Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid(team-bhp.com)
team-bhp.com
Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifting-gears/227923-google-sues-me-using-word-droid-my-company-name-orpheusdroid.html
202 comments
Does 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
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid
From 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.
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.
The classical example is Apple that make computers, and Apple that was the Beatles’ music label. Everything was fine until Apple Computer wanted a bit of the distribute music cake and was promptly sued by Apple the music label. This is the reason it took so long before you could get Beatles music in the iTunes Store.
Entering the music distribution business was round four between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. First case was way easier, in 1978 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)
If that's the reason, it seems strange that they kept off of Google Play for just as long
I dont think any alternate app stores are on Google Play.
They're talking about Beatles music not being available on Google Play for the same amount of time.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-beatles-music-idUSKBN0U60...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-beatles-music-idUSKBN0U60...
Trademarks 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.
Using this the next time an objectivist capitalist starts getting angry about how government regulations are all worthless.
The concept of trademarks dates back to master craftsmen putting identifying marks on their work to build up a reputation. Trademark law gives that practice some legal enforcement.
I’m sure you can find some anarchist who would oppose any law, but I’m much more familiar with people who want a small government and wouldn’t mind that government enforcing trademark laws. They also generally support truth in advertising laws or labeling laws (“you should be able to sell anything you want, as long as you tell people what’s in it”), or product liability laws. Those laws make for a better functioning marketplace.
I’m sure you can find some anarchist who would oppose any law, but I’m much more familiar with people who want a small government and wouldn’t mind that government enforcing trademark laws. They also generally support truth in advertising laws or labeling laws (“you should be able to sell anything you want, as long as you tell people what’s in it”), or product liability laws. Those laws make for a better functioning marketplace.
Yes - but a Randian market isn't under the enforcement of any government.
Trademark infringement can be viewed as fraud and a criminal matter with an actual victim (the person scammed into buying the fake Android phone).
Patents are a different story, since the idea itself is the value, and different people can come up with the same idea independently.
Patents are a different story, since the idea itself is the value, and different people can come up with the same idea independently.
[deleted]
They will tell you "let the market sort it out"
Why? trademarks are not incompatible with capitalism
They 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... ;)
Oh, wait... ;)
> 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.
This is false, but it's a myth that unfortunately just won't die. Genericide (which is what people usually mean with "losing a trademark") only applies if you are extremely negligent in defending a trademark.
See also: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
This is false, but it's a myth that unfortunately just won't die. Genericide (which is what people usually mean with "losing a trademark") only applies if you are extremely negligent in defending a trademark.
See also: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
Good to know, thanks.
That's a factor but not a rule. The biggest test basically boils down to would a normal person reasonably be confused. In this case I don't think anyone would think this was a Google product. Knowing very little else I don't personally think Google would win a trademark suit like this on its merits, but being Google of course they actually could win if they threw money at it, or make it not worth pursuing.
Yep, in my rather brief experience (limited to NZ and WIPO stuff) you register trademarks in classes you're engaged in business in (and not having a current business in a given class is grounds to not grant or revoke a granted trademark, to avoid squatting.)
The classes WIPO uses are here: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?expl...
The classes WIPO uses are here: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?expl...
I 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".
I expected the holder is Verizon but it seems Lucasfilm.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registe...
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registe...
A license was acquired for the Motorola Droid use of the word "Droid" from Lucas Arts, so I would guess that the answer is yes.
That is insane.
Why?
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.
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.
>Trademarks are one of the few pieces of IP that seem to make sense to me...
Up to a point.
It's when people are able to trademark single everyday words that it becomes farcical. I sell designs on several print-on-demand sites and occasionally dip into related forums, etc. As well as the obvious take-downs for people flagrantly violating other's intellectual property, it's fairly common for people to have their designs rejected because some completely innocuous word used in the title or description has been trademarked somewhere by someone. [0]
It's doubly farcical when [as in the Google example] the company owning the trademark in question has actually lifted it themselves from popular culture. [1]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AmazonMerch/search?q=trademark&rest...
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=android
Up to a point.
It's when people are able to trademark single everyday words that it becomes farcical. I sell designs on several print-on-demand sites and occasionally dip into related forums, etc. As well as the obvious take-downs for people flagrantly violating other's intellectual property, it's fairly common for people to have their designs rejected because some completely innocuous word used in the title or description has been trademarked somewhere by someone. [0]
It's doubly farcical when [as in the Google example] the company owning the trademark in question has actually lifted it themselves from popular culture. [1]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AmazonMerch/search?q=trademark&rest...
