Apple Trademarks Apple Store Interior Design
from the oh-for-the-love-of-god dept
Remember when Conan O'Brien joked around with Samsung about their copying the Apple Store look...only for Samsung to open up a store that looked an awful lot like an Apple Store in Australia. Well, that kind of thing ain't going to fly anymore, folks, now that the USPTO has granted Apple a trademark on the design of their retail stores.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Apple's request last week for trademarks on the minimalist design and layout of its retail outlets, the office's records show. The description of the trademarks includes "a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade" and, within the store, an "oblong table with stools...set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall."
Yup, Apple trademarked a retail store with a glass storefront and tables with stools. Truthfully, the trademark is a tad more detailed than that and there is some precedent for this kind of trade dress claim. The article notes the 1992 case in which a Mexican food chain was granted protection for it's interior design. The thing is, all of this revolves around customer confusion, and I'd think that such designs would have to err on the side of the super-specific if it's going to be granted a trade dress mark. Considering the a central part of this mark is for "minimalist design", i.e. not having stuff, that seems problematic.
"The million dollar question in this instance, as in pretty much all trade dress cases, is just how close a competitor can come to the design without infringing," [Christopher] Sprigman said.
It's not difficult to envision companies with some flavor of a glass facade, stools and tables, and some large panel displays up in their retail store that have nothing to do with trying to copy Apple's atmosphere. Are those types of retail stores now facing trademark suits?






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft trademarks its stores. So there.
I'm sure Apple must be trembling in their boots with fear.
The Microsoft stores don't have "Geniuses", they have "Smart Guys" who have no product knowledge. Plus their shirts are a slightly different shade of blue.
Plus Apple stores are crowded. Microsoft stores are empty.
So how could a Microsoft store be an infringement of an Apple store, or vice versa?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
oops sorry ,,, trademark
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Trade dress
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Trade dress
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trade dress
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Trade dress
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Jesus is crying
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Jesus is crying
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How dumb do you have to be?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The USPTO is "captured" by the industry, much like the hypothetical US bank regulators were captured by the banks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, at least it's not a patent
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85036990&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSear ch
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A Sign
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This trademark is USA only, it is not viable nor applicable anywhere else in the World other than the USA and will absolutely not effect Samsung or any other competitor in the markets where Apple is not #1 (nor in the top 2 actually) of phone/tablet sales.
So the USPTO can trademark the freakin moon if they want, it means diddly squat (or even less) in the REAL world outside of the USA.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Holy Crap
Truly tired of the hacks at the USPTO. What complete idiots, sucking up taxpayer money on shear stupidity.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Apple after a search do not have any pending, refused, registered or otherwise marks in regards to this trade dress (or gestalt) situation within Australia. Though this could be that Trade Dress is not normally allowed within Australia other than for highly specific marks is highly unlikely, especially after the recent Mars Australia Pty Ltd v Sweet Rewards Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 60 finding.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hey, at least it's not a patent
Samsung can copy Apple Store and put some air conditioning equipment, TVs and other stuff Apple doesn't sell and when Apple goes after them they can put up their troll faces and say nobody can possibly confuse one with another because apple only sells ishit. I mean, igadgets.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How dumb do you have to be?
Oops.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Trademarks can be successful in one jurisdiction (country) and not others it just depends on the countries different trademark laws, what they classify as actual marks and whether it could actually have a negative effect on consumers.. The US trademark system in this respect treats consumers like they aren't even morons in a hurry but instead idiots who could not distinguish a world famous organisations owned shop from another.
As for the US being the largest market, Apple wishes this was so since they are #1 in the USA on smartphones and tablets, though being that the USA is only approx 15-25% of their (Apple's) actual worldwide market this has no meaning especially when Samsung on the other hand are the #1 seller Worldwide outside of the USA followed by HTC, Nokia and Huawei with Apple as #5.
Basically this whole thing is for Apple to turn around and say..
"look we have a store design (not dissimilar to rounded corners) that we own and can stop competitors on pain of legal court costs from even thinking about using...aren't we awesome and petulant and basically showing how scared we actually are of any competition and that our worshippers might wake up and smell the Android/Windows"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: oops sorry ,,, trademark
Well in the USA anyway *snorts*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So... every modernist design bar with a TV is now infringing on Apple's "trade dress?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How dumb do you have to be?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: How dumb do you have to be?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you are using circles in your design, product, or anywhere else for that matter, we will be filing the appropriate charges. We've had our 'moron in a hurry' review your use of circles, and he thought that it looked like our apple, so....
And that's the rest of the story....
(I'll expect to be hearing from the current 'owners' of Paul Harvey's IP to be contacting me anytime now....)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fun game: go down this list and surmise which cognitive bias this is an example of. I got Loss Aversion, but there's more.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment