

Judge Says No One Is Confusing Apple's App Store and Amazon's Appstore - anigbrowl
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/01/apple-amazon-appstore-for-android/

======
Mordor
If Apple is so worried, why didn't they name it the Apple Store? Honestly,
some of this stuff is only designed for court cases. How about some real brand
identity, like putting the Apple symbol on the iPad/iPhone button. Patenting
ideas is just crazy. Here's an idea for the new Apple logo - a black
rectangle. I'd recognize it...

~~~
michael_miller
To be fair, they already have an Apple Store: store.apple.com (it's marketed
as "Apple Store"). Also, they do put a pretty prominent Apple logo on each
device: notebooks with nothing but a glowing logo on the back, iPhones / iPads
with a reflective metallic logo, heck, even the power chargers have an
embossed logo on them.

I'm not sure whether Apple should be able to patent the name "App Store," but
it certainly does raise a question of what a brand is. Surely, before the
iPhone, people off the street would be confused by the term "App Store". Yet,
after the iPhone (iOS >= 2), you could pull someone off the street and they
would say something like "oh yeah, that's where you buy apps for the iPhone."
So I don't think it's reasonable to dispute that Apple popularized the term
"App Store," essentially invented it in the public eye. That said, it is a
store to buy applications, which Apple did not invent, even in the public eye.

There are lots of terms / brands which encode the product in the name in a
fairly obvious manner. Should American Airlines be allowed to use that as
their brand? Or is it too generic, given that there are many airlines based in
America? Should a brand like KitchenAid be able to patent their name? Or is it
too obvious of a name, given that the company produces aids in the kitchen?
Should uniqlo be able to patent the term heattech, or is it obvious given that
it's a technology designed to preserve heat? It's a very difficult distinction
to make, and I'm not sure which side is right.

~~~
Firehed
Nitpick: these are all trademark issues, not patent issues.

Less of a nitpick: because these are trademark issues, the holders of the mark
_must_ attempt to defend them, or they are lost. While I happen to agree with
the judge and feel that App Store is too generic to be upheld as a trademark
(and agree with you about Apple Store, though mostly because most of the
products there are made by Apple, unlike the App Store), I don't at all blame
them for going after Amazon here - and I say that as an AMZN shareholder (AAPL
too). It's probably in Amazon's best interest to rename simply because App
Store is so firmly associated with iOS, never mind shutting up the lawyers and
letting both companies focus on more important stuff.

Interestingly, the article mentions this was a suit over false advertising and
copyright. I don't know if its wrong or our court system is that backwards,
since that's very clearly not the actual issue at hand here. But then again,
most of the Apple/Samsung battle should have been waged trademark grounds
rather than patents too (analogy: knock-off handbag manufacturers are sued by
the original designers under trademark laws too, which makes sense when you
consider the concept of a trademark)

~~~
smackfu
>, the holders of the mark must attempt to defend them, or they are lost.

OTOH, a pretty good way to lose them is to sue people and have the case go
against you.

~~~
bdcravens
You're not saying anything. If you don't sue, you lose them by default.

~~~
smackfu
I guess I'm saying you shouldn't apply for dubious trademarks.

~~~
bdcravens
See my comment on company names like Buffer and Stripe

------
loceng
Nor would you confuse "App Store" if it was on Apple or if it was on Amazon.
It's short for Application Store, which it always has been - whether Apple
would admit that or not.

I don't think "Candy Store" was ever copyrightable ...

~~~
biot
That's a rather poor argument as you present no reason justifying when a
shortened name cannot be protected by trademark law. What about these Fortune
500 companies?

    
    
      Tech Data (short for technical data)
      Computer Sciences
      Waste Management
      Genuine Parts
      Health Net (short for health network)
      Applied Materials
      Whole Foods
    

... and so on? Those are all pretty generic names. Some are short for
something else; others are self-descriptive. Which of those should not exist
as a trademark and why?