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=android
People aren’t able to “trademark single everyday words”. In fact, if a name becomes a simple everyday word the trademark can actually be lost.
Thats the reason Google used to discourage people from saying Google it because they were worried they would lose the trademark to the name.
What one can do is apply for a trademark to a common word to be used in a specific well defined context where it’s clear it’s applying to your company.
And once you get a trademark you don’t automatically own it forever. You have to actively use it and defend its use.
Of course, much like anything else in the world, there will be edge cases where the situation is murky and other cases where the outcomes appear outright wrong to most impartial observers. But that’s an artifact of the inherent complexity in trying to balance the various needs as opposed to a problem intrinsic to trademarks themselves.
Thats the reason Google used to discourage people from saying Google it because they were worried they would lose the trademark to the name.
What one can do is apply for a trademark to a common word to be used in a specific well defined context where it’s clear it’s applying to your company.
And once you get a trademark you don’t automatically own it forever. You have to actively use it and defend its use.
Of course, much like anything else in the world, there will be edge cases where the situation is murky and other cases where the outcomes appear outright wrong to most impartial observers. But that’s an artifact of the inherent complexity in trying to balance the various needs as opposed to a problem intrinsic to trademarks themselves.
I moved from England to Sweden in 1997, and tried to setup an internet-design company there, in a time before it was a tech and startup hub. I wanted to have Future in my company name, and applied to the authority that decided this (PRV) with a string of alternatives: I remember FutureDeluxe and FutureLab as two favorites - and because at that time the process involved requesting some special papers, which one filled-in then returned and waited 5 or 6 weeks for an answer that came back in the post, in the meantime I would buy the .com domain for each of these series of names. So for a year after that I held maybe 6 or 7 domains with Future in the name, all of which I allowed to lapse and have since become websites for established companies.
The short story is that I’d get a form denial for each attempt to use Future, but without any specified reason. A few months later the national phone company launched a new service which they called The Department of the Future - and it suddenly became clear to me why all my names had been denied.
Still feel some bitterness that such an obvious and generic word could be trade-marked - especially as it was an English word and English wasn’t as widespread in Sweden back then as it is now.
Needless to say (for anyone familiar with Telia) Department of the Future was a business failure.
The short story is that I’d get a form denial for each attempt to use Future, but without any specified reason. A few months later the national phone company launched a new service which they called The Department of the Future - and it suddenly became clear to me why all my names had been denied.
Still feel some bitterness that such an obvious and generic word could be trade-marked - especially as it was an English word and English wasn’t as widespread in Sweden back then as it is now.
Needless to say (for anyone familiar with Telia) Department of the Future was a business failure.
Either that's not correct, or the lawyers employed by these companies don't know the law because I [and other people] have definitely had designs rejected by POD sites for "trademark violation" when there was obviously no intent to "pass off" [which is what trade-marking is meant to prevent].
Someone just happened to have used a trademarked word in a design or its title or description.
I suggest you have a trawl through that reddit link I posted above and read a few of the threads where people have posted examples of this happening to them.
Someone just happened to have used a trademarked word in a design or its title or description.
I suggest you have a trawl through that reddit link I posted above and read a few of the threads where people have posted examples of this happening to them.
> or the lawyers employed by these companies don't know the law
Oh, they do know the law. But they’re betting that you don’t.
Oh, they do know the law. But they’re betting that you don’t.
[deleted]
If 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.
Trademarks 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%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:iid...
[2]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid...
And there are multiple live trademarks of Taco Tuesday in the US: 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:iid...
[2]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid...
I can’t find current trademark “droid” in the USPTO database:
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/
I 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
"The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless."
"The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless."
Here you go https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77580336&caseType=SERIAL_... (found via Wikipedia sources)
In 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.
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.
You 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.
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.
I disagree. Do you think of "Tesla" when you read "Orpheusla"? Now compare Android with Orpheusdroid.
"think of" is not the same as "confused with".
