backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on Jul 11 at 3:31 PM


A judge ruled that Apple's case that Amazon infringed its "App Store" trademark was too weak to grant a preliminary injunction.
Early setback could prove troubling later in the case

Two weeks ago we reported that Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) in Oakland, California federal court was going nowhere fast.  Upset about Amazon's use of the term "Appstore" ("Appstore for Android"), Apple sued claiming Amazon had infringed on its trademark "App Store". 

It sought an injunction forcing Amazon to temporarily cease using the name while the case was decided.  However, the presiding judge said at the time that Apple's evidence of customer confusion was weak and that they were considering denying the motion.

Now Judge Phyllis Hamilton has made good on that threat, smacking down Apple's request for a preliminary injunction.

Apple's case seems to be going nowhere.  Judge Hamilton reaffirmed on Wednesday that Apple had failed to present compelling evidence that customers would confuse Amazon's store for Apple's, or vice versa.  The judge also expressed skepticism over the last several weeks about Apple's arguments that the trademark was non-generic.

A trial is set to begin October 2012.

While the preliminary injunction does not officially affect the trial outcome, it does set the mood for the trial.  Preliminary injunctions (PI) are typically granted if the evidence is strong or there's a compelling case that irreparable damage will occur if the injunction isn't granted.  A denial of a PI request can have the opposite effect -- it can indicate pre-trial that the case is weak and that the alleged harm isn't great.

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) is currently in the midst of a lawsuit it filed against Apple on the grounds that the term "App Store" was overly generic.  

The outcome of these trials could affect many players in the industry.  Apple has fired off many cease and desist letters, including ones to the owner of pcappstore.com, and open source startup Amahi.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It would be nice
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:07:17 AM , Rating: 5
If the Patent Office or the guys that do trademarks were to bill people for wasting govt. time (if that's any more possible than them just running) for putting in generics. I would love to see some form of kick-back for each one. I hope Apple loses every one of their cases and get counter-sued, maybe then they will learn a lesson, but even then I doubt it.




RE: It would be nice
By XZerg on 7/7/2011 10:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
Even then many companies will still do it for the "Just-In-Case"... You gotta realize that they can't charge "too much" so not to demotivate a smoe joe from applying.


RE: It would be nice
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
No I'm not saying a fee to put one in (although I think there is) I'm just saying if it's too generic and obvious. At this point it is costing tax payers a lot of money and time because now we have to have a court case over it. If it were overlooked and reaches this level the company or person should have to pay for everything during the period of the whole case if they were to lose the battle. That includes the judge's pay for the time the case was going and everyone else that tax payer money was spent on for something this rediculous. It's fine if it is a valid arguement or name/phrase.


RE: It would be nice
By macdevdude on 7/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: It would be nice
By cjohnson2136 on 7/7/2011 10:54:42 AM , Rating: 3
Microsoft doesn't go suing everyone for using the word Windows. They would only if Windows was being used in terms of OS

Google's AdWords, where in God's name have you ever seen that other then Google

App has been around long before mobile phone applications. A store that sells software hence would be an App Store. Android and WP7 both call their Marketplace but I still hear everyone call it an app store. App is too generic. It is not specific to Apple in any way.


RE: It would be nice
By inperfectdarkness on 7/7/2011 11:21:55 AM , Rating: 3
no, this would be like microsoft suing pella over use of the term "windows".


RE: It would be nice
By MmyCat on 7/8/2011 9:12:29 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it would be more like Pella suing Anderson because they call shades a "Window Treatment". Their strongest claim would be that the color of the shade is "inferior" to their color and it dilutes the public perception of what a "Window Treatment" is.


RE: It would be nice
By MrPerez on 7/7/2011 2:54:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Go back to stroking your Steve Ballmer doll.


The same way you have been stroking your Steve Jobs blow up doll? lol

Anything Apple and your there posting to defend it, and not only that all your posts get -1 your, a Apple troll for sure.

Sad part is most of the time you get one Apple fanboi defending another fanboi but in your case they realized your a moron and they don't even bother, you are alone in this war you think we have against Apple and your getting butt raped.


Apple wants control but is wrong
By KOOLTIME on 7/7/2011 3:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
"app store" or "app-store" is generic and not copy-writable

app is not a brand name so its not copy writable, its abbreviation for application, and application is a non
copy-writable word. Apple does not own the copy writes to say they want copy write protection from the word application or its use in abbreviated form, as they own neither.




By Solandri on 7/7/2011 3:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is trying to play a semantic game of cups and balls. Instead of calling programs "programs", they prefer to call them "applications" because the first four letters happen to match the first four letters of their company name. They did coin the term "applet", which you'll notice includes all five letters of the company name.

But to work backwards from that and claim that they should own "App Store" because the first three letters refer to both "Apple" and "application" is asinine.


By GotThumbs on 7/11/2011 3:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is rotten to the core. Any fool knows you can only get to Apples' App Store using only ITUNES. Infact....You can't do jack with an apple product these days without having to hook up to itunes. This company will NEVER get a single dime of my money. Talk about total BS. They think their SH T doesn't stink.....well STEVE.....I can smell you miles away and its not a sweet smell at all.




jhk
By yuyuyuan on 7/7/11, Rating: -1
Misleading
By macdevdude on 7/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading
By Motoman on 7/7/2011 10:05:12 AM , Rating: 4
LOL

Well, "macdevdude," when you ask a judge for a ruling, and the judge refuses to give you that ruling...do you call that "winning?"

Apple has no case at all - it's almost as stupid as the Taco Bell case that a few retards are still frothing about in another current thread.

