Apple ‘App Store’ injunction request denied

The application of reason

In this era of perpetual litigation and patent trolling around anything to do with the mobile Internet, it's good to see some evidence of sanity prevailing in the US legal system.

Apple filed for a preliminary injunction against Amazon to stop it using the term ‘App Store' on the ground that it may confuse people who associate the term with Apple's own app store and may diminish the brand by holding itself to inferior standards.

The court of Northern California filed its judgement yesterday, and the request was denied. Here's some of the rationale detailed by the judge:

The court finds that Apple has not established a likelihood of success on its dilution claim. First, Apple has not established that its "App Store" mark is famous, in the sense of being "prominent" and "renowned." The evidence does show that Apple has spent a great deal of money on advertising and publicity, and has sold/provided/furnished a large number of apps from its AppStore, and the evidence also reflects actual recognition of the "App Store" mark. However, there is also evidence that the term "app store" is used by other companies as a descriptive term for a place to obtain software applications for mobile devices.

With regard to the statutory "blurring" factors, the marks are similar, but "App Store" is more descriptive than it is distinctive. 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. 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. Moreover, there is no evidence that Amazon intended to create an association between its Android apps and Apple's apps, and there is no evidence of actual association.

With regard to tarnishment, there is no evidence to support a likelihood of success on this part of the claim. Apple speculates that Amazon's App Store will allow inappropriate content, viruses, or malware to enter the market, but it is not clear how that will harm Apple's reputation, since Amazon does not offer apps for Apple devices.

The full document was published by cnet, and is embedded below. It should be noted that it was only the preliminary injunction that was denied, and the matter will still go to trial. But that won't happen until October 2012, and Amazon is free to use the app store term until then. Hopefully that court too will conclude what is clear to everyone else - that app store is a generic term to describe a store that sells apps.

Apple v. Amazon, Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction

In other Apple-related legal news, it has reciprocated Samsung's ITC complaint. As ever FOSS Patents has forgotten more about this than the rest of us will ever know.

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!

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

In your face…..

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.

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.

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.

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.

TheAnimus
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! :redcard:

Apple ‘App Store’ injunction request denied

The application of reason

Related Reading

HEXUS Forums :: 7 Comments

Login with Forum Account

MY HEXUS

EVENTS

INDUSTRY PRESS RELEASES

User Name
Password