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?
> 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Steve Jobs on cell phone companies: "We're not very good at going through orifices to get to the end users." [1] Today, Apple is the orifice.
[1] https://youtu.be/IzH54FpWAP0&t=530
of course you don’t wanna go through somebody else’s orifice
"the most personal computer"
> 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.
With a previously registered trademark -- the article says it has been "listed as 'dead”' by the US Patent & Trademark Office" and unused for decades.
Also trademarks have context. These reviews appear to completely ignore the nuance of trademark law.
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.
[1]: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/86733442
[2]: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/78126699
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."
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.
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.
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...
+1 .. the problem isn't that Apple is denying their app, the problem is the developer decided to submit it to the Apple store.
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.
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.
Oh I didn't say they'd be consistent. But once it's raised, it's going to be really tough.
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.
maybe apple should have changed ipod to avoid confusing it with a pre-existing music device:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_6_POD
Or Swift, to avoid confusion with the scripting language Swift - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_(parallel_scripting_lang...
Or iPad https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18669394
Etc.
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.
> 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.
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?
You definitely need to provide evidence of use.
https://www.dreyfus.fr/en/2025/03/18/proof-of-use-in-the-uni...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ai soon.
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.
Deeply doubtful.