:4, Interesting)
And by the way, Google's app store is called the Android Market, which is very specific, and leaves no confusion about what it is. Amazon can open a 'market' or an 'amazon market' but they can't open an Android Market.
Want to Sue Your Competitor? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Want to Sue Your Competitor? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, there isn't, because it competes with Apple's offerings.
Amazon is either smart or stupid (Score:2)
So, either Amazon doesn't know Apple has an App Store (TM) that they were infring
Re:Amazon is either smart or stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Trade marks aren't awarded. They are claimed, and sometimes registered to strengthen that claim.
Apple sues Sunnyside Day Care (Score:5, Funny)
It's not even the same word... (Score:3)
Amazon is calling theirs the Amazon "appstore". One word. Lower case.
Apple's is the Apple "App Store". Two words. Capitalized.
How can there be any confusion?
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalization is stylistic and doesn't apply to proper nouns. Spaces matter, though. However, trademarks are judged by similarity -- whether a person would be confused between the two.
Goes way back (Score:2)
To the best of my knowledge, the first time I heard anyone refer to an "app" was programmers referring to executables on the original Mac OS. All files had a type and creator code; for programs the type was "appl". The "l" was awkward to pronounce, so they were just called "apps".
Off to the USPTO I go! (Score:4)
Too Generic (Score:3)
Isn't "App Store" the functional equivalent of "Flower Shop", "Fruit Stand", or "Gas Station"? [what we sell] [synonym for merchant establishment].
Should never have been granted a trademark on the name.
Re:you know what confuses me? (Score:4, Funny)
Frankly, I'm surprised you can recall your birth experience so vividly.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
Trademark law states that any potential mark violations must be enforced. Apple may very well think suing Amazon over this is as stupid as everyone else, but the law says they have to do it anyway, else lose their rights to the trademark altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But they're still going to fight for it. Clearly it's worth it to them financially speaking.
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, you're confused between patents and trademarks. Prior art can make patents invalid after being granted. But prior use does not make trademarks invalid once they've been granted.
The prior use of "AppStore" as an unregistered trademark by SalesForce.com gives SalesForce.com the right to continue using the mark. But it doesn't invalidate Apples's registered trademark, nor does it in any way give Amazon the right to use the mark.
Re:App is generic (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
You can call your operating System
"Apple" which is a fruit
"Macintosh" which is a surname
OS which is short for "Operating System"
X which is means "10" or is a letter
"Snow leopard" which is an animal.
If you wanted to. But then you can't sue the local greengrocer can you? Linux refers to 'windows' all the times. Its allowed as its clearly not talking about the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? You can sue anyone for anything for any reason. But yes, you will lose because trademark law is also quite explicit about those cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple didn't sue Woolworths for use. They objected to Woolworths registering the apple logo as a trademark under a description that included electrical goods and technology. Areas where Apple already has an apple logo trademarked.
If Woolworths had just tried to register the trademark for grocery, then Apple wouldn't have objected.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hate to break this to you but Woolworth's isn't a "local" grocer. They're a national australian chain.
Not only that but they're named after the international chain of department stores.
Re:App is generic (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You can call the underlying x window system a 'window', and multiples of it 'windows'.
You can, but you'd be wrong. The X Window system is not a window, it is a window manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft settled in Microsoft vs. Lindows because they were quite worried that Windows would be ruled a generic termthat wasn't trademarkable. IIRC the Judge they appeared before raised serious questions about the term, and so they paid millions for the Lindows name and settled.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.
You really aren't able to tell the difference between an operating system and the windows in your house? or an operating system and a window manager concept of a window? Next you'll be trying to a Mac from your green grocer.
Re: (Score:2)
I buy Macs from my greengrocer all the time.
Mac [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is a generic term too. My Mac has windows. My Linux system has windows. Even my house has windows. That doesn't mean I can call my operating system Windows.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Microsoft has been denied trademark on "Windows" time and time again.
Re: (Score:3)
Not according to them: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx [microsoft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how confident you feel, you're wrong. If you look it up in the US trademarks database, you'll find that it was granted in the 1980s, and it's still live.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple. It doesn't matter if your Android phone has an app that provides a storefront for downloading software.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And when you say "App Store," everyone knows you are talking about the one operated by Apple.
Er no. I don't know that, and I would be willing to testify in court.
Re: (Score:2)
No. If someone said "app store", I'd simply assume it's an online software store. I wouldn't assume it is Apple's app store unless it was specified, or if the context made me realize so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So, Apple could call their new operating system Apple Windows?
(Incidentally, "Windows" by itself is a registered trademark.)
Re: (Score:2)
Before you start hurling round insults, you should realize that "Windows" *is* a trademark owned by Microsoft. Your objection to the previous poster is thus invalid, and adding the insult makes you look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about Groc Store?
could be a place to sell complex code???
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Stick to giving eachother AIDS, fags.
Why don't you run on back to 4chan before your Mom finds out you're using the computer again.
Re:App Store is Short For Application Store FAGGOT (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.
Oh, well played!
Re: (Score:2)
They were issued a trademark and trademark law says you must defend your mark or lose it. You can dispute the merits of them being issued the mark, but the law itself compels them into this suit or they lose their mark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Modifying your own query, we get zero results for "app store" [google.com] in the given date range, but 18,000+ [google.com] results if we're not date-restricted.
This is not the first time a company has trademarked or otherwise branded a simple phrase. What if Budweiser used, "Good to the last drop" as their motto (it's Maxwell House's motto)?
Personally, I do think Apple's being pretty juvenile, but they were the first ones to use the phrase App Store with real success.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows. Sun. Photoshop. Illustrator. Red Hat. Android.
All anticompetitive?
Re: (Score:3)
None of those are similar to 'app store' and the current lawsuit because they're not self descriptive. Facebook is the closest though, but if they sue someone making, lets say Anonymous Coward's face book, they will be laughed out of court because such use precedes the trademark. Microsoft can't sue people using the 'word' to describe words, only if someone makes word processors with that name. The problem isn't that 'app store' is generic, but that it describes itself without Apple even entering into the p
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe this only works because no one wants to say they're windows-based in the first place
Actually, I'm sure there's a market in Silicon Valley for an appetizer joint that brands itself as an App Store (or App Place, or something tha
Re:Rediculous (Score:5, Informative)
But Salesforce.com didn't register it as a trademark. The prior use means that Salesforce.com can continue using "AppStore" as a mark. But it doesn't invalidate Apple's registered trademark. Apple still has the right (and the duty if they want to keep their trademark live) to prevent companies other than Salesforce.com using the mark.