Judge rejects part of Apple App Store suit vs Amazon

SAN FRANCISCO Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:26pm EST

A zoomed illustration image of a man looking at a computer monitor showing the logo of Amazon is seen in Vienna November 26, 2012. REUTERS/Leonhard Foeger

A zoomed illustration image of a man looking at a computer monitor showing the logo of Amazon is seen in Vienna November 26, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Leonhard Foeger

Related Topics

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday rejected part of Apple Inc's lawsuit against Amazon.com Inc's use of the term App Store, ruling Apple cannot bring a false advertising claim against the online retailer.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland, California, granted Amazon's motion for partial summary judgment, which only challenged Apple's false advertising allegations. Apple leveled other claims against Amazon, including trademark infringement.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment, and an Amazon representative could not be reached immediately.

Amazon has stepped up competition against Apple in recent years, launching its cheaper Kindle tablet computer to go after the dominant iPad and trying to lure mobile application developers to its Kindle platform.

One of the first public clashes in their tussle was Apple's 2011 lawsuit.

Apple accused Amazon of misusing what it calls its APP STORE to solicit developers for a mobile software download service. However, Amazon said its so-called Appstore has become so generic that its use could not constitute false advertising.

In a legal filing last year, Amazon added that even Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook and his predecessor, Steve Jobs, used the term to discuss rivals. Cook commented on "the number of app stores out there" and Jobs referred to the "four app stores on Android."

In her ruling on Wednesday, Hamilton wrote that the mere use of "Appstore" by Amazon cannot be taken as a representation that its service is the same as Apple's.

"Apple has failed to establish that Amazon made any false statement (express or implied) of fact that actually deceived or had the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience," Hamilton wrote.

A trial on Apple's remaining claims is scheduled for August.

The case is Apple Inc v. Amazon.com Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-01327.

(Additional reporting by Alistair Barr in San Francisco; Editing by Tim Dobbyn and Jeffrey Benkoe)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
andyoo wrote:
lets trademark “gas station” “convenent store” “hardware store”….etc…etc…. gee…. lucky apple didn’t invent the word “application”…. or else people can’t be call application developer….or work in the apps team… duh…apple is so lame …

Jan 02, 2013 1:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
The idea that the term ‘app’ is the property of Appple (presumably on the false premise that it is derived from ‘Apple’ and not ‘application’) is the most shameless nonsense yet it this disgusting picture of tech companies throwing sand at each other in the courts. Anyone old enough to remember the start of personal computers knows that applications were always called apps in the tech world. They are still so called, and the public became used to it in the context of applications for mobile devices. The term ‘killer app’ was universally used to mean a program that defined a platform — like Adobe Photoshop was to the Macintosh.

Jan 02, 2013 2:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ofilha wrote:
this whole world is going stupid. So, now some big company decides to trade mark some common english word and we are now slaves to it? Stop with this madness, but it won’t.

Jan 02, 2013 2:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.