Although, the "winning" part is pretty apt - both you and Apple appear to be behaving just like good ol' Charlie Sheen right about now. Completely batsh1t crazy.


RE: Misleading
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
If it were only labeled "Appstore" I could possibly see some confusion because it would be vague. The title for the Amazon store is Appstore for Android, there is nothing misleading about that. I’ll give you that the average Mac user isn’t the most sophisticated or tech savvy person, but I would honestly hope that in no way would that confuse them. Though there are many stereotypes that say this is the case for them, I really hope not. If it were a general “Appstore” title then I think all parties involved should have to change it to make it a more specific title to let the user know what device/OS the appstore is for (ie: Appstore for Android, Appstore for iJunk, Appstore for MS, etc…). but most places have this as “app” is a generally accepted term for an application, which is not specific to Apple or anyone.


RE: Misleading
By Motoman on 7/7/2011 10:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
The term "appstore" is infinitely too generic to warrant any kind of trade protection at all. Such protection should never have been granted, and ultimately it should be revoked.


RE: Misleading
By kleinma on 7/7/2011 10:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
Don't even bother Sazabi

MacDevDude simply comes here to defend Apple in between praying to his little budda belly steve jobs statue.

His comments are 100% pro apple regardless of what the article is about. The article could be about how Apple announced that anything you ever create using Apple hardware/software is the sole property of Apple, and he would still be here defending it.


RE: Misleading
By cjohnson2136 on 7/7/2011 10:32:10 AM , Rating: 2
Apple could they were going bankrupt and he would still praise them for being so good and saying that nothing is wrong.

It will be interesting how much of this worshiping will end when the O'Holy Jobs kicks the bucket.


RE: Misleading
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm aware, he, Tony, and Pirks all have orgies together and look at apples in the store and circle-jerk constantly... although I have to admit I have seen Pirks say a few intelligent things and they were a huge surprise. The other 2 I think are just shoved too far up Steve to see the light anymore.


RE: Misleading
By cjohnson2136 on 7/7/2011 10:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
Pirks will at least comment on other things not related to Apple.

Tony and this kid, I have only seen them comment on Apple related things.


RE: Misleading
By MrTeal on 7/7/2011 10:07:59 AM , Rating: 2
What a shill.

App Store is terribly generic. Application software has been called Apps for decades. If you want to call the place you sell such software an App Store, more power to you. Just don't expect people grant you exclusive use of the term.

Android on the other hand is not generic in the context of an operating system. You can't claim that just because it is a common word that people will confuse the OS with an actual android, or someone running a clothing company called Android. It's no more generic than naming your company after a fruit or an animal.


RE: Misleading
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:16:47 AM , Rating: 2
The point you are trying to make about the term Appstore for Android not being vague is exactly the point I was trying to make above, I'm glad the judge sees this as well. Maybe not all of the courts system is lost?


RE: Misleading
By amanojaku on 7/7/2011 10:20:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's no more generic than naming your company after a fruit or an animal.
I never noticed before, but Apple's use of cat names for OS X... All of them are on the endangered species list. Prophetic?


RE: Misleading
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:39:41 AM , Rating: 3
If that's the case I hope their next OS is named Dodo or Sabertooth if you so wish to stick with cats, that should get the message across where it should go :)


RE: Misleading
By cjohnson2136 on 7/7/2011 10:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
+2


RE: Misleading
By torpor on 7/7/2011 10:09:59 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, it's not Android copying Apple at all.

It's Amazon setting up a brand-specific store. You can find strip malls full of 'em all around the country. Android has nothing to do with it.

But that exact blind spot is why Apple is slipping in market share for smartphones.

And in this specific case, the tightly-controlled Apple ecosystem is the undoing of the legal argument here. To claim damage, you have to be able to credibly argue that a maclot like macdevdude would somehow link up iTunes to Amazon.com and try to get software there.

I'd love to sit in that court and watch someone try to argue that one. You could make a movie out of it - it'd be hilarous. I can see it now; "Dood, Where's my iStore", opening at a theater near you, starring Ashton Kutcher as the Apple lawyer trying to show how a iZombie would try to get software from Amazon.com on their iToy.


RE: Misleading
By chick0n on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Misleading
By Sazabi19 on 7/7/2011 10:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
Android is a common term that is not copyrighted, although "Droid" is copyrighted by George Lucas IIRC which is why Verizon had to pay in order to use the term "Droid" for any of their phones, it is licensing. While not many people went around saying "droid" in every day life (because android was so popular before the OS?) Lucas copyrighted it after his Starwars movies and it was accepted. The point on this is that it wasn't a vague term, I am in no way defending Apple or Lucas.


RE: Misleading
By cjohnson2136 on 7/7/2011 10:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
I thought it was the phone manufacturer that had to pay the licensing agreement with Lucas?


RE: Misleading
By B-Unit on 7/7/2011 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
No, Verizon bought the rights. Notice only Verizon has phones with the word 'Droid' in their names.


RE: Misleading
By bplewis24 on 7/7/2011 11:10:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you can't beat them, imitate them.


Android is beating Apple.

Troll logically.


RE: Misleading
By lukarak on 7/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading
By inperfectdarkness on 7/7/2011 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 1
die, astroturf. die.


tghfghjfg
By nvnvlai3535 on 7/9/11, Rating: -1
fdgbdfgd
By nvnvlai3535 on 7/9/11, Rating: -1
dgdsf
By dsfnsdfn on 7/7/11, Rating: -1
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki