Comment
Tweet
Share
Share
Digg
If you’ll recall, a few months ago Microsoft filed a protest against Apple’s ownership of the “App Store” trademark, on the grounds that the term is too generic and cannot belong to any one company. Many other companies seemingly agreed with Ballmer and Co., and the trademark was also challenged in Europe by Nokia, HTC and Sony Ericsson.
Apparently tired of all this lengthy litigation, Amazon dove right in in mid-March, launching its own Android Appstore. Although the online retailer had truncated “App Store” to “Appstore”, the change wasn’t enough for Apple, which promptly filed suit for trademark infringement.
Amazon attempted to have the case thrown out, on the basis that Steve Jobs himself spoke of App Stores in a generic sense during an earnings call -
“So there will be at least four app stores on Android, which customers must search among to find the app they want and developers will need to work with to distribute their apps and get paid. This is going to be a mess for both users and developers. Contrast this with Apple’s integrated App Store, which offers users the easiest-to-use largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.”
We’re sure Apple has the best lawyers around fighting its corner, even so the initial filing on the case is nothing short of hilarious. In its submission to the Federal Court in Oakland, California, Apple’s legal team stated that -
“Apple denies that, based on their common meaning, the words ‘app store’ together denote a store for apps.”
Read through that again. Enjoy the vintage Jobsian flavour.
Let’s remember that it took Apple two attempts to secure the trademark to the term, and Apps had been around for many years by the time Apple entered the fray. As we’ve pointed out before, it’s akin to someone attempting to trademark “grocery store”.
So, will Applehold on to the trademark? The weight of evidence against the Cupertino company, the number of complainants and common sense would seem to dictate no – however this is Apple, so we’ll have to wait and see.
Loading ...
I guess if Microsoft thinks “app store” is too generic, they need to explain how they got trademarks for Windows and Office.
Good reporting isn’t subjective. The words “world’s flimsiest defense” in your title leads me to believe this is a biased opinion piece and not a reliable source of information. Consider that.
Zack, perhaps you should consider the fact that RCR Unplugged is a blog site and the opinion arm of RCR Wireless news and as such, we have absolutely no compunction about sharing our opinion. Consider that
Andre, really?
That isn’t how the term generic gets associated with trademarks. It’s only generic if it could be applied to all similar products. Like “Shoe Store” which you could not trademark however “Foot Locker” is not immediately associated with footwear and therefore not generic.
Also, Apple, apple a very common word but a word used to describe a computer company, nope, not generic in the slightest.
Ignoring that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that it’s a lawsuit against Amazon…
Microsoft doesn’t have a trademark for ‘Office’, they have a trademark for ‘Microsoft Office’. Microsoft aren’t suing StarOffice or OpenOffice.org.
‘Windows’ is less clear-cut. It’s not as generic as ‘app store’ since it’s not an outright description of the product yet it’s certainly on iffy ground.
@Andre Richards
Microsoft owns the trademarks for “Microsoft Windows” and “Microsoft Office”. Small but major difference.
@Zack: no, it can be good AND subjective, as long as it doesn’t violate the facts. all newspaper articles are subjective, that’s the reason why certain people read certain newspapers.
@Andre Richards: you missed the point.
“windows” is an abstract term, it has a very symbolic meaning the way microsoft use it. they could have called it “clicks”.
if people want to know about operating systems, they may search/ask for “operating system”, they wouldn’t come up with “windows” unless they already knew the product.
if someone wanted to sell apps in some kind of a store, they would need to come up with whole new terms, which they had to introduce to ordinary language in order to sell their product. if you have to avoid ordinary language to describe your product it’s a big disadvantage.
microsoft doesn’t sue people who sell windows for houses.
“microsoft office” is different, as the term has a very close relation to the product itself. but there are other products, like open office, microsoft doesn’t keep others from the use of the term “office”.
The stupidest religion on erath where you pray to mp3-players and cellphones. And not even to good ones.
Check who´s talking before you spent time on comments.
All of you MS defenders need to understand one thing: the concept of a “window” in computing was a known thing at the time Microsoft was given their trademark so it was a specific concept relating to computers, not an abstract concept. It is exactly the same as giving a trademark for App Store.
Anyone claiming MS’s trademark is “Microsoft Windows” needs to do some research before throwing out any apologist drivel.
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx
Scroll about 3/4 of the way down. “Windows” is on Microsoft’s own list as a registered trademark.
So, my argument stands. If Microsoft can trademark Windows, Apple should be allowed to trademark App Store. It’s exactly the same.