Free Newsletter

FEATURES >> The top 10 U.S. carriers in Q1 | CTIA 2012: Winners and losers

Related Topics >> Apple | GetJar | App Stores

GetJar: We're not going to take Apple's app store bullying

July 11, 2011 — 8:50am ET | By Jason Ankeny

GetJar said it will not bow to a cease-and-desist letter from Apple's (NASDAQ:AAPL) attorneys insisting that the cross-platform application storefront stop using the term "app store" on its website and elsewhere. The Wall Street Journal reports that attorneys from the firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP mailed GetJar a letter demanding that the firm eschew "app store" in favor of "mobile download service" or "application download service." GetJar--which began distributing free apps in early 2005, more than three years prior to the App Store's launch--isn't having it.

"GetJar won't be subject to this kind of bullying," writes chief marketing officer Patrick Mork on the GetJar Developer Blog. "We're not going to ‘Cease & Desist.' We were here long before Steve [Jobs, Apple's CEO] & Co. We were built by developers, to help developers. Not to help sell handsets or search results... Steve Jobs isn't our Dad."

GetJar offers free applications for more than 2,500 Android, BlackBerry, Symbian and Java devices--consumers have downloaded close to 2 billion apps in total, with developer registrations topping 330,000. GetJar states it has used "app store" in its press releases and consumer marketing efforts since 2009, but does not employ the term in its brand/slogan or strapline.

Apple previously filed a trademark lawsuit against online retailer Amazon.com over its Amazon Appstore for Android. Apple claims the value of the App Store brand will suffer irreparable harm as consumers confuse the service with the Amazon storefront, which opened in March 2011. Amazon has argued that the term is generic and therefore does not fall under copyright protection.

In an 18-page opinion filed last week with the U.S. District Court for Northern California, Judge Phyllis Hamilton said Apple has so far failed to convincingly argue its case. "The court finds that Apple has not established a likelihood of success on its dilution claim," Hamilton wrote. "First, Apple has not established that its 'App Store' mark is famous, in the sense of being 'prominent' and 'renowned.'"

Hamilton nevertheless conceded that "App Store" is not a purely generic term. "The evidence does show that Apple has spent a great deal of money on advertising and publicity, and has sold/provided/furnished a large number of apps from its App Store, and the evidence also reflects actual recognition of the 'App Store' mark," Hamilton explained. "However, there is also evidence that the term 'app store' is used by other companies as a descriptive term for a place to obtain software applications for mobile devices."

For more:
- read this Wall Street Journal article
- read this GetJar Developer Blog entry