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

Misleading
By macdevdude on 7/7/2011 10:00:28 AM , Rating: -1
This article is very misleading! Apple didn't "lose" anything. The judge only denied a small court order. There are many such orders per lawsuit.

Apple has a strong case here, or it wouldn't have gotten the trademark in the first place.

Besides, "Windows" or "Android" are way more generic than "App Store"...

Just another case of Android copying Apple, I guess. If you can't beat them, imitate them.




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.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














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