• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

Apple Suffers Setbacks in Lawsuit against Amazon

Submitted by Liliana Burnett on January 21, 2013 – 12:01 AM65855 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F01%2F21%2Fapple-suffers-setbacks-in-lawsuit-against-amazon%2FApple+Suffers+Setbacks+in+Lawsuit+against+Amazon2013-01-21+05%3A01%3A04Liliana+Burnetthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6585

Apple App Logo and Amazon LogoEarlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland, granted Amazon.com Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss Apple’s false advertising claim against Amazon for the use of “app store.”

The original lawsuit was filed in March 2011, alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin and false description, and unfair competition, as Amazon was using the term to solicit software developers.  Apple applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark office to register “APP STORE” in 2008, but Microsoft Corp. opposed the registration (claiming the term is generic); the opposition proceedings in the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board are on hold pending the outcome of this lawsuit.

The false advertising claim was added to the lawsuit in November 2011 after Amazon began to call its app store “Amazon Appstore” instead of the original “Amazon Appstore for Android.”  Apple argued that the “APP STORE” terminology could deceive customers into believing that “Amazon Appstore” provides the qualities of Apple’s “APP STORE,” thus, influence customers’ purchasing decisions and divert revenues from Apple to Amazon.”  Furthermore, Apple alleged that the “Amazon’s use is . . . likely to lessen the goodwill associated with Apple[] . . . by associating Apple’s APP STORE service with the inferior qualities of Amazon’s services.”

In response to the false advertising claim, Amazon stated that the term “app store” has become generic, thus the use of it could not constitute false advertising as Amazon does not have exclusive right to use, and noted the use of the term by Apple’s Chief Executive Tim Cook (and Steve Jobs) to discuss rivals.  Unfortunately for Apple, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton found that the “mere use of ‘Appstore’ by Amazon . . . cannot be construed as a representation” that Amazon’s services were the same as Apple’s, and Apple had failed to establish that Amazon made any false statements or actually deceived a “substantial” number of consumers as required under the Lanham Act.  Although, Judge Hamilton found in favor of Amazon, she previously determined that the term was not purely generic, but did not establish “a likelihood of confusion” between Apple and Amazon’s services, when rejecting Apple’s request for an injunction against Amazon in July of 2012.

Although the lawsuit is scheduled for trial on August 19, 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte ordered Apple and Amazon to hold settlement talks on March 21, 2013.  If the settlement talks do not succeed, it will certainly be an interesting trial.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 11-01327 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 18, 2011).

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Liliana Burnett

Liliana Burnett is a full time 2L at American University Washington College of Law. She graduated from Santa Clara University in northern California in 2011, where she majored in History. She is very interested in IP law, international finance law, and maritime law.

Liliana Burnett has written 6 posts for the IPB.

65855 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2013%2F01%2F21%2Fapple-suffers-setbacks-in-lawsuit-against-amazon%2FApple+Suffers+Setbacks+in+Lawsuit+against+Amazon2013-01-21+05%3A01%3A04Liliana+Burnetthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6585 »

  • Gonzalo Gutierrez says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:10 PM

    While it's true that AppleFitness came up with the phrase App store first but you they gotta understand that the word "App" is not trademarked, it's short for application and it should be considered like just a word, plus the word "store" is just another word as well. It's like trying to copyright the a phrase like "supermarket shopping".

    Reply to this comment »
  • Panama Vacations says:
    February 20, 2013 at 1:20 PM

    Very good post and in my opinion its similar to Apple believing that you put the letter "i" in front of any word and you're infringing on their brand. So from iCostaRica….pura vida!

    Reply to this comment »
  • Costa Rica Surf Camp says:
    March 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    Calling it an "app store" like something trademarked is just unbelievable, it's a simple word and there's no way they could simply take property of it, it's not like it's a unique word at all, I find it funny that they think they can simply own words.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Manuel Antonio Hotel says:
    March 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM

    Fighting for this is just nuts, it's just a word, not even a specific phrase or a propper name, it's two common words that everyone uses in their daily lifes.

    Reply to this comment »
  • RockNRollDude says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:42 PM

    Liliana – I'm so confused! Not really
    Two of my absolute favorite companies – Apple and Amazon.
    But Apple is a thief at heart.
    Peace + Love!
    Rock N Roll Dude

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Apple Denied Rights to “Multi-Touch” Diversity and IP on the Federal Circuit Settling for Less? An Analysis of the Possibility of Positive Legal Precedent on the Internet if the Google Book Search Litigation Had Not Reached a Settlement Removing the E-PARASITES Top 1% Files for Trademark of “Occupy Wall Street” Microsoft to Settle VirnetX VPN Patent Dispute for $200 million Piracy, Pornography and Conspiracy:  How Judges Are Standing Up to Copyright Trolls Lady Gaga Legal Woes Fela! Under Fire: Author of Biography Files Copyright Infringement Suit Against Show’s Production Company Epic Meat Time: New York District Court Allows Famous NYC Deli to Continue Selling “Instant Heart Attack Sandwich” and “Triple Bypass Sandwich” Despite Trademark Conflict with a Las Vegas Grill USPTO Attempts to Tackle Trademark Bullying How Much is a Twitter Account Worth?
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License