Your question is a very good one. A term that is primarily descriptive cannot be registered as a trademark on the primary register with the USPTO. However, if a vendor spends a lot in advertising over a substantial time such that the public comes to identify the relevant term with one vendor and not as a primarily descriptive term, then that item is said to acquire "secondary meaning." Once a primarily descriptive term acquires secondary meaning of this type, it can be registered on the primary register. Context matters here as well because marks are registered in revelant "classes" of goods or services. Thus, for Microsoft, "Windows" eventually acquired secondary meaning in the world of computer software (but not as applied to window installation in the building industry). Others can freely use "windows" in most any category of goods or services they want in the building trades but, given that the term "Windows" is now exclusively associated with a product from Microsoft in that class, not in the class of computer goods to which "Windows" belongs.

Other well-known secondary-meaning marks: "Holiday Inn," Subway's "Footlong" sandwich, many others.

Would the fact that "app" has been used as a shortened form of "application" in "web app"/"web application" have any bearing on it's ability be trademarked? Is it specifically for the combination "app store"? It would seem to me that its primary meaning is what they're trying to trademark, because it's bluntly self-descriptive.

How did Facebook manage to acquire secondary meaning for the the name, when the term "face book" existed as a descriptive term for the exact same thing that sucker-borg created a variation of?

If Facebook sues people making face books, then you'll have a point. It's about co-opting naturally occurring words and then preventing people from using them to describe things naturally.

Apple has successfully promoted the heck out of name "App Store" and spent a fortune doing so. If that's the criteria they have a solid case.

Apple has been very inconsistent on their use of it though. Originally you just searched for apps in iTunes Store. Then I believe it changed to iTunes App Store. And now they have a Mac App Store. the other point is that apple refers to them as 'apps' in a generic sense and not something like 'App Store applications'

Was it not always called 'App Store' on the phone/ipod?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history#2.x:_Second...

You are overlooking the second part of this:

such that the public comes to identify the relevant term with one vendor and not as a primarily descriptive term, then that item is said to acquire "secondary meaning.

It is not clear that the public identifies "app" as something from Apple only.

I've definitely had a few encounters where it seems there's a good chance the average, non-technical user, considers 'app' to refer explicitly to iOS applications. I remember somebody wanting to work on a project asking if I had written any 'apps', I assumed he meant applications and I listed off some of the more interesting projects on various platforms. He seemed utterly confused that I was talking about things that were not running on an iphone.

It's a biased selection but, Google's Page Rank certainly says that the public tends to "link" the term 'App Store' to 'Apple' in a pretty consistant manner

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8...

On the other hand, half of the "related searches" on that page are "nokia app store", "android app store", "samsung app store", etc., which are not the official names of any of those brands. Its possible that the public uses more formal names when linking but less formal names when searching.

The "there's an App for that" campaign by Apple has definitely helped cement that as a possibility. I'm pretty sure when folks use / mimic / parody that phrase, they're always referring to Apple's use, not some generic "app".

As long as they've not been SO successful, that consumers now consider "App Store" to be "The thing you get stuff for your phone from" where phone could be WinMo or Android or Symbian.

I don't know if that should matter. If Facebook spends billions promoting it's brand and then sues people making books with faces who called it, lets say Staunch's face book, I don't see how they deserve to win.

> Thus, for Microsoft, "Windows" eventually acquired secondary meaning in the world of computer software (but not as applied to window installation in the building industry). Others can freely use "windows" in most any category of goods or services they want in the building trades but, given that the term "Windows" is now exclusively associated with a product from Microsoft in that class, not in the class of computer goods to which "Windows" belongs.

Note that they can't/don't sue products like wxWindows, even though it refers to windows on computer screens, because it refers to the generic usage and not in terms of a OS. Thus they sued Lindows (and lost?) because it was an OS and with a similarly sounding name and settled.

Though they forced wxWindows to rename to wxWidgets.

Some money changed hands too. http://wxwidgets.org/about/name.htm

No doubt there was both a carrot and a stick, but who knows whether the stick would have held up in court. Trademark law could also well be different in the UK.

Windows is a branding of an OS based on one specific element. It isn't like Microsoft sues Apple for any references to a window in Mac documentation. App Store is a branding of an application store. The operating system equal would being someone trying to trademark Operating Sys or something of the like, not trying to brand a generic word.

You probably couldn't trademark the name of a company that made glass windows as "Windows". Nor could you name a product that was a glass window as "Windows". That's the difference.

I.e. I couldn't name my grocery store "Grocer Store" and then try to trademark the term...

First of all "Windows" itself doesn't mean an OS. You can argue that OSes have generic GUI windows, but Microsoft is not suing to prevent Gnome from calling itself a window manager with application windows. "Windows" is a trademark for an operating system.

>So then, possibly an "app store" doesn't just mean a store on Main St, that happens to have applications on its shelves, but a novel concept worthy of a trademark?

Well, store doesn't really mean only physical stores right? There are a bunch of online shops calling themselves stores from the 90s.