Apple is complying with Chinese shell companies to take down my apps

zhte415 · on Feb 28, 2021

I suggest you change the name of you app.

This seems like a legitimate company and not a trademark farmer [1] with a video conference/messaging app with the name MONKEY and the corresponding valid trademark.

And what does the company being Chinese have anything to do with anything?

Also not a 'shell' company. A quick Baidu tells me the company is called 北京拉克沙网络科技有限公司 with a registered capital of 35,000,000 Yuan.

[1] https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/beijing-lakesha-network...

zepto · on Feb 27, 2021

Can you link to some specifics?

Generally people criticize Apple for the opposite - that they don’t respond to takedown requests.

It would help a lot to see what exact kind of thing you are dealing with.

alirsgp · on Feb 27, 2021

Sure. An example app is the keyword Monkey. It’s a generic keyword but the Chinese shell company is trying to make it so only their app ranks for it.

Apple is complying with these requests, even though for keywords like Instagram and Snapchat, they permit large apps to rank for each other’s brands.

zepto · on Feb 27, 2021

I just tried searching for Monkey in the App Store.

I see well over 50 results. A whole bunch of games, things like ‘SurveyMonkey’ a dating app or two, some random social things. They are from a variety of different companies.

It’s not obvious from this what you are describing.

Is there something specific to look for?

Where are you getting the information about the shell companies and the requests Apple is responding to?

bigpumpkin · on Feb 27, 2021

There's a social video app called "Monkey"

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=cool.monkey.an...

I'm guessing OP had "Monkey" as a keyword?

zepto · on Feb 27, 2021

That app doesn’t appear either as a paid ad, or in the search results for the word “Monkey” on the iOS App Store. I’m not sure it even has an iOS version.

It’s not clear how that app is connected with what the OP is describing.

The OP has added the name of a Chinese company, but I can’t see what Apps it is behind.

The app you listed is described as being developed by 5 teens from LA. Perhaps that is the OP’s app?

jimsmart · on Feb 28, 2021

It depends. In SEO this kind of strategy could be considered to be 'keyword stuffing'.

Apple have specific rules regarding keywords in the App Store, as I'm sure you must already be aware.

They specifically state: "The unauthorized use of trademarked terms, celebrity names, or other protected words and phrases is not allowed and is a common reason for App Store rejection. The use of terms that are not relevant to the app and the use of competing app names are similarly prohibited." [0]

— and any of these clauses are what could be biting you, but I specifically suspect, as you claim in another thread that you are in fact using the name of a competitor app in your keywords, it will be the final sentence that you are falling foul of. Even if it is also a generic term, if that term is not relevant to your app (is your app actually about monkey(s)? I guess not, otherwise there would be little argument), then you will have little recourse: you have already agreed to these terms as part of one of your contractual agreements with Apple.

Furthermore, I suspect that, because of the way this clause is worded, the offending keyword doesn't even need to be protected by trademark law: it merely needs to be the name of a competitor's app.

Should you choose to challenge it, you will need to build your case around those three clauses: the first is standard copyright/trademark law stuff. Sure, one can argue it's a generic term, but then one's actions (using the keyword in your context) would still appear as possible "passing off". Then you would have to prove that the ostensibly generic term in question is in fact relevant to your app. But you're gonna get stuck with that final clause if your keyword is in fact the name of a competitor's app. I don't think there's much argument there, and this is likely a part of the agreed contract between Apple and yourself.

That's how I read it anyway. But I'm certainly not a lawyer, (I'm a software engineer), though I have dealt with a bit of contract law over the years. I'd also advise you to seek proper legal advice if you intend to try and challenge any of Apple's contracts, because Apple most certainly have already in the first instance, and losing one's developer license — particularly over something as small as keyword stuffing — could likely be quite devastating in many instances. (I'm certainly not saying don't challenge their contract at all, merely that you should make the right preparation if you intend to do so: it's pretty easy to find legal advice on contract law)

[0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search/

jimsmart · on Feb 28, 2021

It would be good to actually get a meaningful reply to respond to, instead of the downvotes.

The OP plainly claims they are using the name of a competitor's app in an above thread. And that simply doesn't jive with the agreed upon terms and conditions. If that is in fact what is occurring, the OP plainly has no legal recourse whatsoever.

How about proving me wrong instead of down-voting?

zepto · on Feb 28, 2021

Worth noting that when I searched earlier there wasn’t an app actually called Monkey in the iOS store results.

jimsmart · on Feb 28, 2021

No, but there was - it's since been taken down[0].

To me, the wording and lack of detail in original post, the apparent lack of understanding of clauses agreed upon in the Ts&Cs, the admission to using the keyword 'monkey' for one's app, when this is a known (admittedly: lesser so in many circles) product, along with the implied no-wrong doing with comparisons to how allegedly other brands do not mind similar, makes me think this could likely be someone learning the hard way why keyword stuffing isn't a thing. But I might be wrong, I often am.

But something certainly smells a little bit fishy to me, in all honesty.

It's a bit like: "Can I really not use the brand name of a competitor's app in my App Store keywords? Really? Even though it is plainly stated in the agreed upon terms and conditions, what, really?". I don't really get it. It seems rather naive to me. But hey, I'm getting old. (Hey kids: gerroff my lawn already!)

Called out, multiple times apparently, for keyword stuffing using competitors terms, when that plainly isn't allowed in the agreement - not a winning strategy. Would be somewhat high-risk if a business were to be relying on that, no?

https://www.distractify.com/p/what-happened-to-the-monkey-ap...

jimsmart · on Feb 28, 2021

Further on Monkey - founded by Ben Pasternak,

"Monkey was acquired by Chinese social media company Holla for an undisclosed sum in December 2017" [0]

Re my previous point: That's one of the things with trademark law: once granted a mark, one is in fact legally obliged to defend that mark, and any unauthorised use(s) of said mark, otherwise one loses the granted trademark status. That's how it works. (Not that I can be sure this is to do with trademark law, but it has been mentioned already, and it could very well be.) So I strongly suspect the OP has in fact no legal recourse here whatsoever (but I'd strongly advise seeking advice from someone qualified in the matter).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Pasternak

zepto · on Feb 28, 2021

Thanks - good clarification. Makes a lot of sense.

jimsmart · on Feb 28, 2021

Searching for "Beijing Lakesha Network Technology" (with quotes) only seems to bring up a couple of pages of results, most of which are trademark registrations (including the US trademark registration for Monkey[0] — the info Apple allegedly refused to supply when requested. I mean: it is publicly available already, I guess their administrative obligation ends with providing the company name and the offending mark in the App Store rejection notification?).

To me, that doesn't seem like they are 'farming' trademarks or patents (not that anyone claimed they were - I'm just looking for anything that smells fishy, and to me: this is not) — that is to say: just a couple of pages of trademarks seems reasonable to me, and just seems like a fairly small(ish) handful of protected IP that one could infringe upon — it doesn't strike me that their business model is trademarking lots of generic words. It's certainly a lot less trademark filings than the likes of Facebook and such.

[0] https://trademarks.justia.com/880/97/monkey-88097148.html