7 ms·
An android variant named xxxdroid and you wonder Google is coming after you for name? Also I feel author is disingenuous when he says used Droid in Orphesdroid
by mksreddy 6y ago
An android variant named xxxdroid and you wonder Google is coming after you for name?
Also I feel author is disingenuous when he says used Droid in Orphesdroid references to automation.
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoDoes simply using the word "Droid" for an Android-related project count as trademark infringement? Can the free software project "F-Droid" [0] (Android App Installer) be sued for trademark infringement? If it is, it's bad news... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid
- wodenokoto 6y agoA license was acquired for the Motorola Droid use of the word "Droid" from Lucas Arts, so I would guess that the answer is yes.
- coolspot 6y agoI can’t find current trademark “droid” in the USPTO database: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/
- wodenokoto 6y agoI vaguely remembered there being something to it, and to remind myself I didn’t dig deeper than Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid "The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless."
- gpm 6y agoHere you go https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77580336&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77580336&caseType=SERIAL_... (found via Wikipedia sources)
- trenchgun 6y agoThat is insane.
- nl 6y agoWhy? Trademarks are one of the few pieces of IP that seem to make sense to me. They protect consumers by letting the consumer trust a trademark is what they think it is, they aren't overly broad and they aren't automatic.
- tim44 6y agoIf the product isn't directly competing, that is insane to call a common word or phrase intellectual property. Before you know it somebody will try to trademark taco tuesday.
- EdwardDiego 6y agoTrademarks only apply within classes of goods and services you're a) in business in and b) have registered them in and c) in the countries you've filed applications in. And there are multiple live trademarks of Taco Tuesday in the US: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3Aiid52j.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=live&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=taco+tuesday&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3Ai... In fact, in the field of Restaurant Services, two existing usages dating back to 1979 exist - one held by Taco John's everywhere except New Jersey[1] and one held by a hotel only in NJ[2]. And it looks like they're having a court case to see who truly owns Taco Tuesday®. But none of those Taco Tuesday trademarks would prevent you from selling an app called Taco Tuesday that has nothing to do with food. Or start a clothing brand called Taco Tuesday. Etc. etc. [1]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid52j.3.10 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid... [2]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid52j.3.9 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid...
- Normille 6y ago
- akerro 6y agoFacebook sued and won companies that had "book" in their name.
- ummonk 6y agoWhich ones did it win?
- sparkie 6y agoWhy didn't Apple/FaceTime sue Facebook for using "Face" in their name? (The FaceTime franchise dates back to 1997, way before Facebook). Why is "face" generic, but "book" is not? I recall their being other social media sites with "face" in their name before facebook, but can't remember the names. I think its clear the IP system favours the party who can throw the most money around.
- magicalhippo 6y agoFrom what I was told you can't use a similar name on a similar product or company, but if it's different enough it's ok. A friend had a few stores selling clothes with a name that was french for something I've forgotten. Then a large chain started selling and heavily marketing a perfume with the same name. My friend wanted to stop them using the name, but after a few rounds of lawyers he got nowhere because selling clothes and selling a perfume are not overlapping businesses. Also from what I've understood if you got a trademark, you have to defend it or else risk losing it. So while it often looks like a dick move, they're kinda forced.
- xmprt 6y agoTrademarks are about customer protection more than protecting the company. If another company starts selling "Android" phones that have a completely different OS, that ruins the Android brand but also makes it difficult for customers to trust that the product they're buying is legitimate unless the Android trademark is defended.
- jackcviers3 6y agoUsing this the next time an objectivist capitalist starts getting angry about how government regulations are all worthless.
- epr 6y agoWhy? trademarks are not incompatible with capitalism
- eecc 6y agoThey might argue it’s up to the incumbent to protect its brand, crushing the competition and holding the market under a tight stranglehold. Like the Romans: Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. Oh, wait... ;)
- nwsm 6y agoThey will tell you "let the market sort it out"
- sschueller 6y agoI was permitted to register my trademark (Techdroid) as long as I don't write it with a large D. This was requested by the holder of the trademark "Droid".
- fomine3 6y agoI expected the holder is Verizon but it seems Lucasfilm. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registered-trademark-lucasfilm-ltd https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registe...
- danielrpa 6y agoIn many, if not most, cases yes. This isn't like the normal patent troll nonsense. This is to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Consumers expect a certain level of quality and assume a certain origin when seeing particular words in a product name or brand. If someone sells an electric car under the "Teslan" brand, consumers could think it comes from Tesla - not only Tesla wouldn't be too happy, but the consumer could be in for a nasty surprise when they realize that the car doesn't meet the expectations they had for a Tesla car. Same for WhateverDroid and Google.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cookiengineer 6y agoYour example of Tesla vs Teslan makes sense. But if you do this comparison of similarity, be truthful with the initial argument here. "Orpheus" is longer than "droid" and is certainly longer than "an". What's next? Forbidding streichholzschachtelfabrikdroid? Due to similarity? C'mon, that's nonsense. And no, you cannot have rights on the word "droid". Otherwise, lukasarts and the star trek film makers would have sued the shit out of google by now.
- jamiek88 6y agoLucas film license ‘droid’ to Verizon.
- Aeolun 6y agoYou cannot reasonably believe that Orpheusdroid and Android are the same thing. Tesla and teslan are a bad equivalent. Tesla and Orpheusla is closer. Just because they end the same way it’s not the same thing.
- cryptica 6y agoThe words 'droid' and `android` existed long before Google existed so Google has no exclusive right to the use of this word. It seems that corporations don't know what to do anymore so they start suing small players. Clearly, they're desperate because their schemes are about to be exposed. Mega-corporations are the center of ethical and moral depravity so they should not be in position to sue anyone. They're the ones who should be getting sued.
- Oricle 6y agoNo company should be more than 100 employees, problem solved and real compition will exist
- snoshy 6y agoThis sounds to me like a feel good sentiment that lacks careful thought. I agree that "droid" and "android" predate Google and their ilk. It still does not follow that they're suing out of boredom, or that they fear exposure... aren't there bigger brands to protect, like Google itself? Setting aside who should or not be in a position to sue anyone (I would hope due process guarantees that to everyone equally), why should they be getting sued?
- GrumpyNl 6y agoAs long as they can trademark a color, they can do it with a name.
- MacsHeadroom 6y agoApples predate civilization, yet Apple does have the exclusive privilege of using the word Apple in relation to computers and almost anything that touches a computer. So that's not a great argument. Google does not have a trademark on Droid, however. It doesn't actually matter though, because civil litigation is a war of attrition. They don't have to be right. They just have to have deeper pockets. If you think this is bad or a recent thing, look up Microsoft v. Mike Rowe.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoApple had to make a deal with Apple Records (the Beatles’ company): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
- z92 6y agoThis. Knew there's more to it than what the title implies.
- mannykannot 6y agoWhile it may not be surprising that Google is taking this action, the claim that the author is being disingenuous seems unfair. As far as I can tell, Google itself is making the word "droid" a key element of its objection [1] (the author did not name his company OrpheusAndroid), so issues raised by its meaning, origin and usage are in scope (they may also be moot if Google has or licenses "droid" itself as a trademark.) [1] "As I guessed, on last day of the time period to object, there comes a mail from Trade Mark Registry of a opposition from Google claiming that I infringe the word "droid" and its similar to 'Android" for which they own trademark. The entire opposition notice was flooded with word droid."