APPsolutely Fun to Watch
I love it when tech giants battle over stuff, particularly in the legal arena. When you have two parties with virtually unlimited resources and an unfettered willingness to spend money on lawyers, it makes for interesting reading … and hopefully for more interesting law at some point down the line. We don’t always have such excitement in the Boston legal community.
Such is the case with Microsoft’s recent filing at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) (of the United States Patent and Trademark Office) contesting Apple’s attempt to trademark the term “APP STORE.” Microsoft argues that “APP STORE” is “generic for retail store services featuring apps and unregistrable for ancillary services such as searching for and downloading apps from such stores.” The company further contends that “APP” is “a common term for mobile software applications, while “STORE” is a common term for a “place where goods are sold.”
Following so far? A generic term can’t be registered for use as a trademark because it refers to the actual product class of which a particular product is a member and therefore can’t be protected as a mark. It would be like trying to register the term “VIDEO GAME” for video games or—for those of us over 40 who still remember video games’ predecessors—the term “PINBALL” to describe pinball machines.
Microsoft’s argument has merit and the company has a reasonable basis to contest the mark. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Apple won’t win in the end, but it should be an interesting read when the TTAB decision come out—at least to us trademark lawyers. (And the parties may then have the opportunity to fight it out in federal court.) Needless to say, neither party suffers from a lack of resources to fight to the bitter end. But they could settle too, if for instance, Apple lets Microsoft use the term to describe its own “App Store.”
There are numerous factors which the TTAB and a court can take into consideration when determining whether a mark is generic, including: how the potential trademark owner itself uses the term; whether third parties use the term as a common name for their own products; what the dictionary definition is (if any) for the term as a common name for a particular type of product; whether there are other available terms to describe the common name for the products; the period of time in which the trademark has been in use; how the press and others use the term; and of course, the results of any survey evidence that either party introduces (which are usually subject to vigorous attack by the other party). There are other factors too, but these tend to be the main ones for determining “genericness.”
Without going into too much detail here, Microsoft does have some favorable evidence to support its claim, as does Apple. While there are a ton of trademark cases that discuss generic marks, a 4th Circuit decision comes to mind, Hunt Masters, Inc. v. Landry Seafood Restaurant, Inc., 240 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2001). In that case, the court found that the term, “CRAB HOUSE” to describe a restaurant that, uh, served crabs “is a generic term referring to a class of restaurants that serve crabs.” It found:
Here, the meaning of the individual words is fairly clear. A crab is “any of numerous chiefly marine broadly built crustaceans,” while “restaurant” is one of the many definitions of the word “house.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 1096 (3d ed. 1961). Other common words that are often used as synonyms for “restaurant” include bar, parlor, and shop. When preceded by a type of food, these words describe various classes of restaurants, such as ale houses, tapas bars, ice cream parlors, and coffee shops. Each term denotes a class of restaurant serving a particular type of food, just as”crab house” denotes a class of restaurant that serves crabs.
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s survey evidence when assessing genericness. So “CRAB HOUSE” was deemed to be unprotectable. While there are a few factors that differentiate this case and some of its principles from what Microsoft is arguing at the TTAB (such as time frame related to evaluating genericness), given the abundance of legal precedent in this area, the company can reasonably argue that ”APP STORE” is a generic term (or a merely descriptive one) for a place that sells applications. Much of the fight will be over the term “APP.”
Of course, as any intellectual property or technology lawyer will tell you, trademark law is a highly nunaced area of practice, so these cases can turn on distinctions that at times seem more imaginary than real—especially in a sector as fast-paced as technology. We’ll just have to wait and see.
