1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MARTIN R. GLICK (No. 40187) email: mglick@howardrice.com CLARA J. SHIN (No. 214809) email: cshin@howardrice.com SARAH J. GIVAN (No. 238301) email: sgivan@howardrice.com HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4024 Telephone: 415/434-1600 Facsimile: 415/677-6262 Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff, v. No. 11-cv-01327 PJH Action Filed: March 18, 2011 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon.com”) and Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (“ADSI”) 2 (collectively, “Amazon” or “Defendants”) hereby respond to the Amended Complaint filed by 3 Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Plaintiff”) as follows: 4 5 NATURE OF ACTION 1. Defendants deny that Apple “coined the APP STORE mark”. Defendants lack 6 knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of 7 Paragraph 1 and therefore deny same. 8 9 2. Defendants admit that Amazon recently launched a mobile software download store. Except as specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 2 are denied. 10 11 12 PARTIES 3. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 3 and therefore deny same. 13 4. Admitted. 14 5. Defendants admit the first sentence of Paragraph 5. Defendants further admit that ADSI 15 is part of the Amazon.com group of companies. Except as specifically admitted, the allegations of 16 Paragraph 5 are denied. 17 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 18 6. Paragraph 6 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 19 7. Paragraph 7 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 20 8. Paragraph 8 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 21 22 23 24 25 26 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 and therefore deny same. 10. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10 and therefore deny same. 11. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 27 the allegations of the first two sentences of Paragraph 11 and therefore deny same. Defendants deny 28 the third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 11. DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -1- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 and therefore deny same. 13. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 13 and therefore deny same. 14. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14 and therefore deny same. 15. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 8 the allegations of the first, second, and fourth sentences of Paragraph 15 and therefore deny same. 9 Defendants deny the third sentence of Paragraph 15. 10 16. Defendants admit the first sentence of Paragraph 16. Defendants admit that the U.S. 11 Patent and Trademark Office allowed Apple’s application to register APP STORE to be published 12 for opposition. Defendants admit the third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 16. Except as 13 specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 16 are denied. 14 15 16 17 18 17. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 17 and therefore deny same. 18. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 18 and therefore deny same. 19. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 19 the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 19 and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the 20 second sentence of Paragraph 19. 21 22 23 20. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 20 and therefore deny same. 21. Defendants deny that third party use of the term “app store” has occurred only in 24 “limited instances” or that each instance of the alleged use of the term “app store” is improper. 25 Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 26 allegations of Paragraph 21 and therefore deny same. 27 28 22. Defendants deny that Amazon’s generic use of “app store” is unlawful. Amazon first used the generic term “app store” in September 2010 in connection with developer agreements DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -2- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 offered to potential software developers. On January 5, 2011, Amazon launched the developer 2 portal, which offers developers the opportunity to develop apps for its “app store.” Except as 3 specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 22 are denied. 4 23. Defendants admit that they have offered software developers the opportunity to market 5 Android platform apps through the Amazon Appstore for Android, which is available to customers 6 with Android mobile devices throughout the United States, including in the Northern District of 7 California. Defendants further admit that information relating to software developer opportunities 8 for the Amazon Appstore for Android can be found at http://developer.amazon.com. Except as 9 specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 23 are denied. 10 24. Defendants admit that they use the generic term “app store” in connection with the 11 “Amazon Appstore Developer Portal” and the “Amazon Appstore Developer Program” on 12 Amazon’s website. Defendants admit that the image shown in Paragraph 24 appears to be a 13 screenshot taken from Amazon’s website, but lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 14 belief as to whether that screenshot was taken on March 17, 2011, and therefore denies same. 15 Except as specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 24 are denied. 16 25. Defendants admit that Amazon has not received a license or authorization from Apple to 17 use the term “app store”, and contend that no such license or authorization is required because “app 18 store” is a generic term, and Amazon’s use of the term causes no likelihood of confusion, dilution, 19 or unfair competition. Except as specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 25 are denied. 20 26. Defendants admit that on March 14, Apple communicated to Amazon and demanded 21 that Amazon cease use of the term “app store.” Defendants presently lack information or knowledge 22 sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26, and therefore 23 deny same. 24 27. Defendants admit that the Amazon Appstore for Android launched on Tuesday, March 25 22, 2011; Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 26 remaining allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 27 and therefore denies same. Defendants 27 admit that at the time of launch, the Amazon Appstore for Android made available nearly 4,000 28 mobile software applications for Android-platform devices; Defendants lack knowledge or DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -3- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of the second 2 sentence of Paragraph 27 and therefore deny same. Defendants admit that the images shown in 3 Paragraph 27 appear to be images taken from Amazon’s website, but lacks knowledge or 4 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of the third 5 sentence of Paragraph 27 and therefore deny same. Except as specifically admitted, the allegations 6 of Paragraph 27 are denied. 7 28. Defendants admit that, on March 25, 2011, Amazon communicated to Apple through 8 counsel that Amazon intended to continue use of the generic term “app store.” 9 specifically admitted, the allegations of Paragraph 28 are denied. 10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Trademark Infringement; False Designation of Origin/Description—Lanham Act 12 13 14 15 Except as §43(a), 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)) 29. To the extent the allegations of Paragraphs 1-28 are admitted or denied, such responses are incorporated here by reference. 30. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 16 whether Apple has used the term “app store” since 2008 in California, in the United States, and 17 worldwide and therefore deny same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30. 18 19 20 21 22 23 31. response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 31. 32. 33. Paragraph 32 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 32. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25 27 Paragraph 32 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 32. 24 26 Paragraph 31 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a (Dilution—Lanham Act §43(c), 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)) 34. To the extent the allegations of Paragraphs 1-33 are admitted or denied, such responses are incorporated here by reference. 