Is there a chance that somebody will think of a "airpod" when they hear "tide pod"? Sure
Is there a chance that a reasonable person will insert a tide pod into their ear because they confused the name with "airpod". No
Is there a chance that a reasonable person will by accident buy "tide pods" instead of "airpods"? Only if they act negligent
I'd argue that a reasonable person is extremely unlikely to confuse "Google Android" with "Orpheusdroid" or "F-Droid" or "hydroid" for that matter
Is there a chance that somebody will think of a "airpod" when they hear "tide pod"? Sure
Is there a chance that a reasonable person will insert a tide pod into their ear because they confused the name with "airpod". No
Is there a chance that a reasonable person will by accident buy "tide pods" instead of "airpods"? Only if they act negligent
I'd argue that a reasonable person is extremely unlikely to confuse "Google Android" with "Orpheusdroid" or "F-Droid" or "hydroid" for that matter
I am certainly not confused in either case. I know for certain that they are 4 different companies.
Or, Teslan vs Un-droid
Your 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.
"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.
Lucas film license ‘droid’ to Verizon.
[deleted]
Facebook sued and won companies that had "book" in their name.
Why 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.
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.
While 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."
[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."
This. Knew there's more to it than what the title implies.
The 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.
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.
Apples 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.
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.
In fact, Lucasfilm has a trademark on Droid and Google/Motorola license it.
Apple had to make a deal with Apple Records (the Beatles’ company): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
This is actually quite interesting and relevant. Initially Apple could keep the name (after settling) because Computers aren’t involved in music (the Apple // could click the speaker and it took some assembly to make it click and make tones, no sound chip)
Fast forward to iTunes and they’re in the same market.
Fast forward to iTunes and they’re in the same market.
Trademark law takes into consideration the similarity of names and Google certainly has a trademark on “Android.” Although you’re correct that Google can use their might to force any outcome, it’s not accurate to imply that Google has no legitimate claim here.
In Poland we have some cases going on with Apple. Polish webdomain is .pl, so there are several services such as a.pl and ap.pl which Apple doesn't like.
This 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?
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?
As long as they can trademark a color, they can do it with a name.
I can sue you for more or less anything. And, especially if I'm a big company, I can make you waste a lot of time and money (even if you're also a big company). That's why, as someone who has been involved in a number of product naming decisions, my experience is that lawyers are very conservative in terms of what names they let you use even if, on paper, it seems like you have a good argument that your somewhat overlapping name is completely unrelated.
That is because in USA you pay your lawyers. In other countries, if you loose, you have to pay the lawyers of the other part.
This simple change in the USA legal system would benefit a lot of people. Prevent frivolous lawsuits. Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. and help end SLAPP.
Just another example where the USA needs improvement and is not the best in the world.
Just another example where the USA needs improvement and is not the best in the world.
>Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through.
The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
In the UK lawyers have insurance to cover them in case they lose. This encourages them to take pro-bono cases when there is a decent chance of winning.
That sounds like a pretty neat system. I assume lawyers can't take on a bunch of obvious shitty cases just to get the insurance money right? I assume the insurance companies would raise premiums or stop insuring them if the lawyer is losing a lot?
What an interesting line of work that would be. I wonder how they calculate risk for such a policy.
>This encourages them to take pro-bono cases
It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case?
I'm talking about civil cases here, not criminal.
It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case?
I'm talking about civil cases here, not criminal.
You’re correct regarding the terminology.
A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.
A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.
I believe it's usually implemented as user pays standard rate legal fees - court, lawyer fees and maybe some extra. If you choose to hire a super expensive legal team, that's on you.
> bankruptcy-level legal fees
Which is a risk worth taking if someone is suing for the right reasons and it's a once in a decade matter of major importance. That or they're fairly sure they'll win the case.
Which is a risk worth taking if someone is suing for the right reasons and it's a once in a decade matter of major importance. That or they're fairly sure they'll win the case.
> Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.
The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction.
[1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused
The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction.
[1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused
How about the loser pays at most as much as they have spent? (Not sure how all this would be accounted for, but...) If you spend a ginormous amount of money you already have the advantage of having better representation, no need to add a fear factor into it. I assume there is some cap on the sum people pay even now though?
I’ve had similar thoughts. SSC did a thought experiment on this. You’ll enjoy this read:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif...
The article title’s a play on David Friedman’s book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 (I haven’t read this but sounds interesting)
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif...
The article title’s a play on David Friedman’s book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 (I haven’t read this but sounds interesting)
Wow, prison sentences are inherently unfair to the rich because they're used to living in mansions?
Absolutely not. The current system gives both parties a powerful incentive to settle the case, or not go to court at all. Which on a broad scale is definitely what you want.
It also creates specific problems, and a big one is that it can make it hard for normal people to hold large companies accountable for bad behavior when not a ton of money is at stake in each individual case. But that’s probably best addressed by other means.
It also creates specific problems, and a big one is that it can make it hard for normal people to hold large companies accountable for bad behavior when not a ton of money is at stake in each individual case. But that’s probably best addressed by other means.
In the UK, litigants usually take out an insurance policy. So at the end of the day, the insurer pays if the plaintiff loses.
I don’t know if that’s good or bad. It gives an insurance company a very large say in matters of justice.
But insurance is one of the wonders of the modern world.
I don’t know if that’s good or bad. It gives an insurance company a very large say in matters of justice.
But insurance is one of the wonders of the modern world.
It is also common in Germany, however here the insurance can state it had enough from you and after a certain threshold refuse to cover up.
> Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through
I think it would do the reverse. Even if you and your lawyers think you have a good case, there is no guarantee that you will win. If you sue and lose, you have to pay for the other guy's legal fees? Poor people would never be able to risk it.
I think it would do the reverse. Even if you and your lawyers think you have a good case, there is no guarantee that you will win. If you sue and lose, you have to pay for the other guy's legal fees? Poor people would never be able to risk it.
The USA is optimized by and for the rich, not the poor.
I doubt that is universally true.
In the US, a court can award court costs and legal fees to the winning party but they're unlikely to do so unless the case is clearly frivolous and harassing. Which isn't unreasonable because otherwise individuals could basically never afford to take on the risk of suing a company because, were they to lose, they'd be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
In the US, a court can award court costs and legal fees to the winning party but they're unlikely to do so unless the case is clearly frivolous and harassing. Which isn't unreasonable because otherwise individuals could basically never afford to take on the risk of suing a company because, were they to lose, they'd be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
My wife is a lawyer and has filed many cases and recovered attorney's fees for her client.
The court system is busy and not very sympathetic to parties that waste the courts time. You need to have an actual dispute that needs the court system to resolve.
If a business is stonewalling you and rebuffing you at every reasonable attempt to resolve an issue, you are highly likely to get your costs paid for, especially if that business has no leg to stand on. If your initial complaint documents page after page of your attempts to solve the problem outside of the court system, the judge is probably going to be extremely unforgiving to the other side.
The court system is busy and not very sympathetic to parties that waste the courts time. You need to have an actual dispute that needs the court system to resolve.
If a business is stonewalling you and rebuffing you at every reasonable attempt to resolve an issue, you are highly likely to get your costs paid for, especially if that business has no leg to stand on. If your initial complaint documents page after page of your attempts to solve the problem outside of the court system, the judge is probably going to be extremely unforgiving to the other side.
However, you do have things like anti-SLAPP laws so it's not universal. ADDED: And as someone else noted, litigants can recover legal fees in other cases where one party has behaved unreasonably or in bad faith.
It would be even better if the costs were a percentage of your income. You have 1B income, well it is going to cost you 5%. You earn 20k? You will pay 1% of this.
Why the difference? Because out of these 20k, you maybe need 15 to live. For a 1B company, the "need to live" is probably much lower. This is similar to how income tax brackets work in Europe.
Why the difference? Because out of these 20k, you maybe need 15 to live. For a 1B company, the "need to live" is probably much lower. This is similar to how income tax brackets work in Europe.
Even if big company is going to lose, that is nothing for them and they can play the game forever and drag the courts while you are trying everything to pay for court costs, even if you are almost sure you will get them back
That's not entirely accurate. It's not uncommon to see "prevailing party pays legal fees" in American contracts.
I would assume if your a small firm, you will still worry about the risk of losing and needing to pay your lawyers.
In USA I thought you could counter sue for your lawyer fees if you win? Is that not true?
In USA I thought you could counter sue for your lawyer fees if you win? Is that not true?
"remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system"
[deleted]
Didn't Motorola license Droid from Lucas Arts for the Motorola Droid lineup [1]? And since Google bought Motorola, it is now on Google to protect the trademark?
[1] Although Wikipedia says it was licensed to Verizon: "The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid
So Maybe it is Disney or Verizon that should be suing?
[1] Although Wikipedia says it was licensed to Verizon: "The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid
So Maybe it is Disney or Verizon that should be suing?
Isn’t a trademark only valid in a single market, eg consumer electronics vs entertainment?
(IANAL)
Yes, Lucasfilm actually owns several trademarks on the word droid, mainly in toys, computer games, and entertainment. Interpreted broadly, these trademarks cover "smart" devices, which are generally used to interact with entertainment media.
See also the legal battle of Apple v Apple[0] (music vs computers)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Yes, Lucasfilm actually owns several trademarks on the word droid, mainly in toys, computer games, and entertainment. Interpreted broadly, these trademarks cover "smart" devices, which are generally used to interact with entertainment media.
See also the legal battle of Apple v Apple[0] (music vs computers)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Trademarks are valid in one or more "classes", yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classific...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classific...
The general spirit is to protect consumers from confusion by competing companies, which is good.
It only becomes a problem when the hypothetical consumer becomes doormat dumb and half blind. I think that Firefox should have kept the name Phoenix, nobody would get confused by that.
It only becomes a problem when the hypothetical consumer becomes doormat dumb and half blind. I think that Firefox should have kept the name Phoenix, nobody would get confused by that.
General spirit is to protect company profits.
For example, I'm much better served by Sandisk having a tamper-proof verification codes on their uSD cards that I can lookup on their official website and verify the card being genuine. I don't remember the last time I bought non-genuine Sandisk card from random sellers on Aliexpress after they introduced this. Yet I have a bunch of Samsung ones from China (probably fakes), and half of those are already dead.
Both are trademarked. I wish more manufacturers put more effort to creating verification schemes for end-users, rather than to suing for trademark violations.
For example, I'm much better served by Sandisk having a tamper-proof verification codes on their uSD cards that I can lookup on their official website and verify the card being genuine. I don't remember the last time I bought non-genuine Sandisk card from random sellers on Aliexpress after they introduced this. Yet I have a bunch of Samsung ones from China (probably fakes), and half of those are already dead.
Both are trademarked. I wish more manufacturers put more effort to creating verification schemes for end-users, rather than to suing for trademark violations.
"For example, I'm much better served by Sandisk having a tamper-proof verification codes on their uSD cards that I can lookup on their official website and verify the card being genuine."
How so? Once you have the uSD card in hand, they have your money.
How so? Once you have the uSD card in hand, they have your money.
Easier to kick them off the platform or contact the police with stronger proof maybe. They also can't say they were fooled in turn because they could have verified on website.
It's not mutually exclusive. I prefer to have both anticounterfeit schemes and protection from someone selling "SánDisk" or "Sandúsk" drives trying to get me to buy something different than I think I'm buying. This is especially true in markets where I'm not a very knowledgeable consumer.
Apple would not let me register a developer account using my domain name macscan.net. Got a letter from their legal team.
This was not for any product or app I was even thinking of making. This was purely: 'You cannot use that email address'.
This was not for any product or app I was even thinking of making. This was purely: 'You cannot use that email address'.
That looks like a possible apple product so i could see why they would not allow it.
It's not like "mac..." is an uncommon application, or developer, name, here are a few living examples:
Macinlock, Mac Cleaner, SMS Mac, Atomic Mac, Mac Powersuite, Wise Mac Care, iFamily for Mac, Macdaddy, CareMyMac, MacTvision
... the list goes on. Just go to some site like macupdate.com or _the_ Mac App Store and search for apps with "mac" in the name, there are hundreds.
For example the company macpaw.com is a company which is over 11 years in the business now. They are regularly featured, yet are allowed to exists.
It highlights Apple's arbitrariness in these situations.
Macinlock, Mac Cleaner, SMS Mac, Atomic Mac, Mac Powersuite, Wise Mac Care, iFamily for Mac, Macdaddy, CareMyMac, MacTvision
... the list goes on. Just go to some site like macupdate.com or _the_ Mac App Store and search for apps with "mac" in the name, there are hundreds.
For example the company macpaw.com is a company which is over 11 years in the business now. They are regularly featured, yet are allowed to exists.
It highlights Apple's arbitrariness in these situations.
Your example is not analogous to the OP. You were trying to get Apple to allow you to do something within their own product, not trying to start a business and then having another business say you can't name it something.
Apple doesn't have to let anyone register a developer account. They don't need a reason if they decide to reject certain account names.
Apple doesn't have to let anyone register a developer account. They don't need a reason if they decide to reject certain account names.
Fair enough imo?
Might be your long held personal email or whatever, but it also looks like a scam URL.
Might be your long held personal email or whatever, but it also looks like a scam URL.
So any Scottish people with macX names cannot use their email or name in the app store?
