Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

Hey Apple, See If There's An App for This

Illustration for article titled Hey Apple, See If Theres An App for iThis/i

It amazes me that companies still have the bollocks to trademark plain English phrases. The worst thing is that they do it all the time. The latest case: Apple has been awarded a trademark for "There's an app for that".

Advertisement

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a trademark is a "word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of goods of one party from those of others." That means that, if any other company wants to use "There's an app for that" in this context

Retail store services featuring computer software provided via the Internet and other computer and electronic communication networks; retail store services featuring computer software for use on handheld mobile digital electronic devices and other consumer electronics.

Advertisement

they won't be able to do it. In fact, if they say anything remotely similar—like "There's an app for this"—Apple would be able to send their rabid legal dogs of prey to hunt them down.

Trademarks are good for commerce, both for companies and consumers. Obviously, they are very important for marketing products. They are part of both the sales pitch and the product experience, which is why companies spend a lot of money building them up, creating an image around them. That is why it's perfectly justifiable that Xerox or Rollerblade want to keep their brands as a trademark instead of losing it to common language use. And, for sure, it will be idiotic to think that another company can use Apple. Any other company but Apple Inc. and Apple Corps, that is.

But trademarking a simple English phrase, especially after it has been made into a catchphrase by the public, is a different matter. Like "There's an app for that". Sure, it may be legal and doable, but should it be done? Can a company claim ownership of a phrase for a number of uses whenever they want to, just because they have the money to do so? How far this kind of regulation can go?

Advertisement

My answer is the same as Mr. Cash's. Discuss yours in the comments.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

blyan-is-not-on-fire-old
blyan is not on fire

Jesus, I normally agree with you, but I'm gonna have to take the other side this time around. Can you imagine if Subway, Jimmy Johns, Quizno's, Blimpie, etc. all had the "Eat Fresh" slogan? What's the point then?

Such slogans are a HUGE part of branding, whether it be for fast food, electronics, retail stores, etc.

Allowing other people to rip them off would be an absolute mess.

Granted, trying to trademark something like "That's Hot" (yeah, Paris, I'm talking about you) is absolutely fucking retarded... but for something like this, that is so very brand-associated, it seem to make sense.