Australia: Apple not appy with Federal Court decision on APP STORE trade mark

Last Updated: 15 April 2015
Article by Catherine Logan

This article was first published in the Lexis Nexis Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin (newsletter) March/April 2015


  • This case was decided using the form of s 41 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) which applied prior to the amendments introduced by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Cth). The mark was found to be not registrable as it was not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the designated services in classes 35, 38 and 42, and Apple failed to establish that because of the extent to which it had used the mark before the filing date, it did distinguish the designated services as being Apple services.
  • The registrability of a mark (including whether it is capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods and services from the goods or services of others) must be assessed with regard to the scope of the registration which is sought, and in particular, to both:
    1. the nature of the mark itself (with word marks necessitating a more restrictive approach owing to the breadth of the monopoly they convey to the owner); and
    2. the specification of the goods or services for which registration is sought (rather than by reference to precisely what goods and/or services the applicant actually does provide).
  • Survey evidence is of limited value in that it will usually only serve to show an association between the mark and the applicant, not that use of the mark as a trade mark by the applicant prior to filing date has brought about that association, which is what is required to be established by the applicant, under the former s 41(6).
  • If this case had been decided using the current form of the section, the result would have been the same, as the former s 41(6) essentially survives in a redrafted form as s 41(3).


The writer mused in an article in an Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin back in September 20131 about Apple, and Microsoft, and trade marking store layouts and architecture in general, finishing off with a few remarks about virtual stores.

At that time Apple had just dropped its suit against Amazon in the United States for its use of the term "Appstore", saying in a statement that "with more than 900,000 apps and 50 billion downloads, customers know where they can purchase their favourite apps",2 suggesting that the Apple App Store's success had made the proceedings unnecessary.

Meanwhile, back in Australia, (where Apple also owns the trade mark "APPSTORE"3 ), Apple has been fighting a long, and so far very unrewarding, fight to obtain registration of the word trade mark "APP STORE".

After filing its application for the mark on 18 July 2008 and receiving an examiner's decision with which it did not agree, Apple requested a hearing. At the hearing, the registrar's delegate rejected the application in its entirety based on s 41(6) (as it then was). To add insult to injury the registrar's decision has effectively been upheld on an appeal to the Federal Court, although it must be pointed out that "although styled an 'appeal', this proceeding involves the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the Court".4

The case was heard at the end of 2013 and Yates, J reserved his decision, handing it down on 3 December 2014.


This section (which appears in a redrafted form as s 41(3) post the Raising the Bar reforms), provides a get out of jail free card to applicants who are able to show that their (or their predecessors in title) extensive use of the mark before the filing date has served to transform a mark which was not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the applicant's goods and services into something which actually does distinguish those goods and services from those of other traders.
It is a very hard nut to crack.

Apple threw everything at it. So, rather unusually, did the registrar, who obtained its own expert evidence and called third party witnesses from King & Wood Mallesons who had previously gathered evidence at the request of their client Microsoft Corporation in the context of its opposition to Apple's corresponding application for the registration of "APP STORE" as a trade mark in the USA.


Apple's lead expert, a professor of linguistics at University College London,5 in evidence which His Honour described as "in large measure, argumentative, rather than factual, in nature", advanced several propositions, including:

  • that Apple's use of the word "app" in "App Store" had entrenched a narrower meaning of the word "app" than was generally current before the commencement of the App Store, and thus "ushered in a novel meaning" of "store" such that thereafter the expression "app store" cannot be fully understood by simply combining the meanings of its component parts "app" and "store". His Honour was not persuaded by that evidence, noting (among other things) and discussing examples of the long histories of the word "app" in the context of computer services, and the word "store" in the context of online retailing. Essentially the finding was that "APP STORE" has no more inherent capacity to distinguish than "BOOK STORE" or "ONLINE STORE" would. His Honour did not agree that earlier inconsistent decisions by the trade mark examiner, and the fact that "APPSTORE" is a registered trade mark (having been registered in 2006 by a third party and subsequently acquired by Apple by assignment) supported an argument for registrability of "APP STORE", and in fact considered that to ponder on whether these prior decisions were right or wrong was an "unwarranted distraction"6 to the case at hand.
  • that "it is highly likely that the occurrence of the term app in APP STORE will trigger an association with the term Apple in the minds of members of the public. The association is based on a productive word formation process of clipping that helps establish a close lexical connection between the two terms."7 His Honour found that argument problematic because it sought to introduce a reference to the Apple trade mark when inherent adaptation is supposed to be directed "solely to the intrinsic qualities of the mark itself, not to features or circumstances that are extraneous to the mark".8
  • That the prepositional use by Apple of the word "on" in the phrase "on the App Store" indicated that "APP STORE" did not have a compositional meaning as at the filing date. This was considered by His Honour to be irrelevant for the same reason as in 2 above, as these indicia are extraneous to the mark itself.