This is the origin of the mac name too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntosh_(apple)
This is the origin of the mac name too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntosh_(apple)
I suspect that using [email protected] might have come with an extra set of problems all of its own in this particular case. (-:
* https://apple.com/uk/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesf...
* http://macdonald.com./
* https://trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/733918...
* https://apple.com/uk/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesf...
* http://macdonald.com./
* https://trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/733918...
Europe's top IP body has found McDonald's does not have an exclusive right to "Mc" or "Mac", even in the realm of fast food because of its status as a common name component: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49254551
Even in the the US where MacX or McX is a foreign construct, there have been legal cases where people named McDonald/MacDonald are allowed name their restaurants after themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases#The_r...
Even in the the US where MacX or McX is a foreign construct, there have been legal cases where people named McDonald/MacDonald are allowed name their restaurants after themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases#The_r...
rid-iCoulous..
(Hope I don't get sued too)
(Hope I don't get sued too)
Do you understand their argument — or do you just not agree with it?
If the latter, did you consider...
What do you with a developer account? Develop apps? What do apps need? A support email address? Would a support email address ending in macscan.net be confusing or misleading? Might the confusion be intentional or accidental? Why even risk dealing with this confusion in the future when you can prevent it right now?
If the latter, did you consider...
What do you with a developer account? Develop apps? What do apps need? A support email address? Would a support email address ending in macscan.net be confusing or misleading? Might the confusion be intentional or accidental? Why even risk dealing with this confusion in the future when you can prevent it right now?
> Would a support email address ending in macscan.net be confusing ... ?
No. Not in any way.
No. Not in any way.
OK, thank you. I was just curious. Good to know.
Wow, I just got my trademark (Techdroid) renewed a few days ago. I do have a signed agreement with Lucasfilm from when I first registered it but I wonder if I will have issues with Google in the future and my android apps.
How did you get signed agreement? Did you contact Lucasfilm or did they contact you?
They contacted me when I first filed.
Are you building an operating system for phones?
Asking unqualified strangers on the internet for "how to make a case stronger" should really be met with "start by hiring a lawyer" as first, second, and third reply.
(because from the post, they only got in touch with one to write an initial response)
(because from the post, they only got in touch with one to write an initial response)
Not the same story but related: Microsoft had to rebrand his online storage SkyDrive to OneDrive once because the television broadcaster "Sky" won a trademark lawsuit in UK.
Can anyone tell me how this is possible? Why am I not allowed to use the word "sky" in any product name completely unrelated to TV?
Can anyone tell me how this is possible? Why am I not allowed to use the word "sky" in any product name completely unrelated to TV?
I would suggest changing trademark law so a trademark cannot be a single word found in the dictionary.
I.e. one could trademark:
I.e. one could trademark:
Acme Editor
EditorHold my legal pad while I bribe some scientists and someone from the OED to define "microsoft" to be a species of insect.
Have an exception for trademarks registered before their inclusion as a dictionary word? Google is already defined as internet search by some dictionaries.
But they don’t use the OED as their source dictionary and don’t tell you which dictionary they use. Looks like you’re going to have to bribe a lot of dictionary employees.
Hasbro has had trouble trademarking certain Transformer names (Jazz, Prowl, etc.) so in the trademark registration the name actually trademarked is "Autobot X" or "Decepticon X".
IIRC this is already the case.
Apple is trademarked https://trademarks.justia.com/761/16/apple-76116541.html
Ah okay I'm looking it up and it appears that the company must demonstrate that the word has a distinct association with their brand.
Man, IP law is such grey area... no wonder there are constant disputes and abuses.
Man, IP law is such grey area... no wonder there are constant disputes and abuses.
What’s next, action against the estate of Philip K. Dick for giving the Nexus series a bad name?
The irony of Google trying a passing-off claim over these names particularly stinks, since they ripped them off in the first place.
The irony of Google trying a passing-off claim over these names particularly stinks, since they ripped them off in the first place.
Actually, his estate threatened to sue Google over the Nexus name. I’m not sure it came to anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/07/google-ne...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/07/google-ne...
I hope this guy is getting good legal advice. He seems focused on things that aren’t that central to his case, like whether words or word-parts are dictionary words, or whether Google had complained about the name in the past (how could Google object to a trademark that hadn’t been filed for?)
I have no idea of the specific laws and regulations in effect in this case, but generally an infringement case like this is about whether the defendant’s mark is likely to cause confusion in consumers. My opinion in this case is “no”, but it’s arguable and for whatever reason Google wants to argue it.
