Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

June 23, 2011 -

Apple has faces a major setback in its lawsuit against Amazon.com's App store; a federal court judge said this week that she will "probably rule against the company." Apple had argued that Amazon.com's use of the term "app Store" infringed on its trademark and would cause "brand confusion." A federal court judge sees things differently - or at the very least doesn’t believe Apple has a case.

US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton commented that she was "probably" going to deny Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction against Amazon in order to stop it from using the term "app store."

Judge Hamilton told Apple that she had not seen any "real evidence of actual confusion." Because of this, she said it was unlikely that the company would prevail.

"I’m troubled by the showing that you’ve made so far, but that’s where you’re likely not to prevail at this early juncture," Hamilton said during the hearing.

Apple laid its claim to the term "app store" in 2008 with the U.S. Patent Office. The claim was initially rejected, but finally received approval in 2010. Microsoft filed an objection with the agency, saying that the term was too generic. Later it asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to deny Apple's trademark application.

While all this was taking place, Apple decided to sue Amazon for opening an "app store."

The company continues to send cease and desist letters to anyone who uses the term, but this lawsuit may throw cold water on Apple's litigious efforts.

Source: Ars Technica


Comments

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

Yeah.

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

Huh, I never associated "app" with "app-ple". My brain always just says "app-lication".

 

Anyone else think this?

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

Thats part of why the judge is saying he is likely to rule against them. Well that and the fact that they had trouble getting the patent and microsofts efforts to have that thrown out because of how generic it is.

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

I actually assumed that Apple's 'App Store' stood for 'Application'.

Though Apple could (weakly) make the argument that "Application" is an OSX thing since on OSX they are labeled as 'Applications', while on Windows they are labled 'Programs' and under Unix systems they are 'Binaries'... at least if you think of it in terms of a newbie who only knows what their UI says and is not aware of computer jargon in general.

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

There is still an applications folder that's been around since at least Win 95 that has all of the microsoft supplied bonus software (like Notepad and Sound Recorder)

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

 Are you sure you do not mean 'Accessories'?

Regardless, I know that they are applications on windows, you know they are applications on windows, but we are not the people they are talking about when the issue of brand confusion comes up.

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

To quote Wario from Mario Party 1: Do'h I missed!  Yeah, it's Accessories, but then again, when I first learned DOS, my aunt, followed by my school, told me that programs were applications.

Re: Judge Warns Apple: 'I Will Probably Rule Against You'

My mind has always thought App = Application ever since I touched my first computer.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician