Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google & Others Sued Over Android Trademark

Posted by Soulskill on from the grab-that-cash dept.

suraj.sun tips news that Google and 47 other companies are being sued over use of the "Android" name. Eric Specht of Android Data alleges that Google "stole first and asked questions later." According to The Register, "Google applied for a trademark for Android in October of 2007, but had that application denied in February of 2008. The USPTO's reasoning for the denial was simple: Since both Google and Specht were involved in the development of software and related services, 'consumers are likely to conclude that the goods are related and originate from a single source.'" Reader ruphus13 points out related news that Motorola is planning several Android-based phones for later this year.

31 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. This is typical stuff. by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Register a company with a cool sounding name
    2) Run your business like usual
    3) Watch another company make a huge success using your name and wait a bit.
    4) Sue them and profit!

    Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.

    1. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really. Being a trademark it's easy enough to search this up.

      That you haven't heard about it isn't the problem here. If a small business creates a business with a certain name - then of course they have the right to that name - and the right for protection against larger 'dogs' stealing their company name.

      And then there is gmail, which google cannot use in Germany, and which crashes with an older email-product called Gmail in Norway.

    2. Re:This is typical stuff. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tastesicles.

    3. Re:This is typical stuff. by Maelwryth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not quite. From TFA, "Android Data, for which he was granted a trademark in October of 2002 by the US Patent and Trademark Office". It looks like Android Data have been trademarked for a number of years. It is strange that Google didn't buy the trademark in October 2007 after their application ran out, or that they didn't change it to Android OS to differentiate their product from Android Data.

      OTOH, "Google countered in August, claiming that the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years, and that there couldn't be any confusion between the two names." which does seem pretty reasonable. According to the Chilling Effects website though, the time limit for a trademark is 10 years. Although in the first ten year period you need to lodge an "Affidavit of Use" between the fifth and sixth years. Looks like Eric Spech may be receiving some money. Unless a bean counter at Google works out it will cost less to change the name.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    4. Re:This is typical stuff. by abigsmurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are hundreds of millions of potential names for a business (and that's assuming you use existing, English words). Not only that, there are lots of exceptions for businesses operating in different areas.

      It's not all that hard to come up with an original name. You come up with a creative name, see if you can trademark it, if you can't, you pick another name. It's not incredibly hard even without teams of lawyers. Google applied for a trademark, got it denied because of this existing business yet still pressed on with calling it Android.

      If you operate in the same industry as another, much larger company who uses the same name out of you. It will likely drive you out of business. People will get the two brands confused and every piece of advertising that promotes their brand, devalues you. Word of mouth because worthless too as the confusion means that positive feedback will likely drive people to the more visible company.

      This is a cast iron case of trademark infringement. Google are probably hoping they can settle out of court and get the name for a fairly cheap price as a result.

    5. Re:This is typical stuff. by runlevelfour · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. I had thought the original intent of laws like this was to protect an established company and/or product from shady unknown imitators who have contributed nothing and not the other way around. Pretty sure this will go nowhere in court, but these kind of shenanigans seem to be more common as time goes by. As OP stated, none of us had even heard of Android Data, and even if I had I sure as hell wouldn't confuse them with a phone OS developed by google.

    6. Re:This is typical stuff. by indytx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) Register a company with a cool sounding name . . . .

      Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.

      It doesn't matter whether anyone had heard of his company before. The bottom line is he, apparently, had registered his trademark and his registered trademark was still valid with the USPTO. I really don't see what the argument from Google is other than something along the lines of "Our use of the cool sounding name will be cooler." Just to make sure it's clear, Google knew that this guy had an active trademark, and Google used the registered trademark anyway. What. Idiots.

      Is this the IP version of "Kill them all, and let God sort them out"? Personally, I'm getting really tired of news stories about Google taking things that belong to someone else. Of course, repackaging other people's content is Google's M.O.

      --
      Make love, not reality television.
    7. Re:This is typical stuff. by mlscdi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you heard about Android Data before google made their move? Thought so.

      I'd heard of an Android called Data ...is that the same thing?

    8. Re:This is typical stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you don't know what to do after profit, you've got some sort of a problem.

    9. Re:This is typical stuff. by speedtux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, and read down a little further: "the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years".

      Furthermore, "Android" by itself shouldn't enjoy trademark protection, since it's a common word. "Google Android", "Android Data", "Android Mobile Phone" might enjoy trademark protection--separately from each other.

    10. Re:This is typical stuff. by ivucica · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple Corps v. Apple Computer

    11. Re:This is typical stuff. by MadCow42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you ever actually been responsible for naming products at a large corporation???

      As easy as it may sound, it's one of the single most difficult things to do. Creating a name that has the right feeling and meaning to it, while satisfying all stakeholders AND copyright people is next to impossible. You'll always have n+1 opinions on what name is best, assuming n people are involved in the process.

