## Facts

- Apple operated a mobile application marketplace branded “APP STORE,” launched in 2008, and sought federal registration of the mark.
- Amazon solicited developers for an “Amazon Appstore Developer Program” in 2010 and launched the “Amazon Appstore for Android” on March 22, 2011 (later shortened to “Amazon Appstore”).
- Apple demanded that Amazon stop using “Appstore” and filed suit asserting multiple trademark and unfair-competition claims.
- The order addressed only Apple’s Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B) false advertising claim, which alleged that Amazon’s use of “Appstore” conveyed a misleading message of equivalence to, or sponsorship/approval by, Apple’s APP STORE.
- Amazon moved for partial summary judgment on the false advertising claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Amazon’s use of “Amazon Appstore” / “Amazon Appstore for Android” constituted a false or misleading statement of fact in commercial advertising about the nature, characteristics, or qualities of Amazon’s service under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B).
2. Whether Apple produced sufficient evidence of implied deception (including extrinsic evidence) to create a triable issue for a false advertising theory based on the term “Appstore.”

## Decision

- The court granted Amazon’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court dismissed Apple’s Lanham Act false advertising claim under § 43(a)(1)(B).
- The court held Apple failed to identify an actionable false or misleading statement—express or implied—made by Amazon about its app marketplace’s nature, characteristics, or qualities.
- The court found Apple lacked extrinsic evidence showing that consumers were deceived or likely to be deceived by Amazon’s use of “Appstore” as a name.
- The court treated Apple’s asserted harm (consumer association with Apple) as a trademark-confusion theory rather than a false advertising misrepresentation.

## Legal Principles

- A § 43(a)(1)(B) false advertising claim requires proof, among other elements, of a false statement of fact in commercial advertising about a product and deception (or tendency to deceive) that is material.
- A claim may proceed on literal falsity or implied falsity; where the message is implied rather than explicit, extrinsic evidence of consumer deception is generally required.
- Use of a product or service name, without more, is not necessarily a “statement of fact” about the product’s objective nature, characteristics, or qualities for § 43(a)(1)(B) purposes.
- Trademark infringement (likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship) is analytically distinct from false advertising (false factual representations about product qualities) and cannot be substituted without evidence of a qualifying misrepresentation.

## Conclusion

The court held that labeling a marketplace “Amazon Appstore” did not, by itself, amount to a false or misleading factual representation about the service under Lanham Act § 43(a)(1)(B), and Apple’s lack of extrinsic deception evidence required dismissal of the false advertising claim at summary judgment.


Apple Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2013)