Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against Amazon for 'App Store' Use

July 7, 2011 -

A federal court judge has put the kibosh on Apple's attempt to get a preliminary injunction against Amazon for its use of the term "App Store." While the judge denied Apple's request his order suggests that Apple may still have a slight chance to prove trademark infringement at trial. Still, with the injunction attempt denied it seems like Apple may have a hard time proving its case.

Apple filed for the term "App Store" in 2008, and while the original application was rejected, it later received approval in 2010. In July of 2010 Microsoft filed an objection, saying that the term was too generic, and later asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to issue a summary judgment denying Apple's application. While all that was happening Amazon announced that it planned to launch its own Marketplace, at the time calling it the "App Store for Android." After that announcement Apple filed a lawsuit against the online retailer claiming "trademark infringement, dilution, and tarnishing."

Amazon answered the lawsuit by saying what Microsoft had said: the term is too generic to be protected by a trademark. That matter has yet to be decided by the TTAB. Amazon added that the term "for Android" made it clear that the products therein were meant for Android devices and not anything manufactured by Apple.

Apple's last action was to ask for a preliminary injunction. Today that request was put to bed. US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton said a few weeks ago that she would probably deny the company's motion because their arguments were weak. Hamilton concluded that Apple had shown no evidence of "dilution or tarnishment" of the App Store trademark. She also concluded that Apple's evidence supported two of eight legal criteria to establish infringement.

Source: Ars Technica


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Poll: Is it censorship when a private retailer decides not to sell a particular video game?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Wonderkarpjust be happy and encourage it.05/29/2015 - 7:37am
DocMelonheadSorry about that, but I'm surprise at what IP participate in this discussion.05/29/2015 - 7:25am
E. Zachary KnightIron, I did not Google Search because I figured the ESRB would publish such infor on their site, which is where I looked. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_process.jsp05/29/2015 - 7:22am
WonderkarpDocMelonHead, don't look a gift horse in the mouth05/29/2015 - 7:21am
E. Zachary KnightDoc, Uncalled for. Please keep things civil.05/29/2015 - 7:21am
MattsworknameThey were discussing the appeals process for Esrb ratings Doc.05/29/2015 - 7:21am
DocMelonheadDid IP post something that isn't related to White Supremecy?05/29/2015 - 7:13am
IronPatriotBut hey, you're welcome.05/29/2015 - 5:23am
Andrew EisenEZK did say he didn't find any info on the appeals process. And if all he did was look at the ratings process part of the ESRB's website, he wouldn't have. That's where I would have looked too. But hey, thanks for being thorough and finding the info.05/29/2015 - 5:01am
Andrew EisenDude, again. I am NOT saying there is no appeals process. THERE OBVIOUSLY IS. All I am saying is that the appeals process is not described in the ratings process part of the ESRB's website.05/29/2015 - 4:59am
IronPatriotI googled appeal esrb.org and it is the first and third hits. Second is esrb talking about appeals for web publishers. Gamefaqs is fourth.05/29/2015 - 4:01am
IronPatriotZachary said he did not find any information about a formal appeals process. I did a simple search and found two places on the esrb site with the info. Just sayin.05/29/2015 - 3:57am
IronPatriotOn Google I get "1 Written Testimony of Patricia E. Vance President ... - ESRB" http://www.esrb.org/about/news/downloads/pvtestimony_6_14_06.pdf05/29/2015 - 3:55am
Andrew EisenNow, that post on GameFAQs was made four years ago. It appears the ESRB has since moved the appeals process stuff behind the publisher login on its website.05/29/2015 - 3:32am
Andrew EisenOh, third link on the Google search. Okay. That leads to a GameFAQs message board which quotes a section of the ESRB website that includes a description of the appeals process. But when you follow the link, that quote doesn't exist.05/29/2015 - 3:30am
Andrew EisenThird link down from what? Look, I'm not arguing the existance of an appeals process. There obviously is one. I was merely noting that it's odd that it isn't described on the website's ratings process section but it is on the mobile site.05/29/2015 - 3:25am
IronPatriotOK, so use the third link down, which describes the appeals process and is not on the mobile site"Publishers also have the ability to appeal an ESRB rating assignment to an Appeals Board, which is made up of publishers, retailers and other professionals."05/29/2015 - 2:47am
Andrew EisenRight, which links to the ESRB's mobile site. On the website (again, unless I'm overlooking it) the appeals process is locked behind the publisher login.05/29/2015 - 2:37am
IronPatriotHuh? Google "appeals esrb". It is the first link. Click it. No login requested.05/29/2015 - 2:31am
Andrew EisenInteresting. It's on the mobile site but unless I'm overlooking it, I don't see it under the Ratings Process on the web site. It is under the publishers section but you can't access it without a login.05/29/2015 - 2:13am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician