USPTO refuses OpenAI's GPT trademark application

https://www.osnews.com/story/24882/the-history-of-app-and-th...

This we knew – but the great thing about the Oxford English Dictionary is that they list the earliest known usage (to them, at least). This is the first starting point when it comes to the history of the abbreviation – and according to the OED, the earliest known usage was in 1985, in a product name… From Apple. In July 29 of that year, Info World wrote about MacApp[:]

The essence of the new wave of evangelism for Apple and IBM is to provide software developers with the tools they need to reduce software development time, a costly and labor-intensive process. One step in that direction is Apple’s recent beta testing of the new programming tools called Mac App, developed at apple by Larry Tesler. This is a Smalltalk shell that goes on top of Lisa Pascal and reduces program development time by providing frequently used components of the operating system.

That said, the article mentions similar usage by Ashton-Tate the same year, so who knows. But it wouldn’t surprise me if “it’s an Apple product term” was their argument to the USPTO.

It does seem like any usage before that was as an explicit abbreviation (or file extension, in the case of Atari ST GEM) for “Application” as opposed to “App” as its own word.

I’m a 50something lifelong computer geek and don’t remember using “app” as a standalone term of art until the iPhone came out, though I didn’t go so far as to hit the Jargon File to see when “killer app” started.

But generally, things that aren’t already words in the dictionary get higher trademark protection, particularly when you tack other words on to them. “Application Store” wouldn’t have flown, for example, and probably “app” as a standalone wouldn’t have either.

The article was sparked by Apple trademarking “App Store” and causing legal issues for others using it. While I haven’t read it past the bit the search found, I’m sure the article has more to say towards your question.