Microsoft Bares Fangs to Block Apple Trademark

[BehattedWanderer]

Microsoft makes a fair point, trademarking a phrase like that would only lead to the whole "Edge" nonsense again. Seeing as most every portable device has applications that can be bought, limiting what would already be called an app store to just Apple would be a litigious nightmare. Apple popularized the term, but in popularizing it, they made it the common use phrase for any such store. Such would be the price to pay.

 

[Wicky_42]

With Microsoft here too. I mean, if it was, like 'iApp Store' or something it matters less cos at least it's unique, but 'app store' really is just generic. Next they'd be trademarking the term 'app'...

 

[Thaius]

I understand that, but at the same time it's not like various companies have used synonyms before for these same reasons. It's perfectly reasonable to just expect Microsoft to come up with a similar name.

 

[Mumorpuger]

I'm in agreement with most of the other comments here, but playing devil's advocate (not the pinball version), "App" could stand as short for "Apple."

 

[idiot445]

Although I understand the ramifications for other companies but I do think apple should get the rights to "app store" since, for the most part, they are the reason it is now so common in the language.

being first isnt a legal standing

Sure it is. Do you think many of the people who own a trademark or copy right were the first to think of the idea? They were probably just the first to file, which in this case, Apple is attempting to do both.

Firstly, trademarks and copyrights are two different things. How you get rights for each one in the US is different. Filing for rights isn't required in either case. Copyright rights come from creation of an original work. Trademark rights come from use in commerce of a mark that denotes the origin of the goods in question. Being the first to continuously use a mark does give one the priority of rights that's true.

However one of the bars to getting a registered trademark is that the term that one is trying to trademark is generic in terms of the goods in question. The term doesn't have to be inherently generic, but it can become generic over time. I mentioned the word escalator in a previous post, and it's a good example. It was a completely "fanciful" (legal term of art) term that described a moving staircase. Otis Elevator trademarked the term since they invented the term, but that trademark was later challenged because it was claimed that it had become the generic term.

I think that a good argument can be made that the term app is a generic term for Java applications. If you disagree with that sentiment then in your opinion Apple should win, if you don't then MS should win this case. I don't know if App is generic or not. If it is then this really would be like trying to trademark the term "grocery store" for a store that sells groceries or "hardware store" for a store that sells hardware.

TL;DR If App is a generic term then MS wins, it has nothing to do with who made the term famous or who was first to use it.

 

[F'Angus]

Why are apple trying to trademark EVERYTHING?

 

[Veloxe]

Although I understand the ramifications for other companies but I do think apple should get the rights to "app store" since, for the most part, they are the reason it is now so common in the language.

being first isnt a legal standing

Sure it is. Do you think many of the people who own a trademark or copy right were the first to think of the idea? They were probably just the first to file, which in this case, Apple is attempting to do both.

Firstly, trademarks and copyrights are two different things. How you get rights for each one in the US is different. Filing for rights isn't required in either case. Copyright rights come from creation of an original work. Trademark rights come from use in commerce of a mark that denotes the origin of the goods in question. Being the first to continuously use a mark does give one the priority of rights that's true.

However one of the bars to getting a registered trademark is that the term that one is trying to trademark is generic in terms of the goods in question. The term doesn't have to be inherently generic, but it can become generic over time. I mentioned the word escalator in a previous post, and it's a good example. It was a completely "fanciful" (legal term of art) term that described a moving staircase. Otis Elevator trademarked the term since they invented the term, but that trademark was later challenged because it was claimed that it had become the generic term.

I think that a good argument can be made that the term app is a generic term for Java applications. If you disagree with that sentiment then in your opinion Apple should win, if you don't then MS should win this case. I don't know if App is generic or not. If it is then this really would be like trying to trademark the term "grocery store" for a store that sells groceries or "hardware store" for a store that sells hardware.

TL;DR If App is a generic term then MS wins, it has nothing to do with who made the term famous or who was first to use it.

Fair enough.

 

[Cryo84R]

This is just Microsoft in a panic to become relevant in the mobile sector. If "App" is too generic then so is "Windows".

 

[Cryo84R]

They only care because they're going to copy/rip-off Apple's app-store idea for their own smart-phone like everybody else.

That's MS for you, find something popular and then quickly make their own copy to try and cash in on the success of the original. (looking at YOU Bing!)

Can't be quoted enough.

 

[idiot445]

This is just Microsoft in a panic to become relevant in the mobile sector. If "App" is too generic then so is "Windows".

That may well be the case. I'm not sure what you'd call the "windows" that open whenever you start a program in any OS. The key difference is that no one is trying to currently register the term "Windows" as a trademark. If you want to try to break into the OS market and use the term "Windows" in marketing materials I think it would make for a very interesting case. If I were a lawyer I'd be willing to make the argument that Windows has become generic.

 

[Weaver]

I'm with Microsoft on this one.

 

[Cryo84R]

If you can't innovate, litigate.

 

[Olrod]

I wonder if Apple will try to get around it by claiming the "App" part isn't short for application, but Apple.

Of course, Microsoft could threaten to name their application store the "Appl store" and see what happens.

 

[Catalyst6]

couldnt apple use a more original name like "iBuy" or "iStore"?

They tried iStealAwayAllYourMoney but it turns out that a tech lawyer firm already did it.

OT: I'm not sure why Apple is fighting to have it copyrighted. Yeah, they love to say that every idle thought that they have is original, but it seems like they're not gaining a lot through copyrighting. After all, they won't be collecting royalties off of it; Microsoft will simply pick another name if they don't win.

 

[Infinatex]

MS don't really use the term App though... Mac has always called its programs Applications. MS should just go register "executable file store" to fit with their image.

 

[FrossetMareritt]

It always sounded like a [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark"]generic trademark[/a] more anything, which means that it'll probably turn into Public Domain.

 

[zehydra]

Nope. No one really used the term "app" with the exception of Java applets before Apple really. We normally just called it "software" and "programs". Let 'em have the term.

App is short for "applications". It's a nickname. And it was widely used before "Apps" came to iTunes.

 

[crepesack]

Dear Microsoft:
Application Station

That is all.