      The only "simple" way is a dictatorship - such as a sole proprietorship in a small company where the owner does this him/herself.

      MadCow.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    12. Re:This is typical stuff. by Quothz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just a few points:

      The OED lists 171,471 words in the English language...

      That number, I assume, is from AskOxford. It is incorrect. That's how many entries are in volume 1, excluding archaic words and combination word-forms. The full count is more than six hundred thousand, plus their own estimate of another half-million uncatalogued technical words.

      The Global Language Monitor has been in the news recently claiming 999,456 words in the English language, although it isn't clear how picky they are.

      Encyclopedia Americana (1999 ed.) claims 750,000 words.

      "About a million" is a good number to work with. None of these numbers include alternate spellings, which (here I'm guessing) probably number in the thousands, but they do include words that are not so useful as trademarks, like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Even in the most generous estimate, tho', we're nowhere near the GP's claim of hundreds of millions.

    13. Re:This is typical stuff. by Quothz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and read down a little further: "the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years"

      Now read the whole sentence:

      Google countered in August, claiming that the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years, and that there couldn't be any confusion between the two names.

      Yeesh. You think, maybe, that Google might potentially have a small bias when making that statement?

    14. Re:This is typical stuff. by Quothz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even in the most generous estimate, tho', we're nowhere near the GP's claim of hundreds of millions.

      Although a few minutes' thought makes me reconsider, since there's no problem with a single trademark including multiple words. There are quite a few permutations available.

  2. Just to make clear what isnt in the summary by wjh31 · · Score: 5, Informative

    from TFA: "the trademark Android Data hadn't been used for over three years, that the company has been dissolved for over four years"

    1. Re:Just to make clear what isnt in the summary by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So that simply makes the problem much easier. The holder of the trademark will successfully sue for damages, now those damages absolutely can not relate to the value that google has added to that name of the other 47 companies it can only relate the the value of the name prior to it's use by google.

      So a shut down company with no turnover has no real legitimate value in the trademark. However they can of course fight to keep their name and get the benefit (no real cost) of all that free advertising and perhaps even sell it to a competitor.

      Now for the more interesting part, as google was aware of the trademark issues and did not inform it's customers, those 47 other companies being sued can in fact loose up purpose, sue google for that loss and any other potential losses incurred.

      So the initial civil suit could only represent a relatively minor dollar value compared to the final class action suit by the 47 other companies against google which could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Plainly google management was stupid and this reflects real immaturity at the higher levels and, it really comes off as a hand full of google executives believing their own marketing hype.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  3. Where was Google's legal department? by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    After the whole Gmail problem, it seems like Google would have been a little more on the ball with regards to the naming of future products. The article says that the trademark hasn't been used in years and that the company in question has even been dissolved.

    Still, the trademark was granted and Google's strategy seems to have been to think happy thoughts while the USPTO decided the case. Couldn't they have just dealt with Specht before this turned towards lawsuit territory?

    It sure would have cost less to deal with it early on...

    --
    Elrond, Duke of URL
    "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
  4. Android is much older than that... by meerling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAL

    I don't think he'll have much luck pressing a case against anyone using 'Android', just those using 'Android Data' for the same reason that 'Bovine Ventures' won't succeed in suing 'Bovine Growth Hormone'.

    If you don't know, it's because Android is just a single word that's been in the modern language for a couple of generations now. Apparently there are laws against somebody absconding with single words of our language and claiming sole ownership of them. Of course the courts are slow and stupid, so anyone fighting this will have to pay lots of lawyers lots of money before getting this crushed, but at least Google has that cash.

    By the way, those same rules or laws are the same reason why Google can't rub their hands together and laugh maniacally while preparing lawsuits against thousands of authors of science fiction, not to mention a fair stack of movies as well.

    1. Re:Android is much older than that... by Maelwryth · · Score: 4, Informative

      And more than just a couple of generations. To quote Wikipedia, "The term was first mentioned by St. Albertus Magnus in 1270 and was popularized by the French writer Villiers in his 1886 novel L'Ève future, although the term "android" appears in US patents as early as 1863 in reference to miniature humanlike toy automations."

      I have got to say that was the first time I have ever heard of St. Albertus Magnus. Turns out he was one of Thomas Aquinas's teachers and was one of the first Europeans to isolate Arsenic.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    2. Re:Android is much older than that... by Cathbard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Isn't this similar to why microsoft decided to settle out of court with Lindows. IIRC the judge said with a degree of incredulity "You are trying to claim ownership of the word windows - and anything that sounds similar?" Being able to copyright a single word that is in common usage would be pretty silly. Would make it a bit hard to talk to each other huh?

      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

      --
      "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
    3. Re:Android is much older than that... by itsdapead · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't know, it's because Android is just a single word that's been in the modern language for a couple of generations now.

      Let's correct that:

      because android is just a single word that's been in the modern language for a couple of generations now.