I also wonder if there is much to win here. How much does the guy have invested in that name and how much future value does it have over alternatives? It might be less than the risk of legal costs. I don’t see a compelling general principle here that is bigger than the case itself either.
I have no idea of the specific laws and regulations in effect in this case, but generally an infringement case like this is about whether the defendant’s mark is likely to cause confusion in consumers. My opinion in this case is “no”, but it’s arguable and for whatever reason Google wants to argue it.
I also wonder if there is much to win here. How much does the guy have invested in that name and how much future value does it have over alternatives? It might be less than the risk of legal costs. I don’t see a compelling general principle here that is bigger than the case itself either.
I mean Microsoft seems to be in the right there, given that he deliberately named it that to be a pun on the Microsoft name. He wouldn't have appended Soft to his name when choosing a domain if Microsoft didn't exist.
"given that he deliberately named it that to be a pun on the Microsoft name"
That seems like a good defense, since it's not the sort of thing people would infer to actually be Microsoft.
Not a lawyer, etc., but it seems to me that people continually talk (in this thread and elsewhere) as if trademark was copyright.
That seems like a good defense, since it's not the sort of thing people would infer to actually be Microsoft.
Not a lawyer, etc., but it seems to me that people continually talk (in this thread and elsewhere) as if trademark was copyright.
The classic and almost related one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Is there a way to keep up with this story? Looks like Orpheusdroid is not on Twitter.
I am not sure who is right and who is wrong here. But I have the feeling that it is too easy for big companies to threaten small companies.
I wonder if there should be some institution where small companies and individuals can go to when threatened by big companies. And if the threat seems unreasonable, the institution would take up the fight on behalf of the small company or individual.
I am not sure who is right and who is wrong here. But I have the feeling that it is too easy for big companies to threaten small companies.
I wonder if there should be some institution where small companies and individuals can go to when threatened by big companies. And if the threat seems unreasonable, the institution would take up the fight on behalf of the small company or individual.
“Don’t be evil”
You have a very weak definition of evil...
That ship sailed a long time ago. Please just leave it to die instead of trying to resurrect it any time Google fucks up.
It’s just that there was a time when it actually seemed to be true. We cannot let it go because something so promising was extinguished.
I can see how it’s a bit annoying, but I can also see how people cannot keep but bring it up.
I can see how it’s a bit annoying, but I can also see how people cannot keep but bring it up.
> It’s just that there was a time when it actually seemed to be true.
People have mentioned that before, but maybe it's more them just "wanting to believe" and being suckered due to it?
People have mentioned that before, but maybe it's more them just "wanting to believe" and being suckered due to it?
[deleted]
I think companies selling haemorrhoid treatments started profusely sweating.
As I understand it (i.e., correct me if I'm mistaken), when you are a trademark holder the less you defend (note: not the right word) that trademark its scope (?) erodes, ar least from the POV of the courts.
What's unfortunate is, the law allows those with the deepest bench of lawyers the broadest scope of their trademark. The Googles of the world are obligated to do these things. The law could do better to pursue justice that independent of bank account assets.
What's unfortunate is, the law allows those with the deepest bench of lawyers the broadest scope of their trademark. The Googles of the world are obligated to do these things. The law could do better to pursue justice that independent of bank account assets.
But they didn't sue him. They filed an objection to his trademark filing and asked him to stop using the name. He can call their bluff, or cave in, or wait 'til they actually sue him to stop.
> 3months challenge period was about to expire and just a week before the trademark was to be granted, received a "Cease and Desist" letter from Google India's law chamber demanding to withdraw the trademark,
> 3months challenge period was about to expire and just a week before the trademark was to be granted, received a "Cease and Desist" letter from Google India's law chamber demanding to withdraw the trademark,
I don't see any documents confirming the lawsuit. Maybe this just some kind of weird advertisement?
The problem is that he's making mobile apps with that name. Lucas Films' trademarks to "Droid" aren't relevant here, because those are for movies and nobody's going to confuse them with the Android OS.
That didn't keep them from going after davdroid (now davx5). Afair lucasarts was behind that.
Right, so I was mistaken. Thank you!
Offtopic but Team-BP is an excellent forum discussing the Automobile Market in India. The posts are of high quality and they have a pretty high barrier of entry.
Droid: Origin 1950s shortening of android.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/droid
https://www.lexico.com/definition/droid
Honestly, Orpheusdroid is a sub-optimal name. It's too wordy and hard to spell or even remember. This is an opportunity to rebrand into something better.
