Home › News › Software
Amazon to Apple: the term "app store" is generic
The Seattle-based online retailer has asked a federal judge in San Francisco to throw out Apple's trademark suit, calling the phrase "app store" generic and not something that Apple can claim for its exclusive use. In the 10-page filing (PDF, via GeekWire), Amazon quotes Jobs, who, when speaking on Apple's quarterly conference call last fall, repeatedly referred to app stores in a generic sense:
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.
Microsoft started the legal battle against Apple's trademark of the term app store, and ended up effectively representing all the companies that want to or are already trying to use the phrase. Amazon now appears to be agree with Microsoft's core argument: that "app store" is as generic as "shoe store" or "toy store." As a result, the term should not belong to one company.
Three months ago, Microsoft asked the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reject Apple's application to trademark the term "App Store" because it is too generic. Apple countered back by reminding Microsoft that it successfully trademarked "Windows" a few decades ago.
Last month, Microsoft filed yet another legal filing against Apple, citing Amazon's new store as evidence that other companies need to be able to use the phrase to accurately describe their mobile application marketplaces. The issue is still in the hands of the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and will hopefully be resolved in the next few months.
Related Stories
User Comments (19)
Post a comment|
HiDDeNMisT
on April 26, 2011 4:28 PM |
wow really apple needs to stop |
|
Xclusiveitalian
on April 26, 2011 4:59 PM |
Apple isn't going to win. |
|
mario
on April 26, 2011 5:11 PM |
Everyone to Amazon: the 1-click patent is generic. |
|
gwailo247
on April 26, 2011 5:17 PM |
marioestrada said: Everyone to Amazon: the 1-click patent is generic. That's really the best you can do? -1 |
|
captaincranky
on April 26, 2011 5:17 PM |
Wow, lawyers really do have nothing better to do, than justify their ridiculous paydays with a bunch of BS litigation. Apple Computers and Apple Records should both be really happy that they were were allowed those "generic" trademarks. Did the "apple growers association" ever sue because because of those blatant infringements? |
|
Timonius
on April 26, 2011 5:58 PM |
this is how 'grown-ups' argue :p lol |
|
Guest
on April 26, 2011 6:40 PM |
Well, the term App Store really didn't get heavily utilized until Apple started using it. And when they started making all of this money selling apps in their App Store, guess what, everybody else started using it too. I think trying to trademark the term is ridiculous but you could see why they'd want to. Is it any different than Microsoft trademarking "Windows", "Office", "Word", or "Outlook"? |
|
captaincranky
on April 26, 2011 6:50 PM |
Is it any different than Microsoft trademarking "Windows", "Office", "Word", or "Outlook"?
this is how 'grown-ups' argue :p lol Wait, don't tell me, let me guess, you're going to jump in a show us how to do it correctly?
|
|
herpaderp
on April 26, 2011 7:58 PM |
The Windows patent makes more sense, after all, it's a line of software products, not a store that sells its namesake. Apple should have just patented "Apple App Store" or "iStore" or something, instead of picking such a generic name for their.....app store. |
|
Guest
on April 26, 2011 8:50 PM |
Ooppss...you're right about "Apple" too. But that's the name of the company so again you could see why there would be some protection there. But in regards to products, that's a different story. If you can't protect at least your company name then we'd be seeing even more stupid lawsuits than there are today. The problem with any of this is that it's the damn lawyers that end up winning anyway... |
|
captaincranky
on April 26, 2011 8:56 PM |
Ooppss...you're right about "Apple" too. But that's the name of the company so again you could see why there would be some protection there. But in regards to products, that's a different story. If you can't protect at least your company name then we'd be seeing even more stupid lawsuits than there are today. There exists the possibility of even more frivolous lawsuits than there are now? That's depressing.
The problem with any of this is that it's the damn lawyers that end up winning anyway... |
|
Guest
on April 26, 2011 9:44 PM |
No no, this is how grownups with too much money argue... for the purpose of gaining more money?! |
|
matrix86
on April 27, 2011 12:58 AM |
Guest said: Is it any different than Microsoft trademarking "Windows", "Office", "Word", or "Outlook"? To correct you, Microsoft didn't trademark Windows, Office, Word, and Outlook. They did, however, trademark Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Outlook. Consumers are the ones who dropped "Microsoft" from in front of the products for the simple fact that we're lazy. Why say "I use Microsoft Word" when you can just say "I use Word."? |
|
Guest
on April 27, 2011 1:17 AM |
And actually Apple stole their name from The Beatles, which owned "Apple Records" and even used the Apple as a logo. Apple Computer sends dividend checks to the Beatles Estate monthly. |
|
captaincranky
on April 27, 2011 1:38 AM |
And actually Apple stole their name from The Beatles, which owned "Apple Records" and even used the Apple as a logo. Apple Computer sends dividend checks to the Beatles Estate monthly. You do know the all the Beatles aren't dead, don't you...?
|
|
TekGun
on April 27, 2011 3:28 AM |
captaincranky said: You do know the all the Beatles aren't dead, don't you...? I'm sure Paul and Ringo would like to know why no one told them :p Just because Apple so say made the term app popular doesn't mean they should get sole use of the term "app store" just stick an i in front like with everything else and be done with it already. |
|
Vrmithrax
on April 27, 2011 7:37 AM |
Once again, the comparison between "app store" and "Windows" or even "Apple" being allowed trademarks is irrelevant. Windows, Apple, Office, etc. are all abstracts applied to a specific company or product - they have a variety of possible meanings, sometimes not even closely related to what the name gets tagged onto (like in the case of Apple meaning computers/electronics). But the term "app store" has only one possible meaning, and the phrase is the very definition of the product. That is far too generic to be allowed. Now, if Apple had actually invented the term "app" then they might have a basis for argument of ownership, but they most definitely did not. If Apple wants to trademark "Apple App Store" or "iApp Store" then they have every right, but to claim ownership to the name of an entire economic marketplace model is just asinine... |
|
nismo91
on April 27, 2011 7:50 AM |
if Microsoft trademarked Office instead of Microsoft Office, then all those suites - EasyOffice, LibreOffice, StarOffice, OpenOffice and so on will be sued in no time. cmon people AppStore is way too generic. |
|
Archean
on April 27, 2011 10:49 AM |
@Captain I think you love to 'straighten out' iSheeps don't ya? |
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
iOS 5.1.1 untethered jailbreak tool released, supports 4S, iPad 3
-
After five days, Facebook ranks as worst IPO flop of the decade
-
Rumor: Windows 8 RC will launch June 1, will ship with Adobe Flash
-
Rumor: AMD "Piledriver" FX CPU production to begin Q3 2012
-
Is Apple's USB wall adapter really worth $29?
Editors' CPU Picks
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and tech breaking news.
