Apple Loses Trademark Claim on “App Store” to Amazon

31 July 2011 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Author(s): Peter Vogel

Apple did not prove that App Store was famous and not descriptive, therefore Apple failed to establish a likelihood of success at trial. On July 6, 2011 US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton denied Apple’s request to enjoin Amazon from using “App Store” as she ruled that it was unlikely that there would be any confusion between customers of Apple and Amazon.

Actually the standard to obtain a temporary injunction is so high they are rarely granted. 

Apple needed to prove that it had irreparable harm, money damages would not suffice, and it would ultimately win at trial. Which meant that at the trial Apple would have to prove “trademark infringement, Apple must show ownership of a legally protectable mark and a likelihood of confusion arising from Amazon’s use.” Amazon’s defense was that App Store is a generic mark “because Apple’s App Store is simply an online store where consumers can search for, choose, and download apps.” 

Apple reported it 10 billion apps had been downloaded since Apple started the app business.  However the truly amazing statistic is that Apple announced six months later that another 5 billion apps have been downloaded, for a total of 15 billion apps!  We can all watch to see if Judge Hamilton’s ruling has an impact on the future for Apple and the app world!

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services