ok. It’s not an App Store, it’s a mobile download service. Say, I just licensed the Angry Birds software suite from the mobile download service offered by my cellular telephony provider’s hand-held phone with PC-functionality. Just joshin.’
Here is an excerpt from Apple’s first response to the descriptiveness objection (that it overcame) when it applied for the mark APP STORE (which application Microsoft is presently opposing):
In order for a mark to be non-registrable because of descriptiveness, it must not only be descriptive, but must be “merely” descriptive of the goods or services to which it relates. See TMEP § 1209.01(b). Stated differently, to be non-registrable, the mark must do nothing other than immediately convey an understanding of the goods for which registration is sought. . . .
Whether a mark is suggestive or merely descriptive must be determined, not in the abstract, but, rather, in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought; the context in which the mark is used, or intended to be used, in connection with those goods or services; and the possible significance which the mark would have, because of that context, to the average purchaser of the goods or services in the market place. See TMEP § 1209.01(b); . . . In re Realistic Co., 440 F.2d 1393 (C.C.P.A. 1971) (finding CURV not merely descriptive of permanent wave curling solution); In re Waldorf Paper Prods. Co., 155 U.S.P.Q. 174 (T.T.A.B 1967) (finding STRIP-FLAP for an opening device for paper board containers not merely descriptive even through the opening device containing strips and flaps); Ex parte Great West Lubricants, Inc., 118 U.S.P.Q. 169 (Comm’r Pat. 1958) (finding TUBE-O-LUBE used on a cartridge of lubricating grease not descriptive but suggestive).
The term “APP” is not merely descriptive. In fact, it is completely arbitrary. Arbitrary marks are “inherently distinctive” and are registrable on the Principal Register without proof of acquired distinctiveness. TMEP § 1209.01. The term “APP” may, arguably, sometimes be used as a slang abbreviation for the word “application”, but this term has many other incongruous meanings. Attached as Exhibit A are printouts of online dictionary definitions of the term “application”. As demonstrated, “APP” is an abbreviation for a number of app-formative words, such as apparatus, apparent, appendix, applied, appointed, approved and approximate. Attached as Exhibit B is a printout from website Dictionary.com showing the definition of the term “APP”. The Examiner’s evidence of dictionary definitions fails to offer any possible alternative definition besides the one supporting the Examiner’s position from Microsoft’s Encarta English Dictionary. When used in connection with the word “STORE” it is not apparent what the goods or services are. For example, the service could be offering physical objects such as apparatus or it could be commenting on an inherent trait or quality of the items, such as “approved”. As the term “APP” can have several different meanings, applicant submits that at most, the mark is suggestive of applicant’s services.
Further, applicant does not offer “store” services. The word “STORE” is usually used in the traditional sense of a brick-and-mortar store or in the modern sense of an online retail store. Applicant’s software is only available for download to subscribers through its iPhone portable electronic device or its iTunes digital media player application. None of applicant’s APP STORE software is available for purchase through a store in the traditional sense of the word, namely brick-and-mortar or online retail stores. It requires several mental steps to associate applicant’s services to a traditional “store” service. As the term “STORE” is not used in the traditional sense of the word and can have different meanings, applicant submits that at most, the mark is suggestive of applicant’s services.
. . . In the case at hand, the Examiner offers online dictionary definitions of the words “APP” and “STORE” from Microsoft Corporation’s Encarta World English Dictionary. These definitions, however, are not sufficient to prove that the mark as a whole is merely descriptive. Applicant submits that, on the contrary, such an interpretation would improperly dissect its mark rather than view it as a whole, which is the proper test when considering the issue of descriptiveness. In fact, when viewed together as “APP STORE”, the mark has only one meaning and that is as an indicator of source to applicant’s services. Attached as Exhibit C are printouts of the first 100 hits from a Google search for the mark “APP STORE”. The vast majority of the more than 8 million results from the search use the term to refer to applicant’s services. Of the first 100 references, all but one refers to applicant. This evidence demonstrates that the mark has only one meaning, and that is as an indicator of source for applicant’s services.
Moreover, applicant’s mark creates a clearly recognizable double entendre. A “double entendre” is an expression that has a more than one connotation or significance as applied to the goods or services. A mark that has a “double entendre” will not be refused registration as merely descriptive if one of its meanings is not merely descriptive in relation to the goods or services. TMEP § 1213.05(c). In the context of applicant’s services, in addition to other possible connotations, “APP” will be immediately recognized as an abbreviation of the applicant’s well-known APPLE name and mark, and the mark as a whole, APP STORE, will be immediately recognized as a variant of the applicant’s well-known APPLE STORE mark. These marks are registered under, inter alia, Reg. Nos. 2462798, 2424976 and 2683410 (collectively, the “APPLE STORE Marks”). Copies of these registrations are attached as Exhibit D. Such readily apparent meaning is not merely descriptive, and is in fact highly distinctive, in relation to the goods and services. Therefore the mark should not be refused on mere descriptiveness grounds. See TMEP §1213.05(c).
I look forward to seeing the surveys. HT MD at Bloomberg for the complaint.