of course you don’t wanna go through somebody else’s orifice
llbbdd 4 hours ago [-]
"the most personal computer"
jrmg 33 minutes ago [-]
the reviewer rejected it because Sign in with Apple was enabled but still prompted for a user’s name
When Sign in with Apple was new, I thought this - not needing to give any personal information to services using it - was one of its selling points. But so many services require you to create an account with them after signing in with Apple that for a long time I’ve thought I was misremembering. Are they all actually just breaking Apple’s terms?
ChrisMarshallNY 4 hours ago [-]
> Inkwell is listed on Apple’s own trademark page.
I had an app rejected, because it had the word "Finder" in its title ("Virtual Meeting Finder"). I had to change the name of the app, and it wasn't too big a deal, because the original name was fairly unimaginative (as it was supposed to be).
But it does sound like the whole app name is in conflict with a registered Apple trademark. It's unlikely to ever be approved.
jhy 1 hours ago [-]
With a previously registered trademark -- the article says it has been "listed as 'dead”' by the US Patent & Trademark Office" and unused for decades.
NewJazz 1 hours ago [-]
Also trademarks have context. These reviews appear to completely ignore the nuance of trademark law.
ChrisMarshallNY 14 minutes ago [-]
I don't think it matters. It's their store, and they can do it. I suspect that if Inkwell was trademarked (which it sounds like it's not), they could bully through the reviewers. Apple certainly didn't have any legal standing to deny my app name, and I likely could have bullied them into approving it, but it wasn't worth the agita.
I do have a registered trademark. It's a really painful process. I can see why folks wouldn't want to go through that for every app name. I don't bother, with mine, but I do search for other registered marks.
theli0nheart 2 hours ago [-]
I just looked this up. Instagram currently owns the most relevant live trademark for "INKWELL" [1] (class 009). Apple's registration [2] is indeed dead / cancelled.
You could possibly try to register the "INKWELL" trademark for an RSS reader, since that seems quite differentiated from Instagram's claim, but IANAL, so who knows how successful that process would be.
I mean, a lot of these sound entirely reasonable. No way to report or block Micro.blog comments, the Sign In With Apple button didn't work, no way to delete an account you create. The way the author is trying to minimize these seems disingenuous. These seem like things I'm happy Apple is enforcing.
The trademark one sounds like the main problem. Obviously, for example, Apple won't let you register an app called "GarageBand". In this case, "Inkwell" seems like a dead Apple trademark but that is still listed. But I do see that there are two iPhone apps simply called "Inkwell" and at least six more that start with "Inkwell", e.g. "Inkwell: Private Micro Journal". [1]
The reviewer is probably just trying to follow policy, when other reviewers have made exceptions. Hopefully there's a way to point to the many exceptions and get it approved after all? Is there a way to escalate/appeal to get a different reviewer?
Sort of buried the lede here -- Apple uses the Inkwell name and has a trademark. This is just not going to get approved. Or, to quote Jobs talking to the iPodRip developer "Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal."
vegadw 6 hours ago [-]
used. Apple used. It's legally a dead trademark, so Apple is claiming ownership of something they've already abandoned, but enforcing that nobody else can reclaim it, despite being a good name. That's not right, they don't just get to name squat.
armada651 6 hours ago [-]
What's legal doesn't matter, it's their store, if they want to claim they own the word Pear too they can do that.
I think holding that kind of power over devices people own is problematic, but I seem to be in the minority here.
jasonjayr 6 hours ago [-]
Amusingly, a bunch of series of teen shows used to use "Pear PC" to get around the trademark issue on all their on screen technology...
eikenberry 5 hours ago [-]
+1 .. the problem isn't that Apple is denying their app, the problem is the developer decided to submit it to the Apple store.
thaumasiotes 3 hours ago [-]
Fun fact: this same process is how Vietnam got its name. Their earlier proposal of Nam Viet had fallen out of use, but still couldn't get approval.
etothet 6 hours ago [-]
Perhaps you’re right. Apple's App Store review can be a rough process. Then again, a search of “Inkwell” in the App Store shows plenty of apps that are named “Inkwell”, many of then writing-related.
vessenes 6 hours ago [-]
Oh I didn't say they'd be consistent. But once it's raised, it's going to be really tough.
Barbing 3 hours ago [-]
Agreed. Vanishingly few enforcers have ever said "wait, we let other people do it? Ohhhh go ahead!"
Much more extreme example, I read a court case where the cops were really annoyed the perp told them they should've been enforcing $muchWorseCrime elsewhere. Judge wasn't a fan either.
m463 6 hours ago [-]
maybe apple should have changed ipod to avoid confusing it with a pre-existing music device:
With Apple, being a corporation and not a moral actor, it comes down to “might makes right” when it comes to trademark and other IP laws.
jxdxbx 6 hours ago [-]
The top comment there is not correct. You do not have to "defend" trademarks or they "expire."
You lose a trademark if it becomes generic, regardless of how hard you tried to keep it from being so. Obviously if you let a bunch of actual infringements slide you're on the way to becoming generic, but all that matters is whether the trademark IS generic.
But, when lawyers write letters to people saying "you can't say escalator or Zamboni" you can just ignore them. Using a trademark in writing in a way that a trademark owner does not like is not infringement.
ASalazarMX 4 hours ago [-]
> You lose a trademark if it becomes generic
And this is my biggest gripe with products from well-known companies that use already generic terms like "Apple", "Word", "X", or "Inkwell". I understand claiming exclusivity of words like "Microsoft Word", but not for the word "Word" itself.
NewJazz 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah where does it become a violation. Like if i wrote an app called wordsmith, and it does basically what word does, let you edit documents, is that really a trademark violation? Because i used the word word?
In the business, we often refer to that sort of reminder activity as "defending" against genericism. Practice varies by country but the point is often to show that you are not passively allowing the trade mark to become generic. Yes, you can often ignore letters (unless they request an answer or make a threat, which might be a different situation) - but it's usually a good idea to spend some time looking at it from the other person's perspective first.
jxdxbx 5 hours ago [-]
Yeah, but there are a TON of things that trademark lawyers do that are counter-productive. I put vaguely aggressive letters from trademark owners in that category, such as Monster energy drinks thinking they get to control how others use the word "monster."
I remember when the Apple logo stickers Apple packed in had a little (R), which was later dropped, since it's ugly and not legally required. But no doubt some lawyer advised putting it there to begin with.
chihuahua 1 hours ago [-]
The Monster example is funny. An attorney friend of mine had a job that required him to go after everyone in the world who used the word "Monster", because their client, Monster Cable, thought they owned the word in every sense and context.
I wonder if there was ever an epic Monster sugarwater vs Monster Cable showndown.
etchalon 5 hours ago [-]
The terrible consequences of App Review is how dependent you are on whether the App Reviewer you get is either very good at their job or very bad at their job.
Mediocre ones seem to cause the most problems.
doublerabbit 4 hours ago [-]
Ai soon.
Barbing 3 hours ago [-]
Did wonder if the reviewer knew the esoteric history of Inkwell themselves or if a tool pulled it for them.
Maybe they always scroll that trademarks page, they're just really thorough.
[1] https://youtu.be/IzH54FpWAP0&t=530
When Sign in with Apple was new, I thought this - not needing to give any personal information to services using it - was one of its selling points. But so many services require you to create an account with them after signing in with Apple that for a long time I’ve thought I was misremembering. Are they all actually just breaking Apple’s terms?
I had an app rejected, because it had the word "Finder" in its title ("Virtual Meeting Finder"). I had to change the name of the app, and it wasn't too big a deal, because the original name was fairly unimaginative (as it was supposed to be).
But it does sound like the whole app name is in conflict with a registered Apple trademark. It's unlikely to ever be approved.
I do have a registered trademark. It's a really painful process. I can see why folks wouldn't want to go through that for every app name. I don't bother, with mine, but I do search for other registered marks.
You could possibly try to register the "INKWELL" trademark for an RSS reader, since that seems quite differentiated from Instagram's claim, but IANAL, so who knows how successful that process would be.
[1]: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/86733442
[2]: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/78126699
The trademark one sounds like the main problem. Obviously, for example, Apple won't let you register an app called "GarageBand". In this case, "Inkwell" seems like a dead Apple trademark but that is still listed. But I do see that there are two iPhone apps simply called "Inkwell" and at least six more that start with "Inkwell", e.g. "Inkwell: Private Micro Journal". [1]
The reviewer is probably just trying to follow policy, when other reviewers have made exceptions. Hopefully there's a way to point to the many exceptions and get it approved after all? Is there a way to escalate/appeal to get a different reviewer?
[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/iphone/search?term=inkwell
I think holding that kind of power over devices people own is problematic, but I seem to be in the minority here.
Much more extreme example, I read a court case where the cops were really annoyed the perp told them they should've been enforcing $muchWorseCrime elsewhere. Judge wasn't a fan either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_6_POD
Or iPad https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18669394
Etc.
With Apple, being a corporation and not a moral actor, it comes down to “might makes right” when it comes to trademark and other IP laws.
You lose a trademark if it becomes generic, regardless of how hard you tried to keep it from being so. Obviously if you let a bunch of actual infringements slide you're on the way to becoming generic, but all that matters is whether the trademark IS generic.
But, when lawyers write letters to people saying "you can't say escalator or Zamboni" you can just ignore them. Using a trademark in writing in a way that a trademark owner does not like is not infringement.
And this is my biggest gripe with products from well-known companies that use already generic terms like "Apple", "Word", "X", or "Inkwell". I understand claiming exclusivity of words like "Microsoft Word", but not for the word "Word" itself.
https://www.dreyfus.fr/en/2025/03/18/proof-of-use-in-the-uni...
I remember when the Apple logo stickers Apple packed in had a little (R), which was later dropped, since it's ugly and not legally required. But no doubt some lawyer advised putting it there to begin with.
I wonder if there was ever an epic Monster sugarwater vs Monster Cable showndown.
Mediocre ones seem to cause the most problems.
Maybe they always scroll that trademarks page, they're just really thorough.