days

ago

Kindle Fire added to Apple app store suit against Amazon

A web screenshot of Amazon's Appstore that Apple included, along with other examples, in its amended complaint against the company.

By Suzanne Choney

Apple has filed an amended complaint against Amazon, accusing it of unfair competition by further tweaking the "Appstore" name for customers of the new Kindle Fire, saying the change is "likely to confuse consumers."

Apple launched its "App Store" in July 2008, and since then, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office approved the company's application to register "App Store" as a trademark. Since then, of course, app stores become a familiar phrase to users of many different phones, but other companies have come up with different names for them, be they subtly different ("BlackBerry App World") or more clearly distinguished ("Android Market").

The Cupertino company filed suit in federal court against Amazon last spring to stop it from using the "Amazon Appstore Developer Portal," and other similar app store references for its app program. A preliminary injunction was denied.

But in a second complaint filed this week, Apple said that in September, as Amazon prepared for the Kindle Fire's release:

... Amazon began altering its use of the infringing mark by omitting or de-emphasizing the use of the "for Android" suffix to the “Amazon Appstore” phrase. For example, when Amazon announced in late September 2011 that it would introduce a new hardware product named the Kindle Fire ... Amazon promoted the Fire’s ability to use Amazon’s mobile software download service but omitted the “for Android” phrase when using the APPSTORE mark.

... Amazon’s alteration of its usage does not appear to be limited to promotions connected to the Fire. Set forth below is an image obtained from Amazon’s website on November 7, 2011. That image shows Amazon’s use of the phrase “Amazon Appstore Gift Cards” in large type with references to “for Android” or to “Android” in smaller, less prominent type...

Amazon has not commented on the suit itself.

Meanwhile, the app store name war goes on. Microsoft filed a legal challenge to Apple's trademark approval earlier this year with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In that suit, Microsoft said "the combined term 'app store' is commonly used in the trade, by the general press, by consumers, by Apple’s competitors ... as the generic name for online stores featuring apps." (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.) The company calls its app store "Windows Marketplace."

In its amended complaing against Amazon, Apple said of its App Store that:

...to date, there have been more than 18 billion downloads of programs through the service by more than 250 million devices worldwide. An average of over a million downloads take place every hour worldwide. There are currently more than 500,000 software programs available for download on the APP STORE service. Apple has extensively advertised, marketed and promoted the APP STORE service and the APP STORE mark, spending millions of dollars on print, television, and internet advertising.

And, the company noted, Amazon's use of "Appstore" is also likely to "dilute the distinctiveness of Apple’s APP STORE mark, to tarnish the image of Apple’s APP STORE mark, to misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of Amazon’s mobile download service and/or to deceive or have a tendency to deceive a substantial segment of consumers into believing that Amazon’s service has the nature, characteristics, and/or qualities of Apple’s APP STORE service."

— Via ArsTechnica

Related stories:

Check out Technolog, Gadgetbox, Digital Life and In-Game on Facebook, and on Twitter, follow Suzanne Choney.

Browse: technology, amazon, apple, featured, app-store, kindle-fire

MSpielman

It's a store that sells apps. People have called applications "apps" for decades.

If there's a store that sells shoes, we call it a shoe store.

If there's a store that sells groceries, we call it a grocery store.

If there's a store that sells pets, we call it a pet store.

It makes no sense that they would even BOTHER trying to trademark the name "app store." It makes as little sense as somebody trademarking the name "pet store."

17 votes

#1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:40 PM EST

Capn-1

This was Apple's strategy to keep from loosing market share. They've launched numerous patent and copyright infringement lawsuits in recent months against a whole slew of companies.

If that's the only way you can be competitive... it kind of says a lot for your product.

None of these companies have 100% copied another, they've all taken ideas from each other (including Apple). If Apple wants to be #1, they should make a product that's #1 not sue everyone else into the ground so they're the only ones left, and thus by default #1...

13 votes

#1.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:53 PM EST

Mike P101

That's the Apple strategy. It has a team of corporate lawyers that trademark any and everything then do nothing but look for reasons to file suits against other companies. They win $$ every so often which pays their salaries but most importantly they keep competition down. A large company like Amazon can afford to tell them to get stuffed but many many smaller companies you never hear about settle or get put out of business all together.

It is amusing, the word computer wasn't invented by Apple but under the current trend Apple should stop using it because they didn't event it!

7 votes

#1.2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:14 PM EST

Jim Mooney

Break my heart. Bullying, overpriced Apple can't stand the competition. Fix your price-value ratio or get gone, Apple.

3 votes

#1.3 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:46 PM EST

Ucther

If I build a store with walls can I call it Walmart?

If I build a store that sells targets can I call it Target?

If I build a store that sells frying pans can I call it Fry's?

If I build a store that sells new eggs can I call it NewEgg?

If my name is Fred Macy can I call my store Macy's?

If someone having a copyright is wrong, get rid of the copyright law instead of whining about those who use it to there advantage.

1 vote

#1.4 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:56 PM EST

Brian P. Evans

In order:

No, but you can call it, "Wall Mart."
No, but you can call it, "Target Store."
No, but you can call it, "Fry Store."
No, but you can call it, "New Egg Store."
No, but you can call it, "Fred Macy's."

You seem to not understand how copyright law works.

8 votes

#1.5 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:52 PM EST

Icemom

Actually, this is a trademark case, not a copyright case and I would be willing to bet that Walmart would be the first to sue to stop someone from calling a store "Wall Mart". The name Walmart is their trademark and they have the right to keep others from using it or something very similar to it. Most big name companies are very protective of their trademarks. I'm not sure why everyone is so surprised that Apple would be, too.

Whether or not they were the first to use the term app store, they were apparently the first to trademark it. They therefore have the right to try to stop a competitor from using it, too. Whether or not the courts will agree with them is what this case will be about.

#1.6 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:59 PM EST

MSpielman

I'm just saying they would have a case if they had named it the "Apple iStore" and somebody else tried to call their store an "iStore."

But you can't trademark common usage words. Otherwise "The Skate Shop" down the street would have incredible power. Anybody attempting to refer to their own shop as "a skate shop" would be in violation. Anybody who said those words in that order would be infringing.

It's lunacy.

1 vote

#1.7 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:00 AM EST

interested observer

Apple actually trademarked the word Apple. They then sued the Beatles publishing company and won (even thought the beatles were around long before Apple Computer). They wanted Golden Delicious to be renamed to another name. And they were actually talking about filing suit against bible publishers for using the name. You know - someone might actually think that Adam and Eve were eating an iPod. Unfortunately, the patent & trademark office (PTO) determined that an apple was a trademarkable name.

Time for them to reverse this and AppStore (expecting them to use common sense may be expecting too much).

1 vote

#1.8 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:00 AM EST

cougamemathingDeleted

Mike-583206

interested observer, actually, it was the other way around. The Beatles' label was "Apple Records" with the parent company called "Apple Corp." They filed a lawsuit against Apple Computer for infringement and they settled. Apple Records received damages and a condition was placed on both companies that Apple Records would never enter the computer business and Apple Computers would never enter the music business.

So a few years go by and Apple Computers decided to add MIDI and other music recording capabilities to their systems. Apple Records sued again, claiming a violation of the settlement. Five years later, Apple Computer settled the second suit and paid a little over $26 million in damages.

Of course, they went after Apple Computer a third time... but since then, they have obviously warmed to each other.

1 vote

#1.10 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:29 PM EST

Larry-2260635

Of course, they went after Apple Computer a third time... but since then, they have obviously warmed to each other.

Thanks Mike.

From Wiki:

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential, although newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million U.S

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/02/05Apple-Inc-and-The-Beatles-Apple-Corps-Ltd-Enter-into-New-Agreement.html

#1.11 - Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:35 AM EST

Technowitch

You have an idea, you make it popular, and at some point a genericized version of your product name becomes synonymous with a broader range of similar products.

Who actually asks for a facial tissue? We ask for a kleenex. We don't use adhesive bandages; we call them band-aids. White-out, xeroxing, scotch tape... the list goes on and on.

