Google & Others Sued Over Android Trademark

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.

Comments

This is typical stuff.

[Albert Sandberg]

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.

Re:This is typical stuff.

[Merls the Sneaky]

Tastesicles.

Re:This is typical stuff.

[Maelwryth]

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.

Re:This is typical stuff.

[mlscdi]

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?

Re:This is typical stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:This is typical stuff.

[speedtux]

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.

Re:This is typical stuff.

[ivucica]

Apple Corps v. Apple Computer

Just to make clear what isnt in the summary

[wjh31]

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

Cyberdyne Systems

[Spazmania]

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

Re:Android is much older than that...

[Maelwryth]

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.

Unlikely victory for Eric Specht

[wesw02]

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 :) )

And then there's the obvious ...

[tomhudson]

... 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".

Re:Android is much older than that...

[ScrewMaster]

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.