The court also found it problematic that Apple's lead expert tended to direct his arguments toward his own understanding of how Apple supplies it App Store service and not to the specification of services which Apple had claimed in its application.

Apple also relied on evidence from a Dr James Farrow, an IT consultant who conducted a number of internet searches on the use of the term "app store" by internet users between January 2004 to September 2013.

Dr Farrow's evidence had a number of deficiencies which had been pointed out by the registrar at the earlier hearing, and his evidence was held not to materially assist Apple even if it suggested a heightened awareness of the App Store service immediately after its launch on 11 July 2008, as that still "says nothing about the inherent adaptation of 'APP STORE' to distinguish the designated services in class 35".9


Having found that "APP STORE" was not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish the designated services in class 35 of the application, the court went on to consider whether there was evidence that the mark does actually distinguish the services claimed by virtue of the extent to which the applicant has used the mark before the filing date, for the purposes of s 41(6)(a), which would have allowed the mark to be taken to be capable of distinguishing the services from the services of other traders.

In this regard there were two main difficulties with Apple's evidence:

  • The time period for which the mark had been used by Apple before the filing date was just eight days and the evidence was "opaque" as to how Apple promoted the App Store service in that period. (The court emphasised that it was the filing date that was the relevant date for considering the application of s 41 and, crucially for Apple, not the significantly earlier priority date, due to international filing).
  • The evidence led by Apple was essentially in the form of a Newspoll survey which, like Dr Farrow's evidence, did suggest that many people associate the idea of the App Store service with Apple. However, the Newspoll survey, which was undertaken well after the relevant period, likewise did not provide any evidence that it had been Apple's use of the mark prior to the filing date that had produced this result, which was essential if the application was to succeed under s 41(6). The survey evidence suffered from the same flaws as in similar trade mark cases.10


His Honour framed his finding with reference to the designated services in class 35, and held that this then determined the fate of the application as a whole, as there were no separate applications for registration of the mark for the services claimed in classes 38 or 42.

However His Honour went on to consider the parties submissions on this point and concluded that he was in any event satisfied that the services in classes 38 and 42 were essentially those types of services that a customer would expect to find provided by an "app store" and as such was satisfied that "the mark 'APP STORE' is not to any extent inherently adapted to distinguish those services", and that further "Apple had not established that because of the extent to which it had used 'APP STORE' before the filing date, the mark did, at the filing date, distinguish the designated services in classes 38 and 42 as being Apple's services and not those of other persons".11


This decision is a strong affirmation of the deficiencies inherent in survey evidence in these cases, and of the difficulties in overcoming a finding of no inherent adaptability to distinguish — the problem with all word marks that are descriptive.

The court strongly defended the action of the registrar in the robust approach it took to the defence of the appeal, including using the witnesses from Microsoft's lawyers, perhaps paving the way for similar approaches to future cases.

What is not clear is why Apple fought so hard for this registration in light of their phenomenal success with the App Store as mentioned above. Is not having the trade mark "APP STORE" registered in Australia really such a problem for Apple in the sense that it will impact that success? It seems unlikely.


1 C Logan "Protecting the architecture of happiness using trade marks (with apologies to Alain de Botton)" (2013) 26(3) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 63.

2 D Levine, Reuters, Judge rejects part of Apple App Store suit vs Amazon, 2 January 2013, available

3 Registration number 1156967

4 Apple Inc. v Registrar of Trade Marks (2014) 109 IPR 187; [2014] FCA 1304; BC201411305 at [22].

5 Professor John Harris

6 Above, n 4, at [215]

7 Above, n 4, at [101], quoting from [35] of Professor Harris'declaration

8 Above, n 4, at [188].

9 Above, n 4, at [213]

10 Optical 88 Ltd v Optical 88 Pty Ltd (No 2) (2010) 275 ALR 526; 89 IPR 457; [2010] FCA 1380; BC201009532, Chocolaterie Guylian NV v Registrar of Trade Marks (2009) 180 FCR 60; 258 ALR 545; [2009] FCA 891; BC200907428, Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v Unilever plc [2003] RPC 35 and Woolworths Ltd v BP plc (No 2) (2006) 154 FCR 97; 235 ALR 698; [2006] FCAFC 132; BC200606912 were all cited in the judgement, and held to be applicable to this case despite the fact that the latter three cases concerned the capacity of shape and colour marks to distinguish, as opposed to word marks.

11 Above, n 4, at [239]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Catherine Logan
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.