~~~
precisioncoder
All of them. If you start protecting words in the English language it requires
us to expand the language thus diminishing it's usefulness in future.
Personally I would say any word that is in a dictionary should not be possible
for a trademarked name. Words that are added after the company for instance
Skyping as a term for making a VOIP call or Kleenex as a term for tissue
should be allowed to keep the name but as soon as it is entered in the
dictionary all other companies should be forbidden to use it.

~~~
micampe
Which dictionary? Who defines it? Who decides when Kleenex or App are to be
included? Are words ever removed from that dictionary? What about foreign
language dictionaries? What about foreign words transliterations to a
different alphabet? What about made-up words that sound like an existing word
with different spelling? Acronyms?

~~~
colanderman
These questions are are pretty well answered by trademark law. Most of it
boils down to a judge's decision, who, by the way, _can_ decide that a
hereforeto novel term has become generic (much as Xerox, Kleenex, and
Photoshop are in danger of becoming), hence why you see ridiculous efforts by
companies with household names to prevent verbification of their names.

~~~
micampe
I know, I was challenging the idea that it should not be allowed to trademark
words in “the dictionary”. It’s a judge decision, there is no formal list of
disallowed words, and my point is that there can’t be one, in the real world.

------
option_greek
Does any one find it funny that Apple is more worried about a rival store
selling android apps than Google is.

~~~
georgemcbay
Android never used the word "App" in the name for their store. First it was
"Android Market" and now it is "Play".

I think it is silly that Apple is attempting to "own" the word "App", but the
fact that they went after Amazon and not Google has no larger meaning other
than the fact that Amazon was using the term "app store" and Google wasn't.

~~~
WayneDB
I refer to all app stores in the generic form for this very reason. The more
people that use the term generically, the quicker Apple will have it taken
away.

------
justjimmy
Let's not think about patent/trademark issue for a second.

It's ludicrous why Amazon would name its store to something already similar.
Whether or not Apple 'owns' the name, App Store, why would a huge company,
with a clear brand, names its store that will only lead to customer confusion.

Are they trying to prove a point? Google's Google Play gives it a clear
distinction, it even adds it's own name to the name. Why doesn't Amazon do
this?

Short of trying to prove a point and sticking it to Apple, I don't see any
merit for Amazon (not to mention it came after Apple's App Store) in naming
its store Appstore. (or maybe they lack creative marketers to come up with a
clever name?)

~~~
mikegioia
App Store = Application Store

Where do you draw the line? It's a shorthand word for "application". They
named it "Appstore" because it is a place to buy applications. Every company
that wants to should be able to have an Appstore or App Store, it's far too
generic!

------
grabeh
I think the title is a little misleading. The article deals with the dismissal
of the passing off claim which would be framed by Apple as a deliberate
attempt by Amazon to pass off their own store as being related to Apple's.

I highly doubt that Apple's lawyers thought there was ever a chance that this
claim would be successful but nevertheless, there is no harm in at least
trying on ancillary claims, even for the purposes of acquiring leverage for
settlement negotiations.

However, in any event, even in the absence of passing off, confusion could
still arise as it doesn't require any deliberate intent as it is based on
consumer perception rather than service provider intent.

I don't think there's any question here of the term 'App Store being
distinctive in its own right. The question for the judge will be whether
through usage of the term by Apple, it has acquired sufficient distinctiveness
so that it serves as a unique identifier for Apple's store.

------
neya
No, the judge is WRONG. Apple is RIGHT. I got confused when I visited
wwww.amazon.com I thought it was the apple store and opened up my itunes in
vain.

I also tried visiting store.apple.com and thought it was the Amazon's store,
because it had the word 'store' in it. So, Amazon should sue Apple too...

Just one conclusion - Fuck apple anyway.

------
bunderbunder
This ruling by the judge is disastrous. Do you have any idea how many Amazon
Appstore apps I had purchased from my iPhone before I figured out the
difference? I wasted sooooooo much money. None of them will even run on iOS!