Moreover, the more 'generic' the name to begin with, the faster this process happens. 'App Store' doesn't say anything specific to it being Apple only. Applications have been called 'apps' for years; all Apple did was come up with a novel and expedited way to make it easy to purchase small applications.

Anyway, these kinds of lawsuits are pointless and pretty much the opposite of 'innovation.'

8 votes

#2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:49 PM EST

Icemom

Whether or not you actually ask for Kleenix when you buy it, no brand but Kimberly Clark can use the word Kleenix on its box or in its advertising. They own the trademark for the word Kleenix & are the only ones allowed to use it in their advertising. Same for Band Aid/ Johnson & Johnson, 3M Brand/Scotch Tape, etc. Just because a brand name has become the common identifier for a product, that does not mean a competing brand or business can use the trademark holder's brand name in its advertising. That is what Apple is suing over. Whether or not they used it first is irrelevant if they have the trademark registered.

1 vote

#2.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:50 PM EST

Mike P101

Agree Icemom, But others can produce a product called tape or tissue.

Trademarking App Store is like trademarking Tape or Tissue Store or even Software Store and then going after someone for calling their's Tape or Software Mart. Kind of like K-Mart going after Wal-Mart.

The funny thing is that Apple recently stole the name i-Cloud and used the name massively in their marketing when another company has had it long trademarked and it's part of the company's name. Apple's attitude is sue us because we have a team of lawyers.

2 votes

#2.2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:25 PM EST

Kayless

Apple used to word of mouth to make its presence known in the market.

Now apple sues the pants off every competitor using any straw it can grasp to maintain it hold in the market. What's next suing the bible for having an "apple" in genesis?

3 votes

#3 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:50 PM EST

Rick Cain4150

Apple sues Samsung because their tablet is rectangular

Apple sues Amazon because they have a store too (amazon IS a store!)

Apple sues because they think they invented the touchpad.

Can we finally stop believing Apple is an innovator. It sounds more like Lucent technologies.

7 votes

#4 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:01 PM EST

MSpielman

I knew a lady who worked for Sun in the 80s and 90s and she swore up and down that Apple had stolen the GUI idea from them.

1 vote

#4.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:14 PM EST

UDunnoBro

That's interesting considering Sun's windowing environment wasn't developed until around 1988, and the X windowing system it was based on wasn't developed until after the Macintosh had already been released in 1984. Was she saying Apple had a time machine and stole Sun's GUI from the late 80s?

Apple "stole" the idea of the GUI from Xerox, not Sun.

1 vote

#4.2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:41 PM EST

Ucther

Other than the fact that Apple got the technology in the 70s from Xerox, I would agree with her statement.

2 votes

#4.3 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:43 PM EST

Jim Mooney

Xerox dropping the ball on the GUI will go down as one of the dumber moves in the history of technology. It could have been Xerox computers, and Steve would have been selling hot dogs on 48th street.

1 vote

#4.4 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:49 PM EST

Moheeheeko

But he would be selling a BUTTLOAD of hotdogs, and all the hipster douchebags would be making fun of you for not eating iDogs.

3 votes

#4.5 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:27 PM EST

a_normal_person

Come ON Apple! Get the diaper off, focus on building good products ,and QUIT looking for ways to make cheap money. This is yet another reason to buy from your competitors. Nobody cares about the the word "app", and I am sure when you're all gray and old you'll look back at these selfish little acts and tell yourself "Shame on me, shame ON ME. What was I thinking back in 2011!"

Thank you MSpielman for your accurate post on this matter.

Sincerely,

a normal person

6 votes

#5 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:14 PM EST

Jim Mooney

We're in a recession. Apple needs to try something they've never heard of - Realistic Prices. No, that doesn't include lawyer's fees. That's what I pay at the register. Try coming out of the stratosphere, Apple - technology has caught up with you and glitzy design will only take you so far.

1 vote

#5.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:51 PM EST

Ucther

I feel the exact same way about:

Bently

Rolex

Tiffani's

St. Reigis

Bring your prices down where everyone can have all they want.

#5.2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:10 PM EST

OranG

Wait. Is apple claiming the own the word "app". That's really scary because I've been building web apps for years! It's fine for the other big players to give in and use a different word, but what about us little guys? BS!

