Slimy, greedy, grasping Apple loses to Amazon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 8, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    What will this company do next, try to trademark the word, "God" or
    something equally stupid?

    Amazon wins skirmish in 'App Store' battle with Apple

    By Julianne Pepitone @CNNMoneyTech July 7, 2011: 1:10 PM ET

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Apple has been dealt a blow in its "App Store"
    trademark case, with a federal judge denying its request for an
    injunction to stop Amazon from using the term.

    Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) filed a lawsuit against Amazon in March,
    saying that it has used the term "App Store" since 2008 and applied
    for a trademark at that time. Apple argued that Amazon's "Appstore,"
    an Android marketplace that launched in March, infringes on the
    trademark and is confusing to customers.

    Amazon (AMZN, Fortune 500) fired back, saying the mark is generic and
    therefore not protectable -- and even if it weren't generic, Apple
    "cannot demonstrate any likelihood of confusion."

    Judge Phyllis Hamilton mostly sided with Amazon in her ruling on
    Wednesday in California district court, in which she denied Apple the
    injunction it sought.

    Hamilton wrote that she "does not agree with Amazon that the mark is
    purely generic," but also said that "there appears to be no need for a
    leap of imagination to understand what the term means."

    Apple failed to prove its main points, she said, including: that
    Amazon's "Appstore" name will confuse customers, that it infringes on
    Apple and that it dilutes Apple's brand.

    In a twist of the knife, Hamilton seemed to imply that Apple could
    have won the case if it had better protected the phrase in question.

    "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," she wrote.

    Apple spokewoman Kristin Huguet pointed back to an earlier company
    statement on the case: "We asked Amazon not to copy the 'App Store'
    name because it will confuse and mislead customers," she said.

    Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Apple announced Wednesday that more than 15 billion apps have been
    downloaded from its App Store. To top of page
     
    RichA, Jul 8, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> What will this company do next, ........

    >
    >All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    >used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    >their lead.
    >
    >Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.


    I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
    all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.

    However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
    are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
    effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
    They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
    widely adopted by others.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 8, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Keith Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2011070808163270933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    >> What will this company do next, ........

    >
    > All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    > used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    > their lead.
    >
    > Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    We could go surreal here. If the "app" of Appstore referred to Apple, the
    company, maybe some confusion, but the diminutive "app" is for "application"
    so what's the problem?
    Stelios created his "easy" group - easyJet, easyCar, easyHotel, easyBus,
    easyVan, easyOffice, easyCinemay, easyHolidays, easyAir, easyFlights,
    easyBags, easyGym - to protect his business. Apple came along after the
    Beatles set up Apple records and got themselves an expensive law suit by
    claiming "ownership" of the word "Apple".
    Here in the UK, the word "Hoover" (amongst words) has become generic and
    also a verb. No one here (including Hoover, the company) believes the phrase
    "hoovering" or "hoovering-up" means anything other than using a vacuum
    cleaner; manufacturer-independent/unspecified. Urban myth is that Hoover
    were delighted to become synonymous with vacuum cleaners - got their name
    out there.
     
    Keith, Jul 8, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On 7/8/2011 12:01 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>
    >>> What will this company do next, ........

    >>
    >> All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    >> used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    >> their lead.
    >>
    >> Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.

    >
    > I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
    > all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.
    >
    > However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
    > are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
    > effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
    > They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
    > widely adopted by others.
    >


    True. But, attempted claims of a exclusive right to use as a service
    mark, a term that's in the public domain are not unique to any business
    entity. e.g. Levi Strauss has a claim of exclusivity to use of an upside
    down chevron in connection with bluejeans.
    Even the term "Apple" is not unique, except in connection with computers.
    I think the Duck's point was directed at RichA's rants.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 8, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
    > are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
    > effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
    > They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
    > widely adopted by others.


    what others had an 'app store' prior to 2008?
     
    nospam, Jul 8, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:02:07 -0500, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 7/8/11 11:01 AM, in article ,
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> What will this company do next, ........
    >>>
    >>> All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    >>> used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    >>> their lead.
    >>>
    >>> Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.

    >>
    >> I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
    >> all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.
    >>
    >> However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
    >> are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
    >> effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
    >> They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
    >> widely adopted by others.
    >>

    >
    >Uhhh...
    >
    >"Kleenex", "Scotch Tape" are just a couple that come to mind.
    >

    Are you saying that "Kleenex" and "Scotch Tape" had been used by
    companies other than the makers of these two products before the
    makers trademarked the terms?




