Judge Rejects Apple Bid for Injunction Against Amazon

While the case is far from over, a judge has denied Apple's request for an injunction barring Amazon from using the term "App Store."

A U.S. judge denied Apple Inc's attempt to quickly stop online retailer Amazon.com Inc from using the "App Store" name, according to a court document. U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton did not agree that the term is purely generic, according to an order released on Wednesday. However Apple has not established "a likelihood of confusion" with Amazon's services to get an injunction, Hamilton wrote.

Click to expand...

FWIW, Apple had to show that there was a high likelihood of showing a likelihood of confusion. The difference is that the bar for showing you are likely to show something is lower than actually showing it. Not only that, but to show a likelihood of consumer confusion is VERY expensive, even for Apple, so this denial just increased Apple's cost of finishing this suit significantly. It also increased the chances that Amazon succeeds just as significantly.

Anyone know if this is a jury trial?

If this becomes a jury trail, any juror who uses their laptop at Starbucks needs to be removed due to conflict of interest.

App Store is just too generic a term.

Apple should just rename the App Store to Mac App Store and stop being dicks about it. (yes i have Apple products, no I'm not a fanboy).

Amazon should call it AppPlace. That way they can get sued by Apple and Facebook.

Or Appazon. That way they could sue themselves.

But the amazon app store died before it was alive. They don't update the apps very fast and one developer has removed his app over disputes with Amazon. I like it because I can use my amazon gift card there where as the marketplace doesn't have gift cards.

Surprised Apple doesn't sue the Judge for the audacity of not agreeing with them.

Hell when I first heard of "Amazon Appstore" I went "WTF?! Apple let them publish iOS applications?".

piscian18 said:

App Store is just too generic a term.

Click to expand...

Nope, the judge said it wasn't generic. It's likely a 'descriptive' term.

Travolta said:

Apple should just rename the App Store to Mac App Store and stop being dicks about it. (yes i have Apple products, no I'm not a fanboy).

Click to expand...

Not going to help much, since, it would still be a descriptive term.

Selfless plug for my blog if you are interested in more info:
http://law-ls.blogspot.com/2011/07/prediction-comes-true-app-store-likely.html

I have an iDea...oops hope that word isn't trademarked word. How about we get more judges officials like this one who will drop kick companies rears out of court when they make ridiculous claims of sole proprietary ownership of words in common use of vernacular. While we're at it why don't we reform the patent system so as to promote creativity and invention rather than stifle it by say granting companies patents on general ideas for which they have nothing to show. Better yet stop protecting patents from independent competition. It is entirely the case that someone may come up with a solution to a problem independently, while having no idea that someone else has already had the same thought. Especially in cases where no work has been done showing that idea in use. If someone can prove that they came up with an idea independently then they should be able to be free from paying royalties and market their idea. Just a thought. Upon seeing how logical and reasonable this is I believe it will never happen, wouldn't want to displace those who would put a stranglehold on innovation now would we.

B^gD^ddy~CF~ said:

I have an iDea...oops hope that word isn't trademarked word. How about we get more judges officials like this one who will drop kick companies rears out of court when they make ridiculous claims of sole proprietary ownership of words in common use of vernacular. While we're at it why don't we reform the patent system so as to promote creativity and invention rather than stifle it by say granting companies patents on general ideas for which they have nothing to show. Better yet stop protecting patents from independent competition. It is entirely the case that someone may come up with a solution to a problem independently, while having no idea that someone else has already had the same thought. Especially in cases where no work has been done showing that idea in use. If someone can prove that they came up with an idea independently then they should be able to be free from paying royalties and market their idea. Just a thought. Upon seeing how logical and reasonable this is I believe it will never happen, wouldn't want to displace those who would put a stranglehold on innovation now would we.

Click to expand...

With all due respect you have no idea how the U.S. patent system, patent litigation or prosecution works, nor the real-world implications are of your idea.

First, ideas cannot be patented, copyrighted or trademarked. Never have.

Second, independent creation only applies in copyright, not patents. There's a good reason for that. Independent EXACT recreation in copyrighted works is nearly impossible, so it is largely a nonissue. What you are proposing is that, say person A invents a gizmo. Then, 3 years later, just as he is bringing it to market, person B invents it as well, individually and unknowingly. You would then be making it impossible for person A to recoup the costs of creating his invention or making a profit. Furthermore, person B would make NONE of his investment back.
Then think about startup companies based around new technology. These companies take YEARS to create a marketable, safe, standards-certified product that can be sold. If you don't protect that, a larger company could come along and poach it, make it faster and sell it for more. Startup companies would cease to exist.
Taking this to a matter of scale with large companies, there would be no way for companies to invest millions in new inventions such that they could be reasonably certain they could get their $$ back.

Finally, no one has ever been able to patent devices that don't work. They may not work well, nor may not work in the market, or be profitable, but the patent prosecution system in the USPTO does a great job of filtering out the crap. Between the high cost of getting a patent, and the rigorous process involved, patents for things that don't work rarely get through (that's to say nothing about overly broad patents, double patents etc. which are a whole other issue).

Again, click the link above that I posted. Or go read into patent prosecution. Shoot, go read 35 usc 101-112, the patent laws. Either way, go do some reading. Get EDUMACATED!

App store is as generic a Liquor store. How many stores in the country are called Liquor Store? crap load.