We really need something like a sanity check for trademarks, and Apple deserves a huge KICK IN THE FACE for this. When they released the iPhone, nobody even had to tell me that it was a trademark. People don't pay that close attention because they shouldn't have too! Trademarks do their job when people uniquely identify a product or service or company, and someone else using the trademark without permission can be fairly described as "misrepresenting or misidentifying themselves or their product." That was simply NOT the case with any other app store. You could claim consumers were confused, but people turn onto the freeway going the wrong direction all the time. People are just dumb, and reasonably intelligent people didn't confuse anyone else's app store with Apple's.

And so what if they did?!!!? They get the apps that are compatible with their device anyway. Is Apple claiming that people bought non-Apple devices under the assumption that they would have exactly the same capabilities and limitations of the Apple device because they were told that they could access an "app store"? I call BS! When I go into a sub shop with a craving for a ham and swiss, and they don't have swiss, but I order something else anyway, neither I nor Subway has a right to complain that they stole business because they claimed they have "sub sandwiches" and I _assumed— every sub shop would have swiss. They didn't claim to be Subway, so I and any other person with half a brain would know they were trying a different product. Period!

3 votes

#6 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:43 PM EST

Jim Mooney

Under that reasoning they can no longer use the word "Apple." They must be called "Generic Fruit" Computers. Although I may be willing to let them use "Banana," or maybe "Turkey" for their lastest battery-flawed device.

#7 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:56 PM EST

jugga

Typical apple. Do iUsers feel shame whenever they see stuff like this? The FanBoys will defend apple of course but I shied away from apple years ago for this sort of stuff.

2 votes

#8 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:59 PM EST

Cassivella

This is even more humourous when you realize that Apple (the computing company) has been in constant trademark infringement suits against Apple (the record label, who have been around for years before the other Apple).

A deal had been reached that Apple (computers) would never sell music. If they held to that, they could keep the name Apple.

However, we all know that Apple (computers) now sells music, and has run afoul of that agreement with Apple (music).

Ironically, Microsoft is kind of hedging in on Amazon, as Amazon had a Marketplace trademarked prior. But, I don't see those two suing each other.

Considering all the hipsters that think that Apple can do no wrong, Apple is the people's choice against the corporate giant Microsoft, etc. - it really is Apple that is more guilty of the crooked tactics.

2 votes

#9 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:10 PM EST

JW64

Personally I rooted for Apple when they were the scrappy underdog, but now I wish they'd just roll over and die. I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing about who they're suing next and will never buy another Apple product again.

2 votes

#10 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:57 PM EST

Bobotastic

There's not one person alive who would be confused if another service uses the term 'app store'. It's just Apple crying because they don't have 100% of the market and consumers actually have a choice.

1 vote

#11 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:28 AM EST

Cepheids

I'm a huge Apple fan, but a lot of what the company does is putting me off more and more. I now try to buy from other vendors. Also Apple's constant marketing as a "green" and "humanist" company is down-right misleading. I would also like to see a research done on user's eyesight after 6 months reading on an i-pod/i-pad/i-phone. I have a hunch that it would be quite revelatory. I have yet to meet someone who has not had a drastic decline in eyesight after downloading a reading app and reading on their Apple device. Just random thoughts...

#12 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:29 AM EST

NyNy-2742735

apple is pathetic, and HORRIBLE with customers. I regret buying an iPhone. I will NOT purchase another product of theirs. Shame on them for being so petty. Charge less for the phones, and offer better customer service instead of jerks (I'm talking about the BREA CA store!) AND you wouldn't have to sue to make some extra money.

#13 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:50 AM EST

kindle lover

My wife and I love our new Kindle Fire. It's lightweight, easy to

use and has a great interface. The first thing I recommend anyone

with a new Kindle do is install the nook app. We got our

instructions from www.kindlemad.com through google.

It basically unlocks all the Android marketplace apps and unlocks the

device. I am one very happy Kindle owner!

#14 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:08 AM EST

Correction.

Apple is just trying to maintain its monopolistic supremacy. I never understood how in a world where Microsoft is routinely sued for unfair business practices, etc., Apple typically has been given a free pass. This is just another example of Apple attempting to close out competition.

For the record, I never even considered purchasing an iPad; but when I heard about it I did decide to give the Fire a go and I'm so impressed. The Fire experience is fantastic and it's clear to me that whatever it doesn't currently do, in the future a new version will. And at the price charged, I won't gripe when the time comes to buy the 'new improved' version.

2 votes

#15 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:48 AM EST

Rob-306572

Don't you just love watching Corporations who denounce Government intervention, regulations, et al - run to the Government Protected Patent System and use the force of Law that the Government grants companies in an Anti-Free Market Patent system to protect themselves?

How about if companies who love the Free Market actually compete in the Free Market - let's scrap patents and trademarks and let companies really fight it out - or if we want to use the heavy boot of Government to protect a companies "secrets", etc... we should tell them that the cost of a Patent or Trademark is a percentage off the top of every sales the company makes :)

#16 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:55 AM EST

Bill Kamps

For those of you who wish there were not trademarks, copywrites or patents imagine this.

You go to buy an Apple computer, or a Budwiser, and have NO IDEA whether it is the real thing or not. It could be packaged and labeled EXACTLY as the real thing, but be something totally different. It's these laws that make us confident that what we buy, is the real thing.

Do these laws sometimes result in misuse, yes of course. That is what courts are for, to referee the situation.

Do sometimes smart companies and people take advantage of the laws to their benefit, yes of course. But lets not advocate no laws in this area at all, that would be chaos, and there literally would be no way to tell the real thing from the fake.

2 votes

#17 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:47 AM EST

WhoCares???

This legal stupidity is one of the many things that is financially drowning our country. I wonder how many tax dollars are being used to work this case in a court of law. Then you find the additional legal costs being passed down to the consumer at the register.

Apple is a sick, wimpy company that will not stop until it finds itself before Congress on an Anti-Trust suit to break the company of its monopolizing strategies. Go ahead and sue, Apple, you are slowly screwing yourself and your consumers into the ground.

So all you idiots take out your i-products and enjoy the digital control that Apple has over you. If you buy a product you should be allowed to do what you want with it, not expect to be controlled by malicious updates, tracked by covert software, or charged an arm and a leg to get the next greatest product because your 1 year old device is now too out of date for the new features that are SOOOO wanted by the Apple Sheep Herd.

1 vote

#18 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:08 AM EST

fusseltier

apple is doing what they have accused everyone else of doing to them throughout the years.

apple is the one that is trying to control, manipulate, and destroy competition and future technology just so they can have the monopoly on it with their own products.

2 votes

#19 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:28 AM EST

danielc

And the demise of Apple post-Jobs continues on!

1 vote

#20 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:27 PM EST

Howard-3166263

I don't understand how something called "Appstore for Android" can be confused with Apple's "App Store". Surprising that Apple thinks that the intelligent people who buy their products might be confused. (?)

1 vote

#21 - Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:31 PM EST

arteu-2792597

Looking beyond the idiocy of trademarking a simple descriptive phrase like "app store"and expecting the courts to consider it unique...

Any user that thinks they are using the Apple app store on an Android tablet made by Amazon with their branding all over it is not confused - they are a moron. I empathize with Apple since they do have to deal with a lot of moron customers since they do have the largest market share of them, but that's their fault and their problem not Amazon's.

#22 - Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:41 AM EST

Brian-337051

Let's get this straight.

If the owner of an Apple product goes to the Amazon Appstore to buy an application, it will not run on their device.

How is their any legitimate confusion or unfair competition here?

#23 - Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:03 PM EST

voyager2k

Apple is correct. Their customers are so weak in mind they could be hopelessly confused between App Store & Appstore, lost trying to decide where to shop. Not knowing what to do until they give up. Ohhh puhleeze Apple, quit crying like a baby and grow up. Get over it. Whaahh!!! Give me a break.

#24 - Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:16 PM EST

Kindle Fire added to Apple app store suit against Amazon

Most popular posts

Most popular posts

Discuss this post