"Droid" copyright LucasFilm, and Google and Motorola pay a licensing fee for the right to put that in products.
Did Google specifically license "droid" from Lucasfilm / Disney? Is "droid" a protected term?
Droid is (or used to be) Motorola’s brand name for their Android phones. Google bought Motorola in 2012. They sold them later, but they may have retained the Trademark.
That cannot be right - Verizon (not Motorola) got the rights from Lucas Arts. IIRC, there was at least one non-Motorola Droid (made by HTC, IIRC)
Google did not, but Verizon Wireless did for the Motorola Droid in 2009.
Surprised Lucas Films doesn't try to collect on all the apps the use the word 'droid'
That would be kinda petty, I'm glad they don't.
If not Google, then Disney.
Disney has also gone after companies for using droid in their name.
Disney has also gone after companies for using droid in their name.
Lucasfilm went after FASA back in the Eighties for their board game 'Battledroid', forcing them to change it to 'Battletech'. It's a trademark with a long history of being contentious. Think he could name his company 'OrpheusiPhone' without pushback from Apple?
They just have to establish a history of suing people for using that word because part of keeping your copyright is showing that you have fought for it in court.
However this dispute is primarily about trademarks and not copyright.
i would believe its unfair if you had registerd your company before android came out.
Google should sue starwars next.
Oh, you mean the people they are already paying for the trademark license?
Replace the o with a zero.
Grow the fuck up google! The legal team at Google India surely has had their heads in the sand, by not knowing anything about the word Droid outside of google realm.
That's ridiculous. Google shouldn't be suing you for that.
Disney should. They own the trademark on the word "droid".
Disney should. They own the trademark on the word "droid".
They could, but these aren’t the droids they’re looking for.
Dear Google, Android and Droid exist much longer than your crappy OS:
>The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest use (as "Androides") to Ephraim Chambers' 1728
>The term "droid", popularized by George Lucas in the original Star Wars film and now used widely within science fiction
Maybe Disney should sue you too right?
And maybe the State of Greece because it's derived work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)
>The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest use (as "Androides") to Ephraim Chambers' 1728
>The term "droid", popularized by George Lucas in the original Star Wars film and now used widely within science fiction
Maybe Disney should sue you too right?
And maybe the State of Greece because it's derived work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)
this isn't a copyright litigation how is this top comment
>this isn't a copyright litigation how is this top comment
>The term "droid", popularized by George Lucas
So first...google is NOT the Copyright owner of "Droid", second the Android OS was named after an already existing Word in the same domain.
EDIT:
He wrote that in his own Post and from my point he is right:
> "Droid" is a dictionary word and first coined in 1952 by a American science fiction author.
>The term "droid", popularized by George Lucas
So first...google is NOT the Copyright owner of "Droid", second the Android OS was named after an already existing Word in the same domain.
EDIT:
He wrote that in his own Post and from my point he is right:
> "Droid" is a dictionary word and first coined in 1952 by a American science fiction author.
Quote:
Droid: Clipping of android. Coined by American science fiction author Mari Wolf in Robots of the World! Arise! (1952), and popularised by the film Star Wars (1977).
Droid is a trademark of "Lucas Films" now Disney since circa 1990.
Possible that Google has licensed "Droid" from Lucas now Disney for using in android
"Android" itself is a dictionary word.Trademark law and copyright law are completely different. Stop talking about copyright.
Then Android has nothing todo with droid because it's a different word and has nothing todo with Android right?
Or do you want to sue everyone that has Andr (Man) in his name?
Or do you want to sue everyone that has Andr (Man) in his name?
ugh
1) trademark don't cover just exact matches
2) trademarks are in their own classes, you can't litigate across classes
3) common words are perfectly fine as trademarks, as long as commonly associated with a product
1) trademark don't cover just exact matches
2) trademarks are in their own classes, you can't litigate across classes
3) common words are perfectly fine as trademarks, as long as commonly associated with a product
>common words are perfectly fine as trademarks, as long as commonly associated with a product
Yes exactly and Droid is NOT associated with a Smartphone-OS but Android is.
Yes exactly and Droid is NOT associated with a Smartphone-OS but Android is.
it's as if you only read one point out of three and I'm out of charitable interpretations thus unable to further the discussion.
Also I feel author is disingenuous when he says used Droid in Orphesdroid references to automation.