News - Apple ‘App Store’ injunction request denied

[HEXUS]

The judge doesn’t think Amazon using the term is confusing punters.

Read more.

[Brewster0101]

Computer says No - get over yourself < this is what I would have said if I was the judge.

In your face.....

[Spud1]

It's very important to remember here (before the Apple bashing begins..) that this injuntion kind of HAD to be denied - the judge didn't really have a choice. It has zero bearing on the actual trial next year, and the judge actually agrees with some of Apples arguments - particularly that the app store term may not be generic and that it has aquired secondary meaning.

This injunction was denied principly because Apple could not demonstrate that allowing Amazon to continue to use "App Store" would be detrimental to Apples "App Store" brand. There is no evidence to support this at the moment (mainly as Amazon's store is so new in comparison), and definitely not enough to show that it could happen. This is completely separate from the fact that it's likely to be a trademark infringement, and that will be decided at the end of next year.

So it won't be over until next year, which is a reasonable amount of time which like likely settle the debate - either there will be some evidence by then which Apple can present (leading to a likely win), or there won't, this will have had no impact on consumers and Apple will have wasted a heck of a lot of money.

Of course they may appeal this decision but I somehow doubt it, it's pretty clear that despite having a reasonable chance of winning the actual case, they won't ever get an injunction as the likelyhood of damage to Apple's brand is so low.

[aidanjt]

Ultimately, App is common use shorthand for Application. It'd be like claiming a trademark on Nuke for Nuclear, then claiming it's really a distinct thing, when it's not at all. I think Apple needs to think about trimming away some on-staff lawyers who clearly have too much time on their hands.

[TheAnimus]

but aidanjt apple have got far too much cash at the moment, so investing some on the gamble that the lawyers might find a sympathetic judge isn't a bad idea.

If not just add £0.01 to the cost of the new iPhone, or cheap out on the design and don't put a coating on the external antenna.

[crossy]

Apple did have substantially exclusive use of "App Store" when it launched its service a little over three years ago, but the term appears to have been used more widely by other companies as time has passed.

This being the case, I've got to wonder why Apple didn't go after the first other user of "App Store", rather than sitting on their hands for three years - entrapment?

The mark does appear to enjoy widespread recognition, but it is not clear from the evidence whether it is recognition as a trademark or recognition as a descriptive term.

And I'd suggest that this is the core question - if it's merely a 'descriptive term' then Apple surely have no claim on it for their particular software vending method. Personally I'm on the side of 'descriptive term' and there's plenty of space for more 'app stores' as long as it's obvious who is running them. E.g. would anyone mistake the Amahi "app store" for the Apple one? Not if they've got an ounce of intelligence. But to be fair, as the judge says, Apple probably have a good case to "own" the term "App Store" (i.e. capitalised and with an intervening space) as they've been using it for three years.

I've also got to say that I agree with the decision not to grant the injunction.

If not just add £0.01 to the cost of the new iPhone, or cheap out on the design and don't put a coating on the external antenna.

Ouch, that last part was a bit of a low blow!

[Barakka]

Ultimately, App is common use shorthand for Application. It'd be like claiming a trademark on Nuke for Nuclear, then claiming it's really a distinct thing, when it's not at all. I think Apple needs to think about trimming away some on-staff lawyers who clearly have too much time on their hands.

Very true, but it's "App Store" that Apple have the trademark dispute over, not much different ? Well, no, but they're far from the 1st or the only ones to play this game...

SQL is common use shorthand for Structured Query Language (or an abbreviation of SEQUEL) developed by IBM and used in most RDBMS's but Microsoft have the trademark on "SQL Server" not a lot of difference to "App store" in my mind..

[aidanjt]

Very true, but it's "App Store" that Apple have the trademark dispute over, not much different ? Well, no, but they're far from the 1st or the only ones to play this game...

SQL is common use shorthand for Structured Query Language (or an abbreviation of SEQUEL) developed by IBM and used in most RDBMS's but Microsoft have the trademark on "SQL Server" not a lot of difference to "App store" in my mind..

SQL Server is a distinct product among many competing products (granting such a trademark is still stupid, however, and speaks more of America's retarded patent office and regs). Apple's App Store is the place where you buy iOS software. Imagine calling your bicycle store Bike Store then popping off because another crowd named theirs the same/similar even when they sell different types of bikes you don't cater for. Whether they did it by intention or not is irrelevant. It's a generic, common-use term. You're not making an effort to distinguish yourself.