28 DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -4- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 2 35. response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 35. 3 4 36. Paragraph 36 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 36. 5 6 Paragraph 35 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a 37. Paragraph 37 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 37. 7 38. Defendants admit that Amazon first used the generic term “app store” after October 6, 8 2006. 9 required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the remaining allegations of 10 The remaining allegations of Paragraph 38 state legal conclusions to which no response is Paragraph 38. 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (Trademark Infringement—Common Law) 39. are incorporated here by reference. 40. 41. 25 26 27 28 Paragraph 41 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 41. 42. Paragraph 42 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 42 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 24 Paragraph 40 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 40. 21 23 To the extent the allegations of Paragraphs 1-38 are admitted or denied, such responses (Dilution—Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §14330 and Common Law) 43. To the extent the allegations of Paragraphs 1-42 are admitted or denied, such responses are incorporated here by reference. 44. Paragraph 44 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 44. 45. Paragraph 45 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 45. DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -5- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Unfair Competition—Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 and Common Law) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 46. To the extent the allegations of Paragraphs 1-45 are admitted or denied, such responses are incorporated here by reference. 47. Paragraph 47 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 47. 48. Paragraph 48 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 48. 49. Paragraph 49 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 49. 50. Paragraph 50 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 50. 51. Defendants deny the Prayer for Relief contained in the wherefore clause and accompanying paragraphs. 52. Defendants deny each and every allegation, prayer, matter, fact or thing averred in the 16 Amended Complaint not expressly admitted or otherwise responded to herein, including without 17 limitation the headings contained in the Amended Complaint. 18 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 19 Defendants set forth their separate and affirmative defenses to the Amended Complaint, 20 without conceding that the burden of proof rests with Plaintiff with respect to these issues. 21 Defendants reserve the right to assert such other separate and affirmative defenses as continuing 22 investigation and discovery may disclose. 23 24 1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, in whole or in part, fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted. 25 2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred because “app store” is generic and unprotectable. 26 3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. 27 4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of acquiescence, 28 waiver, unclean hands, and estoppel. DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -6- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of fair use. 2 6. Plaintiff has suffered no damages or economic harm as a result of the matters alleged in 3 4 5 6 7 the Amended Complaint. 7. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the alleged damages, if any, because they are uncertain, contingent, and speculative. 8. Plaintiff failed to take reasonable and appropriate steps to mitigate the alleged damages, if any. 8 COUNTERCLAIM 9 Defendants and Counterplaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon.com”) and Amazon Digital 10 Services, Inc. (“ADSI”) (collectively, “Amazon”) hereby sue Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Apple 11 Inc. (“Apple”) and allege as follows: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 PARTIES 1. Amazon.com. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its headquarters in Seattle, Washington. 2. ADSI is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its headquarters in Seattle, Washington. ADSI is part of the Amazon.com group of companies. 3. On information and belief, Apple is an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. 19 20 JURISDICTION 4. This Counterclaim arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051, et. seq. This Court 21 has federal question jurisdiction over the subject of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1121(a) and 22 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338. 23 24 5. over Apple and venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(c). 25 26 Because Apple has sued Amazon in this jurisdiction, this Court has personal jurisdiction FACTS 6. On or about March 22, 2011, Amazon launched the Amazon Appstore for Android on 27 the www.amazon.com website. The Amazon Appstore for Android is an app store that allows a 28 consumer to view and instantly download apps for their Android mobile devices. Users may shop DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -7- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 the Amazon Appstore either from their computers at the www.amazon.com website, or from the 2 Amazon Appstore app on their Android mobile devices. 3 7. On information and belief, in 2008 Apple launched its app store, which allows a 4 consumer to view and instantly download apps for their Apple devices such as the iPhone, iPad, and 5 iPod. In press releases, Apple has claimed that its app store is “the largest application store in the 6 world.” In October 2010, Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs called Apple’s app store “the easiest-to-use, 7 largest app store in the world, preloaded on every iPhone.” 8 9 10 11 8. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “app” as “[a]n application, esp. an application program.” The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “store” as “a retail establishment selling items to the public.” 9. Based on their common meaning, the words “app store” together denote a store for apps, 12 such as the app stores operated by Amazon and Apple. The American Dialect Society, a leading 13 group of U.S. linguists, recently voted “app” as the “Word of the Year” for 2010, noting that 14 although the word “has been around for ages,” it “really exploded in the last 12 months” with the 15 “arrival of ‘app stores’ for a wide spectrum of operating systems for phones and computers.” 16 Indeed, the words “app store” are commonly used among many businesses competing in the app 17 store market. 18 10. Apple alleges that it has the exclusive right to use the words “app store.” 19 11. Defendants contend that they have the right to use the words “app store” in connection 20 21 with Amazon’s online app store that provides apps for Android devices. 12. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties with respect to 22 Amazon’s right to use the words “app store” in connection with Amazon’s online store that provides 23 apps for Android devices. Defendants seek declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 24 Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure confirming Amazon’s rights to continue to use the 25 words “app store.” 26 WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows: 27 1. 28 Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and denying Plaintiff any relief whatsoever; DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -8- 11-cv-01327 PJH 1 2 3 4 2. Declaring that Defendants’ use of the words “app store” does not infringe or dilute any trademark rights or other rights of Plaintiff Apple; 3. Awarding Defendants their attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in this matter as an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. §1117; 5 4. Awarding Defendants their costs; 6 5. Any such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 7 8 9 10 11 12 DATED: April 25, 2011. Respectfully, MARTIN R. GLICK CLARA J. SHIN SARAH J. GIVAN HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN A Professional Corporation 13 14 15 16 By: /s/ Martin R. Glick MARTIN R. GLICK Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFS.’ ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM -9- 11-cv-01327 PJH