Microsoft seeks to dismiss Apple’s ‘App Store’ trademark brief because font is too small

“In the legendary rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, there have been many subjects of dispute,” Todd Bishop reports for GeekWire. “But this may be a first.”

“Microsoft, opposing Apple’s attempt to trademark the phrase ‘App Store,’ today filed a motion with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to strike the iPhone maker’s latest filing in the case — saying that its response to Microsoft’s attempt to dismiss the case violated court rules that limit such briefs to 25 pages, and require them to be in at least 11 point font,” Bishop reports.

Bishop reports, “The company asks the trademark court to require Apple to file a new brief that ‘complies with the rules and does not add any new matter or arguments.'”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: It doesn’t get much weaker than that. If it wasn’t for Apple, Microsoft wouldn’t even know what a font is.

Next Microsoft will argue that because they were too stupid to build their own “App Store” before Apple, as always, showed them how it’s done, granting Apple the “App Store” trademark would be a violation of their rights under The Americans with Disabilities Act.

Related articles:
Apple accuses Microsoft of hypocrisy in App Store trademark dispute – March 1, 2011
Microsoft files objection to Apple’s ‘App Store’ trademark – January 12, 2011

18 Comments

  1. As much as I love Apple, MS has a valid argument. 10 pages over the max AND in smaller font? Cmon Apple, you expect / enforce app store compliance. When the govt has rules, you follow.

      1. Fair enough. I don’t know the all the specific rules and regulations, but I surmise that when Apple filed with the Office, they had to provide a copy to MS, and *potentially* MS had a bit more time to review and critique.

      2. Like any regulatory agency, the Patent Office has the authority to waive its own regulations at its own pleasure. A good example of this is when the FCC accepts comments on rulemaking which are a day (or several) days late, simply because the comments have a great bearing on the case, and their interest is — amazing though it may seem for the Federal Government — getting something done, rather than simple, mindless adherence to arbitrary rules.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.