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 8, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:56:39 -0500, Allen <>
    wrote:

    >On 7/8/2011 4:04 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:02:07 -0500, George Kerby
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 7/8/11 11:01 AM, in article ,
    >>> "tony cooper"<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 08:16:32 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> What will this company do next, ........
    >>>>>
    >>>>> All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    >>>>> used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    >>>>> their lead.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.
    >>>>
    >>>> I agree with two of your points: they are just conducting business as
    >>>> all smart businesses do, and RichA is often irrational.
    >>>>
    >>>> However, that doesn't mean they have the right to lock in terms that
    >>>> are not unique to them. "App" has been widely used. Apple made no
    >>>> effort to protect it when they first used it. Apple dropped the ball.
    >>>> They shouldn't be able to retroactively lock in a term that has been
    >>>> widely adopted by others.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Uhhh...
    >>>
    >>> "Kleenex", "Scotch Tape" are just a couple that come to mind.
    >>>

    >> Are you saying that "Kleenex" and "Scotch Tape" had been used by
    >> companies other than the makers of these two products before the
    >> makers trademarked the terms?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >I would be willing to bet that both Kleenex and Scotch Tape were
    >trademarked immediately. After all, they both came along after the
    >famous "Aspirin" tm case in which the courts ruled that Bayer lost
    >rights to the name by trying to TM it well after other companies were
    >selling the same product with the same name. How many of you have seen
    >tissues not made by KC labeled as Kleenex or transparent adhesive tape
    >not made by 3M named Scotch?


    That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    door.

    Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
    that didn't work.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    > Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    > horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    > door.


    wrong horse.

    the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

    > Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
    > that didn't work.


    since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,
    and they only lost an injunction so far. it's not over yet. the actual
    trial is scheduled for 2012.
     
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > What will this company do next, try to trademark the word, "God" or
    > something equally stupid?
    >
    > Amazon wins skirmish in 'App Store' battle with Apple


    Who cares?
     
    Shawn Hirn, Jul 9, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 21:15:12 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    >> Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    >> horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    >> door.

    >
    >wrong horse.
    >
    >the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.


    Wrong, Apple wanted to protect "app store" and argued that "Appstore"
    was too close. Apple's "app store" is like "grocery store", and not a
    famous, renowned, or prominent term. That was the judge's opinion,
    anyway.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On 7/9/2011 12:15 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article<>, tony cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    >> Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    >> horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    >> door.

    >
    > wrong horse.
    >
    > the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.
    >
    >> Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
    >> that didn't work.

    >
    > since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,
    > and they only lost an injunction so far. it's not over yet. the actual
    > trial is scheduled for 2012.



    You remind me of the baseball fan whose team is losing by 8 runs, with
    two out in the last of the ninth, who is still rooting for his team to win.

    In IP cases the decision to grant an injunctions is based largely upon
    likelihood of success and weighing of potential harm. (Yes there are
    other factors) In this case the court found little likelihood of success.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 9, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Jul 8, 11:16 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA <> said:
    >
    > > What will this company do next, ........

    >
    > All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    > used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    > their lead.
    >
    > Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Changing subject lines as I've said before, is the last refuge of the
    internet scoundrel.
     
    RichA, Jul 9, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    > >> Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    > >> horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    > >> door.

    > >
    > >wrong horse.
    > >
    > >the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

    >
    > Wrong, Apple wanted to protect "app store" and argued that "Appstore"
    > was too close.


    do you just like to argue? that's exactly what i said. the issue is
    about 'apps store' and not 'apps', so not wrong at all.

    > Apple's "app store" is like "grocery store", and not a
    > famous, renowned, or prominent term. That was the judge's opinion,
    > anyway.


    then what about 'the container store' ?
    <http://www.containerstore.com/welcome.htm>

    and what about these?

    staples
    windows
    office
    general motors
    american airlines
     
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > > since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,

    >
    > Do they actually own the trademark?


    yes.
     
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On 7/9/2011 1:31 PM, RichA wrote:
    > On Jul 8, 11:16 am, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2011-07-08 07:21:14 -0700, RichA<> said:
    >>
    >>> What will this company do next, ........

