Close
  • Latest News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Cloud
  • Mobile
  • Networking
  • Storage
  • Applications
  • IT Management
  • Small Business
  • Development
  • Database
  • Servers
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Innovation
  • Blogs
  • PC Hardware
  • Reviews
  • Search Engines
  • Virtualization
Read Down
Sign in
Close
Welcome!Log into your account
Forgot your password?
Read Down
Password recovery
Recover your password
Close
Search
Menu
eWEEK.com
Search
eWEEK.com
  • Latest News
  • Cybersecurity
  • Big Data and Analytics
  • Cloud
  • Mobile
  • Networking
  • Storage
  • Applications
  • IT Management
  • Small Business
  • Development
  • Database
  • Servers
  • Android
  • Apple
  • Innovation
  • Blogs
  • PC Hardware
  • Reviews
  • Search Engines
  • Virtualization
More
    Home Development
    • Development
    • Mobile
    • PC Hardware

    Microsoft Argues Apple Trademark Filing Font Too Small

    By
    NICHOLAS KOLAKOWSKI
    -
    March 10, 2011
    Share
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Linkedin

      First Microsoft filed a legal claim to deny Apple the trademark to the term “app store.” Then Apple filed back, arguing its arch-rival’s logic and evidence failed to “create a new genericness standard.”

      Now Microsoft’s felt compelled to return fire-but not with a complex legal argument. Instead, the tech giant wants Apple’s brief shot down because its typeface is too small and page-count too high.

      “Apple’s response brief is 31 pages, including the table of contents and table of authorities, and on information and brief, is printed in less than 11 point font,” reads Microsoft’s Motion to Strike, filed March 8 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trial and Appeal Board. “Under the rules, Apple’s brief cannot exceed 25 pages in its entirety, including the table of contents and table of authorities, and must be printed in at least 11 point font.”

      Because of that violation, Microsoft’s counsel argues, Apple’s response brief should be dismissed, and Apple given time to file a new brief “that complies with the rules and does not add any new matter or arguments.”

      Microsoft’s January filing with the Trial and Appeal Board had asked that Apple be denied the trademark for “app store” on the grounds that “‘app store’ is generic for retail store services featuring apps and unregisterable for ancillary services such as searching for and downloading apps from such stores.”

      At the time, Microsoft’s legal team argued that “app store” is commonly used “in the trade, by the general press, by consumers, by Apple’s competitors and even by Apple’s founder and CEO Steve Jobs, as a generic name for online stores featuring apps.” In light of that, it argued, the government should deny Apple an exclusive lock on the name.

      In its Feb. 28 filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Apple shot back that Microsoft’s argument was fundamentally flawed.

      “Microsoft, missing the forest for the trees, does not base its motion on a comprehensive evaluation of how the relevant public understands the term APP STORE as a whole,” reads the filing. “What it offers instead are out-of-context and misleading snippets of material printed by its outside counsel from the Internet and allegations regarding how the public allegedly interprets the constituent parts of the term APP STORE, i.e., -app’ and -store.'”

      Those snippets of material fail to counter the argument, insisted Apple’s legal counsel: “Recognizing the many issues of fact raised by its motion and trying to sidestep them, Microsoft also concocts the argument that all -store’ formative marks such as APP STORE should be per se generic.” However, Microsoft cannot “create a new genericness standard.”

      According to its corporate Website, Apple already holds trademarks for terms such as “Charcoal,” “Chicago,” “Gadget,” “Sand,” and “Tiger.” Within the context of the company, those terms apply to products such as operating system software and fonts.

      The timeframe for Apple’s response to Microsoft remains an open question, as does its next legal maneuver. Whatever it is, though, it’ll most likely be delivered in 11-point font.

      MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

      Android

      Samsung Galaxy XCover Pro: Durability for Tough...

      CHRIS PREIMESBERGER - December 5, 2020 0
      Have you ever dropped your phone, winced and felt the pain as it hit the sidewalk? Either the screen splintered like a windshield being...
      Read more
      Cloud

      Why Data Security Will Face Even Harsher...

      CHRIS PREIMESBERGER - December 1, 2020 0
      Who would know more about details of the hacking process than an actual former career hacker? And who wants to understand all they can...
      Read more
      Cybersecurity

      How Veritas Is Shining a Light Into...

      EWEEK EDITORS - September 25, 2020 0
      Protecting data has always been one of the most important tasks in all of IT, yet as more companies become data companies at the...
      Read more
      Big Data and Analytics

      How NVIDIA A100 Station Brings Data Center...

      ZEUS KERRAVALA - November 18, 2020 0
      There’s little debate that graphics processor unit manufacturer NVIDIA is the de facto standard when it comes to providing silicon to power machine learning...
      Read more
      Apple

      Why iPhone 12 Pro Makes Sense for...

      WAYNE RASH - November 26, 2020 0
      If you’ve been watching the Apple commercials for the past three weeks, you already know what the company thinks will happen if you buy...
      Read more
      eWeek


      Contact Us | About | Sitemap

      Facebook
      Linkedin
      RSS
      Twitter
      Youtube

      Property of TechnologyAdvice.
      Terms of Service | Privacy Notice | Advertise | California - Do Not Sell My Info

      © 2020 TechnologyAdvice. All Rights Reserved

      Advertiser Disclosure: Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which TechnologyAdvice receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. TechnologyAdvice does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.

      ×