      Spot the difference? Neither party is using the word "android" to describe a fictitious type of humanoid robot - they both want to use it as a trading name for their businesses, neither of which involves the manufacture of robotic overlords. This shouldn't even be a problem if one made furniture and the other made chocolate bars - but unfortunately they're both in the data services industry.

      In the same way, neither Apple Inc. or Apple Corp. can prevent grocers selling the fruit of the Malus pumila tree under the name "apple". Nor, back in the old days when one sold music and the other made beige boxes that went "beep" did Apple Corp. ever have much of a case against Apple Computer (not that that stopped the lawyers).

      Of course, no one thought that a computer which could just about squeeze out a tinny version of "Daisy Daisy" (that made a Stylophone sound like a Stradivarius) would evolve into a major music distribution platform. I just hope that, a few years from now, my mobile phone looks like Summer Glau!*

      * Including Multitouch(tm) features... er... I'll be in my bunk!

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:Android is much older than that... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, "andros" specifically means "male."

      "Anthropos" means "human."

      The suffix -oid means "like, or similar to". Ergo, an an android is like, or similar to, a man. That opens the possibility of having an anthropoid, which is like, or similar to, a human. Of course, we could then postulate an androgynoid, which would be like, or similar to, a she-male. Or maybe a hermaphrodite.

      But that's a different story.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Android is much older than that... by Quothz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not time for etymology nazis.

      Y'know, the word "nazi" was originally* an abbreviation for Nationalsozialist, which means "National Socialist" (from the political party name). It was coined as an insult to the political party and was used in southern Germany to refer to a clumsy fool. It came into English by exiles and refugees from Germany. The actual National Socialist party avoided the word.

      It's interesting that, in modern usage, it's managed to take on the meaning of a person who insists upon strict, pedantic application of rules. This is the first time I've heard of an "etymology nazi", tho', since etymology is neither a political stance, a set of rules, or anything at all to do with a klutz. It makes me wonder if "nazi" is gradually taking on a fluid meaning with a negative connotation in the way "gay" has done over the last decade. Soon, we might hear kids saying "This movie is so gay. The director is a drama nazi."

      (I am outside.)

      *This ignores usage from c. 1903 which was similar to the later usage, but probably did not contribute to it being coined again.

  5. "Android Data" might still be valid by moon3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The company might be dead on paper, but the trademark is marked 'Live' at USPTO. Both Android trademarks have been filled under same service category, that really means 'collision' from the Office point of view.


    Copy&paste from register reveals same or similar business.

    Word Mark
    ANDROID DATA
    Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S:
    Computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19990101. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990101

    Word Mark
    ANDROID
    Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S:
    mobile phones; operating system software; software for use in developing, executing, and running other software on mobile devices, computers, computer networks, and global communication networks; computer software development tools; computer software for use in transmitting and receiving data over computer networks and global communication networks; computer software for managing communications and data exchange among and between mobile devices and desktop computers; computer middleware, namely, software that mediates between the operating system of a mobile device and the application software of a mobile device; computer application software for mobile phones

  6. Cyberdyne Systems by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are a number of real businesses named "Cyberdyne Systems." Good luck to any of them trying to enforce a trademark on the name.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  7. Unlikely victory for Eric Specht by wesw02 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently took a college class that discussed various issues of software patents and software trademarks. Based on what I learned in my class it seems really unlikely that "Android Data" will win the lawsuit. Not only does Google have virtually unlimited resources, but the term "Android" is a generic one. It is important to note that when trademarking software a trademark is applied to a type of product. What I mean by that is Ford Motors has a trade mark on the term "Mercury" for their car. However this does not prevent the Rhode Island newspaper from using the name. (Someone please feel free to electorate on what I have said :) )

  8. And then there's the obvious ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... that the name "Android" really sucks for a cell phone.

    Let's take an example of how it was done right - the Motorola Razr - "as thin as a razor."

    But then again, this is from a company (Google) that couldn't even spell their OWN name right.

    Google - accidental misspelling of googol. According to Google's vice president, as quoted on a BBC The Money Programme documentary, January 2006, the founders - noted for their poor spelling - registered Google as a trademark and web address before someone pointed out that it was not correct.

    Hey, maybe they should have mis-spelled it as "Andruid" - they could have had a tie-in with the Boston Celtics. Or "Endroid" and hooked up with Preparation H. ("Shitty cell phone service? Use Endroid"). Or A-roid - the "Cell phone on steroids".

  9. What surprises me by snaz555 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...is that the estate of Gene Roddenberry hasn't gotten involved yet.

  10. Re:trademarks are defend it or lose it. by teg · · Score: 2, Informative

    The android data company is just looking for free publicity. I doubt they can afford to fight the legal battle against google.

    They're not looking for free publicity - they've been dissolved for many years. They just think that there's a chance they could do a Dire Straits.

  11. Re:Why dont google just use GMOBILE? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because then they would be sued by T-mobile.