    >>
    >> All they are doing is conducting business, and trying to protect names
    >> used within their operations, which others have grabbed onto following
    >> their lead.
    >>
    >> Your anti-Apple rant continues to be irrational.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Savageduck

    >
    > Changing subject lines as I've said before, is the last refuge of the
    > internet scoundrel.


    Your response has nothing to do with the accuracy of his comment.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 9, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:39:28 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >> That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    >> >> Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    >> >> horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    >> >> door.
    >> >
    >> >wrong horse.
    >> >
    >> >the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

    >>
    >> Wrong, Apple wanted to protect "app store" and argued that "Appstore"
    >> was too close.

    >
    >do you just like to argue? that's exactly what i said. the issue is
    >about 'apps store' and not 'apps', so not wrong at all.


    No, you wrote "apps store" and I corrected it to "app store".
    Remember, *you* are the one who wants names to be right and corrected
    me when I wrote "Mac" instead of "Apple". Apple does not refer to
    their "apps store": http://www.apple.com/mac/app-store/

    >> Apple's "app store" is like "grocery store", and not a
    >> famous, renowned, or prominent term. That was the judge's opinion,
    >> anyway.

    >
    >then what about 'the container store' ?
    ><http://www.containerstore.com/welcome.htm>
    >


    >and what about these?
    >
    >staples
    >windows
    >office
    >general motors
    >american airlines


    What about them? Apple was trying to retroactively protect a term and
    deny another company the use of a similar term. The names you have
    listed have already been protected by their owners, and they are not -
    as far as I know - trying to enjoin anyone from using a similar name.

    American Airlines, Inc. has copyright protection on a number of terms.
    http://www.aa.com/i18n/footer/copyright.jsp While many of them
    include common words like "American AAdvantage Mileage Funds©", a
    competitor would be most probably be enjoined from using "American's
    Advantage Mileage Funds" because of the existing protection and the
    similarity of the two.

    The Container Store® Inc. has registered the trademark of the logo
    shown on the page you have linked to, and registered the name "The
    Container Store". They have protected themselves.

    Look at an Apple page and you will not see a © or ® after the term
    "app store". Look at
    http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html and you see that
    Apple does not list "app store". They use the term generically like
    "grocery store".

    Had Apple registered a trademark logo using the term or copyrighted
    the term when they started using it, Amazon would have been SOL.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 10:40:48 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, tony cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> That's my thinking, too. If so, they have nothing in comparison the
    >>> Apple case. The term "App" has been used by other companies, so the
    >>> horse was out of the barn when Apple tried to put a lock on the barn
    >>> door.

    >>
    >> wrong horse.
    >>
    >> the issue is not over the term 'app', but rather for 'apps store'.

    >
    >But what would an apps store be, other than a store that sells apps?
    >
    >Not being an Apple user *or* being aware of Amazon's use of the term before
    >reading these posts, that's all I would take the term to mean if I had seen
    >it.
    >
    >>
    >>> Nothing wrong about Apple's attempt, though. It was just a long shot
    >>> that didn't work.

    >>
    >> since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,

    >
    >Do they actually own the trademark?
    >

    Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
    http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 10:39:33 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Neil
    >Harrington <> wrote:
    >
    >> > since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,

    >>
    >> Do they actually own the trademark?

    >
    >yes.


    You just make up your answers?

    Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
    http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 9, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> > since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,
    > >>
    > >> Do they actually own the trademark?

    > >
    > >yes.

    >
    > You just make up your answers?
    >
    > Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
    > http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


    yes it is. check again. here, i'll help you: it's under service mark,
    towards the bottom
     
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Slimy, Rich continues his OT anti-Apple rants.

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >> since apple has a trademark on it, they are *required* to defend it,

    > >
    > >Do they actually own the trademark?
    > >

    > Not according to their own list of trademarks held:
    > http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html


    wrong. it's listed as a service mark.
     
    nospam, Jul 9, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Can2002

    Trouble grasping access lists

    Can2002, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    421
    Can2002
    Dec 23, 2003
  2. Rich

    Slimy Intel trying to change image

    Rich, Jan 1, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    564
  3. RichA

    Apple's grasping greed knows no bounds (Apps)

    RichA, Jul 5, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    541
    Ray Fischer
    Jul 17, 2011
  4. RichA

    And I thought Apple was greedy!

    RichA, Jul 17, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    606
    tony cooper
    Jul 19, 2011
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    900
    Ray Fischer
    Sep 5, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page